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.
Originally posted by Alfie1
An anti-tank round will penetrate a tank will it not. Are you saying the mass of the anti-tank round "outweighs" the mass of the side of the tank ?
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by scott3x
Yes, yes, yes, the WTC was designed to handle being hit by a plane...
And the Titanic was designed to be virtually unsinkable...
The story is far different when it comes to the Twin Towers and the effect that a plane crashing into them would have.
Originally posted by scott3x
No one is denying that the planes pierced the Twin Towers.
I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners
because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by scott3x
And he was wrong. Just because an engineer says something, does not automatically make it so.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by scott3x
The story is far different when it comes to the Twin Towers and the effect that a plane crashing into them would have.
Not really. You are placing your blind faith in the words of a human being. Besides, some of the original WTC engineers think different that the late Mr. DeMartini did.
[edit on 3-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]
Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I find this interesting. Recently there was a thread where a guy said the WTC towers were designed differently than any other building.. and this design flaw led to the collapse.
I didn't buy this explanation. Perhaps the fellow who wrote that post would come forward in light of this and explain himself further.
At least we could have a good debate on if the planes really could have collapsed due to a flaw in the structure or if this is just a fairy tale.
[edit on 3-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And he was wrong.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
The supporting beams of the building were mainly on the exterior of the building
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by getreadyalready
The supporting beams of the building were mainly on the exterior of the building
That's a common misconception. The loads were split about 50/50 between the exterior columns (hundreds of them) and the core structure (47 thick box columns and connecting beams) according to official reports. When it wasn't 50/50, the core structure took the larger load, approaching 60/40.
I know you said you didn't believe that particular theory anyway, but for what it's worth.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And he was wrong.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Just because an engineer says something, does not automatically make it so.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You are placing your blind faith in the words of a human being.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Besides, some of the original WTC engineers think different that the late Mr. DeMartini did.
Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Recently there was a thread where a guy said the WTC towers were designed differently than any other building.. and this design flaw led to the collapse.
I didn't buy this explanation.
Wiki
The first building to apply the tube-frame construction was the DeWitt-Chestnut apartment building which (Fazlur) Khan designed and was completed in Chicago by 1963. This laid the foundations for the tube structures of many other later skyscrapers, including his own John Hancock Center and Willis (Sears) Tower, and can been seen in the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.
Originally posted by Alfie1
An anti-tank round will penetrate a tank will it not. Are you saying the mass of the anti-tank round "outweighs" the mass of the side of the tank ?
And he was wrong. Just because an engineer says something, does not automatically make it so.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You are placing your blind faith in the words of a human being.