reply to post by Lillydale
As Ive told you, when I have access to my home computer, I will happily send you the links to the videos.
Don't be fooled by ATS' professional debunkers, page 36
reply posted on 13-12-2009 @ 04:24 PM by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
And my point is, that from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, people have made claims about things they have designed (or have had designed) that have fallen short of their boasts. Unfortunately, that seems to be a really hard concept for people here to grasp.
And my point is, that from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, people have made claims about things they have designed (or have had designed) that have fallen short of their boasts. Unfortunately, that seems to be a really hard concept for people here to grasp.
reply posted on 13-12-2009 @ 04:27 PM by Lillydale
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
And my point is, that from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, people have made claims about things they have designed (or have had designed) that have fallen short of their boasts. Unfortunately, that seems to be a really hard concept for people here to grasp.
I understand both that claim and that concept but that is not what the point was. It was stated that the twin towers were designed to withstand those impacts and this was stated by designers who would know. You are comparing it to what other historical items then?
Either these engineers knew something or you are saying they are no more qualified than the owner of a shipline to make such claims.
See the point? The twin towers were DESIGNED to withstand those impacts. This has been stated by engineers who design.
What is it you want to compare these engineer claims to again or were you all done with that?
reply posted on 13-12-2009 @ 04:31 PM by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
Okay, I will start a search to find other engineering failures. Just to satisfy people on here.
The twin towers were DESIGNED to withstand those impacts. This has been stated by engineers who design.
Okay, I will start a search to find other engineering failures. Just to satisfy people on here.
reply posted on 13-12-2009 @ 04:33 PM by Lillydale
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
The twin towers were DESIGNED to withstand those impacts. This has been stated by engineers who design.
Okay, I will start a search to find other engineering failures. Just to satisfy people on here.
Will that be before or after you turn up those 500 foot sections that fell like a tree to land 500 feet away?
reply posted on 13-12-2009 @ 05:01 PM by Lillydale
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
I never said engineers do not make mistakes. Bridges fall down, things happen. YOU are the one that started claiming that the fact that the twin towers were engineered to withstand an airplane was the same as the Titanic boasts and some other crap that was not at all relevant. I am sorry that it frustrates you that I ask you to just make sense. Is it like the Titanic or do you need to dig a little deeper to find an example that might fit a little better? The above answers and it only took two days to get there. -applause- I am really concerned with these sections that fell like trees 500 feet away since you are trying to use the same doubletalk to back out of that claim as well. It just physically makes no sense whatsoever and you have already begun to step away from the original statement. Going to walk away altogether?
I never said engineers do not make mistakes. Bridges fall down, things happen. YOU are the one that started claiming that the fact that the twin towers were engineered to withstand an airplane was the same as the Titanic boasts and some other crap that was not at all relevant. I am sorry that it frustrates you that I ask you to just make sense. Is it like the Titanic or do you need to dig a little deeper to find an example that might fit a little better? The above answers and it only took two days to get there. -applause- I am really concerned with these sections that fell like trees 500 feet away since you are trying to use the same doubletalk to back out of that claim as well. It just physically makes no sense whatsoever and you have already begun to step away from the original statement. Going to walk away altogether?
reply posted on 13-12-2009 @ 11:49 PM by dragonridr
reply to post by bsbray11
The initial impact probably removed some columns and significantly weakened many others. Deformed, and probably unbraced over two or more floors, these columns would also have been subjected to additional load from damaged floors and debris. The spreading fire would have continued to weaken the structure, most likely leading to a collapse under vertical load.
As for the core of the building if i were going to destroy the building the core was not important.You keep bringing this up as if its important.The building perimeter structure was the key element in the performance of
the building. In addition to taking vertical gravity loads, it also resisted all horizontal loads by framing action between the close-centered columns
and the spandrel beams, such that the perimeter structure acted as a pierced tube in resisting loads. Vertical structure inside the building
supported gravity loads only.
