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.

 

WTC construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



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 ?


No one is denying that the planes pierced the Twin Towers. But it's one thing to pierce them; another thing entirely to disintegrate them.

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001:


Here's the transcript:

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.




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


And he was wrong. Just because an engineer says something, does not automatically make it so.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
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]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



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...


No one, to my knowledge, has created a furor, saying that the ice burg couldn't have taken down the Titanic. And while they may have -stated- that the Titanic was "virtually unsinkable", I have certainly not seen any studies, before its sinking, or since, providing evidence that no iceburg could sink it. The story is far different when it comes to the Twin Towers and the effect that a plane crashing into them would have.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
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]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
No one is denying that the planes pierced the Twin Towers.


Actually, quite a few CL's (Conspiracy Loyalists) on this site do deny that. Personally, I find that quite hilarious.





I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners



Well, that's not very factual. I believe that the building probably cannot sustain the impact of just one jetliner. Given what happened to the buildings I believe I'm probably correct.




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.


Of course the pencil does not explode in his comparison. Sorry, but that makes a huge difference.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

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.


And just because an engineer says fire brought down the towers doesn't make THAT so either.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

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]


The "late" Mr. DeMartini radio transmissions where recorded by the port authority after the tower was hit. He said:

"Construction manager to base, be advised that the express elevators are in danger of collapse. Do you read?"

Only his end of the conversation is recorded. A few minutes later, he returns with another message: "Relay, that, Chris, to the firemen that the elevators — "

There is an interruption in the transmission.

"Express elevators are going to collapse."

He did not give his location, but Gerry Drohan, a colleague who was outside the building, said he also had a radio conversation with Mr. De Martini about the conditions on the 78th floor. Mr. De Martini wanted structural engineers brought up to the floor to look at steel, Mr. Drohan said, but police officers would not let them back into the building.

Mr. Drohan said that Mr. De Martini had asked him to pass his two-way radio to a police official in an attempt to persuade him, but that he was unsuccessful.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
i did it. it was me. i was using haarp. ya got me



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

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]


I think the "design flaw" was an exoskeleton type, that was popular for awhile. The supporting beams of the building were mainly on the exterior of the building, so the planes actually hit vital components. I don't buy this explanation, but I think that is the theory of the design flaw. Many buildings could sustain a hit and only lose an exterior facade, but some buildings actually lose structural integrity.

It still doesn't explain why the building collapsed simultaneously on several floors hundreds of feet from the impact and fire, or why this fuel (kerosene) erupted into a white-hot inferno, or why this steel structure failed under a relative small fire when totally engulfed steel structures have survived far hotter chemical fires. (Kerosene does not burn that hot, especially when it has restricted airflow)

Yes the engineer in the OP is giving his opinion, but so did all of the engineers in the original investigation, and so did the journalists on site. I still remember watching it live and seeing the reporters "correcting" the eye witnesses telling them that it was not an airliner that hit the building, and reporting to their viewers that the eyewitnesses must be mistaken!



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And he was wrong.


Not as far as the plane impacts themselves go. They really did not do that much damage. About 15% of the perimeter columns were severed across those floors and even less of the core columns.


As far as blaming the rest on fire, that's still just a theory. And a bad one at that.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

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.


Thank you. I wasn't sure of the split, I knew there was still a lot of core structure, but I was not sure how much, that is why I left it out.

This style of building is popular on the campus here at Florida State University (We'll miss you Bobby!) and that is why I knew about it at all.

Thanks for the correction!



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And he was wrong.

Actually, he wasn't wrong. Both towers did withstand the impacts of jetliners. Had explosives not been used to bring the buildings down, both towers would still be standing today.



Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Just because an engineer says something, does not automatically make it so.

Except the engineering firm that was responsible for the WTC had a 1200-page analysis showing that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner traveling at 600mph and that the resulting fires would kill alot of people, but the structure would remain. You know, kinda like every other highrise fire in history.



Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You are placing your blind faith in the words of a human being.

Not blind faith. 1200-page analysis, remember? And you are placing your blind faith in a government that has concocted false flag operations before.

Hmmm, what to believe: 1.) a government that has concocted false flag operations before, or 2.) an engineering firm with a 1200-page analysis.



Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Besides, some of the original WTC engineers think different that the late Mr. DeMartini did.

Do you even do any research before you post such things? John Skilling was the lead engineer along with his engineering firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson.

But you're probably talking about Leslie Robertson, which wouldn't equate to "original engineers". Just one singular engineer. But Robertson was a nobody when it comes to the WTC. He was the "pool boy", so-to-speak. According to Wikipedia, Robertson was responsible for the sway-dampening aspect of the towers. Robertson was contracted by Skilling's firm to help with the WTC.

Had Skilling not passed away, I would lay good money that he would be on the side of 9/11 truth without a doubt.







[edit on 3-12-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

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.

That's good because it's not true:


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.
Wiki


You can visit my post HERE to look at images of some of the towers, and you will even learn about a shrunken WTC tower that is still standing today.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

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 ?


Alfie doesn't understand the physics correctly.

Mass is not weight, so it has nothing to do with 'the 'mass' of the side of the tank', it has to do with the atomic mass of the materiel's involved. All materials have an 'atomic mass', that stays the same regardless of the weight of the object the material makes up.

Mass is the amount of matter in the material, weight is the force on the material cause by gravity.

According to Newton, when objects collide the object with most mass will decelerate slower than the object with the least mass. The faster an object decelerates on impact the more damage it will receive. Think of a scooter hitting a tank, even if the tank is stationary and the scooter moving at top speed of 1000mph (lol) the scooter will still be damaged more than the tank.

Per the WTC, it's the mass of aluminum vs the mass of construction steel, not the weight of the plane vs the weight of the towers.

Not sure of the relevance to the discussion cause I didn't really read anymore than that quote, but it's a common misconception that mass equals weight, while in science they are two different properties.

[edit on 12/3/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Guess which is the windiest big city in the United States? No, it's not Chicago - it's New York City with an average wind speed of 12.2 MPH annually. Here is the data:

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

I also recall reading somewhere that the WTC Twin Towers were built to sustain hurricane force winds of 140 miles per hour. There is no reason to doubt this, since NYC has had its share of hurricanes in the past. I also assume they were built to be earthquake resistant.

Therefore, it is extremely difficult to believe that two of the tallest buildings in the world, which were built to be resistant to high wind speeds (and were for 27 years), just happened to collapse uniformly and symmetrically due to airliner impact and a subsequent approximate one hour fire.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



And he was wrong. Just because an engineer says something, does not automatically make it so.


Hey Swampy you are working over time today doing your damage control for your government.

Why is Frank A. Demartini wrong? I mean besides saying he is wrong, state why he is wrong, show some proof and some sources please?


[edit on 3-12-2009 by impressme]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by liveandletlive
 


Reading what you posted, one could infer that, even while he was looking at the damage to the towers caused by the impacts, he still didn't believe they would collapse.

Instead of arguing with the police to let others come all the way up to the upper floors, you would think he would of been arguing to get everyone out, and that the towers were in danger of collapse.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You are placing your blind faith in the words of a human being.

Yeah, a human being who helped design the WTC towers.

Versus placing our faith in the words of professional debunker Swampy?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join