It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To our forum plane experts - shame on you.

page: 5
52
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by rush969
 


So you are claiming that the designed the buildings to withstand the impact of a bigger plane but with NO FUEL??? Why would they think a plane might crash into the building without ever exploding or catching anything on fire?




posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by rush969
 


So you are claiming that the designed the buildings to withstand the impact of a bigger plane but with NO FUEL??? Why would they think a plane might crash into the building without ever exploding or catching anything on fire?


Sure why not? There are page after page of posts on ATS by people who think that jet fuel cannot possibly damage steel enough to cause it to fail. So why shouldnt there be a few engineers that think the same way.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


WTC were designed to resist impact and impact alone of a large jet airliner

Were designed with Boeing 707 model in mind as was common type
in service at time buildings were designed (1968)

en.wikipedia.org...

The design parameters were similar to 1945 Empire State Building
accident where B25 slammed into building during heavy fog.

en.wikipedia.org...

Plane low on fuel, heading into airport (La Guardia/JFK), flying low
and slow - estimated speed under 200mph

The fuel load was not considered because at the time was no way to model effect of fires.

Engineers took mass of aircraft and speed and make calculations of
impact forces. Determined that WTC would not topple over from impact
Plane would punch hole through building with debris emerging out
other side.

Planes on 9/11 were traveling much faster with heavy fuel loads - buildings
survived inital impacts long enough for those below impact zones to
evacuate

Fires started by jet fuel eventually doomed them



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by rush969
 


So you are claiming that the designed the buildings to withstand the impact of a bigger plane but with NO FUEL??? Why would they think a plane might crash into the building without ever exploding or catching anything on fire?


Sure why not? There are page after page of posts on ATS by people who think that jet fuel cannot possibly damage steel enough to cause it to fail. So why shouldnt there be a few engineers that think the same way.


Can you link me to a statement or document or are you just saying things to be obnoxious?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


You are just saying things. Neither wikipedia page backs up your claim that the engineers bothered to worry about impact but not what would happen if a plane actually impacted.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


You are kidding me right? You have never seen a poster claim that a jet fuel fire cannot melt steel on ATS?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by rush969
 


So you are claiming that the designed the buildings to withstand the impact of a bigger plane but with NO FUEL??? Why would they think a plane might crash into the building without ever exploding or catching anything on fire?


Sure why not?


Can you link me to something backing up that they did not take it into account when designing the building because "sure, why not."

...and jet fuel cannot melt steel.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Some relevant stories with the men involved in building the Towers.

www.berkeley.edu...

community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...

www.nytimes.com...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Finally this, from a BBC interview of Leslie Robertson..



And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.


And who is Leslie Robertson ?




The World Trade Center towers were designed to be more modern, more cutting edge and taller than any skyscraper ever built. The chief structural engineer on the project was Leslie Robertson, who was then just 34 years old


www.bbc.co.uk...

Im pretty sure he would know what he was talking about.


BTW, the jet fuel didnt need to MELT anything, just soften it.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
BTW, the jet fuel didnt need to MELT anything, just soften it.


What are you even talking about????????? You are the one who stated it was a truther fallacy that jet fuel was not burning hot enough to melt steal. I just added that that is correct, it was not burning hot enough to melt steal. Have any other arguments you want to just pretend to be having so you can pretend you won?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


He does qualify his statement

And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered.


He does not think it was considered because he does not know how it could have been considered. So how much extra weight would that fuel have?



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I want to make sure I get all of this right.

The impact was so small on the building that the measuring instrumentation at the top of the building, which is used to record the motion of the building in the wind, it has a trigger on it, it doesn't start recording until you get a little motion, the trigger was not set off so we got no record of that. So, the bombing I think created a lot of confidence in everyone's mind that the Trade Center was pretty sturdy.


So the bomb in '93 did almost no damage so it was not the heat or concussive force. These planes were full of unaccounted for fuel that burned off outside the building in the explosion. We already ruled out a hotter stronger explosion so it wasn't that. The fuel made the planes much heavier right? But then according to the engineers and the video, the building should basically let the plane enter and sail through so then no matter how heavy it was, the plane was not going to cause more or less damage that way.

How did the plane make the building fall again? The reading material that you have given me just creates more questions.



posted on Oct, 10 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

you used this as a reference? Do you believe it all?Just asking , so as to see where you stand.

www.berkeley.edu...

The core of the world trade center was not hollow, as he claims, thats been proven without a shadow of doubt . OR? NO??

911.yweb.sk...

www.picassodreams.com...



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Okay, I have used various pictures from different sites etc to try and get an even balance, in these pictures you will see a secondary explosion that has...

1). A high soot combustion composition.

2). Caused a lot more debris.

3). Engulfed the initial explosion in size and ferocity.

4). Managed to back blast around a 100 metres from whence it came, and shows an off centre explosion pattern to the planes trajectory.



Some more pictures that show the secondary explosion peaking, and the stages between orange flame to red flame and soot (notice the debris, to how much was visible with the pictures of the North face exit, in the 1st sheet I posted).......



Another reminder of how things are, back in the land of no Bush Science and NIST Theory Crafting, served with a side dish of `Yeah man, but that was 9/11`.



To keep it on topic - So forum plane experts, the pictures that show completely normal plane crashes, with outrageous explosions, high explosive type damage from jet fuel igniting etc, etc, where can they be found please?.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


No, I did not say melt, I said:




There are page after page of posts on ATS by people who think that jet fuel cannot possibly damage steel enough to cause it to fail.


You mentioned "melt".

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
DP removed

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


Now, my question to you would be...did YOU read the article?

Especially the part about the man being the structural engineer who helped design/build the towers? I am pretty sure he knows more about what the buildings were and were not than you or I ever will.

To address your concern about the "hollow" core. It wasnt an empty hole from top to bottom, its where the elevator shafts/stairwells and service runs were.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


No, you didnt get it all right. And the rest of your post really does not make any sense.

It is saying that the sizeable bomb that went off in the basement did not trigger the motion sensors 1100 feet above the basement area. That gave engineers confidence that the Towers were pretty sturdy. There is nothing that states a bomb going off in the basement would indicate that the planes should have passed through the buildings and not damaged them.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

You mentioned "melt".

[edit on 11-10-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]


You need to read a little more carefully. The first time the word "melt" comes up is


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999You are kidding me right? You have never seen a poster claim that a jet fuel fire cannot melt steel on ATS?


You brought it up, I just responded to it.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
 


No, you didnt get it all right. And the rest of your post really does not make any sense.

It is saying that the sizeable bomb that went off in the basement did not trigger the motion sensors 1100 feet above the basement area. That gave engineers confidence that the Towers were pretty sturdy. There is nothing that states a bomb going off in the basement would indicate that the planes should have passed through the buildings and not damaged them.



I did not say that the bomb going off correlated to a plane impact in any way. I am sick of telling you to actually read my posts before you reply to them.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Holy smokes, it finally happened, I made a mistake. My apologies to you on that point.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join