To simplify things for you because of the building design you can take down the building by destroying the outer columns however destroy the inner structure and the building would not have collapsed.To be honest I'm shocked the building lasted as long as it did.
My suggestion continue to believe the government set this up flew the plane in the building.To be honest i don't believe the whole story that a couple of people with box cutters and training from a flight school could have pulled it off.But please stop trying to say explosives were used to bring the building down this is one of the reasons the truther movement will never go any where they want to keep delving into the realm of the impossible.
[edit on 12/14/09 by dragonridr]
The initial impact probably removed some columns and significantly weakened many others. Deformed, and probably unbraced over two or more floors, these columns would also have been subjected to additional load from damaged floors and debris. The spreading fire would have continued to weaken the structure, most likely leading to a collapse under vertical load.
As for the core of the building if i were going to destroy the building the core was not important.You keep bringing this up as if its important.The building perimeter structure was the key element in the performance of
the building. In addition to taking vertical gravity loads, it also resisted all horizontal loads by framing action between the close-centered columns
and the spandrel beams, such that the perimeter structure acted as a pierced tube in resisting loads. Vertical structure inside the building
supported gravity loads only.
To simplify things for you because of the building design you can take down the building by destroying the outer columns however destroy the inner structure and the building would not have collapsed.To be honest I'm shocked the building lasted as long as it did.
My suggestion continue to believe the government set this up flew the plane in the building.To be honest i don't believe the whole story that a couple of people with box cutters and training from a flight school could have pulled it off.But please stop trying to say explosives were used to bring the building down this is one of the reasons the truther movement will never go any where they want to keep delving into the realm of the impossible.
[edit on 12/14/09 by dragonridr]
reply posted on 14-12-2009 @ 12:56 AM by bsbray11
Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by bsbray11
The initial impact probably removed some columns and significantly weakened many others. Deformed, and probably unbraced over two or more floors, these columns would also have been subjected to additional load from damaged floors and debris. The spreading fire would have continued to weaken the structure, most likely leading to a collapse under vertical load.
I'm well aware of this theory. FEMA counted less than 15% of the perimeter columns (13% and 11% but I don't remember which tower was which) were severed in either building. NIST modeled the maximum core damage that could have taken place and that was also equivalent to less than 15% of the core structure, and that's after both engines take out whole core columns iirc.
I'm not convinced fire could start the chain reaction that resulted in what we saw.
As for the core of the building if i were going to destroy the building the core was not important.You keep bringing this up as if its important.The building perimeter structure was the key element in the performance of
the building. In addition to taking vertical gravity loads, it also resisted all horizontal loads by framing action between the close-centered columns
and the spandrel beams, such that the perimeter structure acted as a pierced tube in resisting loads. Vertical structure inside the building
supported gravity loads only.
The core structure took most of the gravity loads and they were braced to take wind loads, but the trusses were meant to act as a damper. But you're saying the core is insignificant because without the perimeter columns (and trusses) it would blow over. Well, without the core structure, the perimeter columns, if the bolts fail, will collapse.
reply posted on 14-12-2009 @ 05:02 AM by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale
Engineers do not make mistakes? According to most of the posters on this thread, the WTC engineers were perfect in their design and their calculations.
When I point out that they obviously made some errors in their work and give other examples where engineering mistakes were made in history...its not relevant?
Oh yes I forgot, everyone jumped on the "Titanic Tree" and did not see the forest in front of them.
I never said engineers do not make mistakes. Bridges fall down, things happen. YOU are the one that started claiming that the fact that the twin towers were engineered to withstand an airplane was the same as the Titanic boasts and some other crap that was not at all relevant.
Engineers do not make mistakes? According to most of the posters on this thread, the WTC engineers were perfect in their design and their calculations.
When I point out that they obviously made some errors in their work and give other examples where engineering mistakes were made in history...its not relevant?
Oh yes I forgot, everyone jumped on the "Titanic Tree" and did not see the forest in front of them.
reply posted on 14-12-2009 @ 11:50 AM by weedwhacker
reply to post by dragonridr
dragon,
You are doing so well. However, there is some 'debunking' to include, after reading your remark:
You have sufficient expertise in building engineering, it seems, to hold your own.
I have enough understanding of airplanes, the airline industry, and the possiblities in the real world to know just how this was successfully carried off.
Please stop, for a moment, to consider what a determined individual, bent on inflicting injury to another human being, can accomplish with a box cutter. A razor-sharp blade, likely heavy-duty, at least one inch long, possibly longer. If the victim is attacked from behind. While seated. With a seatbelt attached, in a confined space. By an attacker who is standing. And who has gained an advantage of surprise. And is likely trained in close-in hand-to-hand.
Then, also recognize that the ones who were tasked with actually flying the airplanes had more than just "training from a flight school". Actually, of course they had that, how else do you suppose they learned, and earned licenses?
But even more, they had other experience. Flying experience.
Full flight airplane simulators, just like the ones here in the U.S. that are used to train and check pilots are also available in other countries. Even in certain Middle Eastern countries. Where a handful of Saudi or Egyptian "brethern" with fistfulls of cash would no doubt be accepted, and eagerly welcomed, for familiarization on the simulators that very, very faithfully recreate the experience of the real airplane.
Modern simulators are SO realistic that, with the very advanced versions (Level D 'landing certified' capabilities) it isn't even necessary to fly the real thing at all. A pilot can be trained on the sim, get his rating from the check ride in the sim, and be considered 'qualified' without ever touching a the real thing.
But, that doesn't relate to this story...for the purposes of simply navigating and steering to accomplish their goals? It is very basic, and has been shown, demonstrated, by several re-creations that even inexperienced people with little knowledge of the airplanes can do a passable job.
dragon,
You are doing so well. However, there is some 'debunking' to include, after reading your remark:
To be honest i don't believe the whole story that a couple of people with box cutters and training from a flight school could have pulled it off.
You have sufficient expertise in building engineering, it seems, to hold your own.
I have enough understanding of airplanes, the airline industry, and the possiblities in the real world to know just how this was successfully carried off.
Please stop, for a moment, to consider what a determined individual, bent on inflicting injury to another human being, can accomplish with a box cutter. A razor-sharp blade, likely heavy-duty, at least one inch long, possibly longer. If the victim is attacked from behind. While seated. With a seatbelt attached, in a confined space. By an attacker who is standing. And who has gained an advantage of surprise. And is likely trained in close-in hand-to-hand.
Then, also recognize that the ones who were tasked with actually flying the airplanes had more than just "training from a flight school". Actually, of course they had that, how else do you suppose they learned, and earned licenses?
But even more, they had other experience. Flying experience.
Full flight airplane simulators, just like the ones here in the U.S. that are used to train and check pilots are also available in other countries. Even in certain Middle Eastern countries. Where a handful of Saudi or Egyptian "brethern" with fistfulls of cash would no doubt be accepted, and eagerly welcomed, for familiarization on the simulators that very, very faithfully recreate the experience of the real airplane.
Modern simulators are SO realistic that, with the very advanced versions (Level D 'landing certified' capabilities) it isn't even necessary to fly the real thing at all. A pilot can be trained on the sim, get his rating from the check ride in the sim, and be considered 'qualified' without ever touching a the real thing.
But, that doesn't relate to this story...for the purposes of simply navigating and steering to accomplish their goals? It is very basic, and has been shown, demonstrated, by several re-creations that even inexperienced people with little knowledge of the airplanes can do a passable job.
reply posted on 14-12-2009 @ 12:50 PM by bsbray11
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
I notice you've STILL avoided showing an example of a column leaning over 500 ft from the towers.
I notice you've STILL avoided showing an example of a column leaning over 500 ft from the towers.
reply posted on 14-12-2009 @ 01:00 PM by thedman
reply to post by Lillydale
Have to think of WTC as a SYSTEMS PROBLEM instead of only one factor
in the collapse
The aircraft impacts were the initiating event
The aircraft impacts:
Knocked huge holes in outer perimeter columns which were vital
elements of the building structure.
Damaged the floor trusses which not only supported the floors, but
provided lateral support tieing the building structure together
Damaged many of the central core columns which supported the
gravity loads
Aircraft impact also set massive fires to multiple floors (at least 6) from
fuel load
Aircraft impact destroyed the fire supression systems, both passive and
active systems
The passive systems was the spray on fire proofing - tests later showed
the fire proofing was very fragile and easily dislodged, The shock of the
impact and debris cloud dislodged the fire proofing in the area and
exposed the steel columns and trusses to the heat
The active systems were the sprinklers - aircraft impact destoyed the sprinklers and standpipes. Without sprinklers was no way to control
the fires started.
Even more important was the destruction of the elevators and stairwells
by the impact - trapping thousands of victims, The destruction of the
elevators meant that the FDNY had no way of accessing the impact
area to conduct operations short of WALKING UP 90 floors in full gear
and carrying equipment and tools. It was estimated that would take
1 1/2 hours for crews to reach the impact zone - problem was the stairways were full of people evacuating the buildings. Even if stairs were
empty woyuld have been almost impossible to reach the impact floor in
time.
With no fire fighting operations possible the fires had free rein to spread and attack the building structure - eventually heating the steel and causing
it to deform and weaken.
Have to think of WTC as a SYSTEMS PROBLEM instead of only one factor
in the collapse
The aircraft impacts were the initiating event
The aircraft impacts:
Knocked huge holes in outer perimeter columns which were vital
elements of the building structure.
Damaged the floor trusses which not only supported the floors, but
provided lateral support tieing the building structure together
Damaged many of the central core columns which supported the
gravity loads
Aircraft impact also set massive fires to multiple floors (at least 6) from
fuel load
Aircraft impact destroyed the fire supression systems, both passive and
active systems
The passive systems was the spray on fire proofing - tests later showed
the fire proofing was very fragile and easily dislodged, The shock of the
impact and debris cloud dislodged the fire proofing in the area and
exposed the steel columns and trusses to the heat
The active systems were the sprinklers - aircraft impact destoyed the sprinklers and standpipes. Without sprinklers was no way to control
the fires started.
Even more important was the destruction of the elevators and stairwells
by the impact - trapping thousands of victims, The destruction of the
elevators meant that the FDNY had no way of accessing the impact
area to conduct operations short of WALKING UP 90 floors in full gear
and carrying equipment and tools. It was estimated that would take
1 1/2 hours for crews to reach the impact zone - problem was the stairways were full of people evacuating the buildings. Even if stairs were
empty woyuld have been almost impossible to reach the impact floor in
time.
With no fire fighting operations possible the fires had free rein to spread and attack the building structure - eventually heating the steel and causing
it to deform and weaken.
9/11: Criminal Incompetence and Ass-Covering by the Bush Administration
Posted 14 days ago with 12 member flags
Posted 14 days ago with 12 member flags
The 9/11 Hijackers: Fraud in Official Video Exhibits Uncovered
Posted 1 days ago with 7 member flags
Posted 1 days ago with 7 member flags
Ultimately the question of the origin of the funds is of little practical significance.
Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags
Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Reality Check: The connection between IRS management Lois Lerner & Cindy Thomas
US Political Madness: 18 minutes ago
US Political Madness: 18 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Jailed for three weeks awaiting trial over Facebook posts
US Political Madness: 15 hours ago, 17 flags
US Political Madness: 15 hours ago, 17 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Woolwich attack: Muslim cleric Anjem Choudray claims he knew murder suspect - video
Breaking Alternative News: 11 hours ago, 43 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 11 hours ago, 43 replies
Jailed for three weeks awaiting trial over Facebook posts
US Political Madness: 15 hours ago, 42 replies
US Political Madness: 15 hours ago, 42 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.419 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.419 seconds
