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: 21
16
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
So, let me get this straight. The building maintained its structural integrity after withstanding the impact of an alleged 350,000 pound aircraft traveling at rate of speed of approximately 500 MPH. In contrast, the building's structural components shredded apart and caused a global collapse when much lighter debris at a much slower rate of speed than the aircraft fell on it?

Hilarious answer.



And you'll probably get the hilarious rebuttal that the entire upper block of floors of either tower came loose all at once somehow and initiated the "chain reaction" in one dramatic but unexplained event.


"Debunkers": don't mention the entire mass of all the floors above the "initiation" floors of the buildings unless you can explain how all the columns (including the entire core structure), floors, and exterior columns all came loose at once, and don't EVER suggest that this entire weight was pressed directly upon the floor trusses and nothing else, because that is just abusing the privilege of having a rational mind.




posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Again, I do not need an explanation on science. Lilly and ANOK and impressme all want to believe something that is not there. WTC 7 feel symmetrically because it did not lean nor break off at any point. The WTC 1 and 2 did.


That is untrue, our eyes do not deceive us, real Science does not deceive us, common sense does not deceive us, Logic does not deceive us, but it is people like you, who “do not need an explanation on science,” who do try to deceive us.


However, lets go start another thread on that since this thread is still, although you have hijacked yet another one you three, about resilience which the towers had to take the hit but not survive.


Just because mature minds do not believe in your fallacies, it does not mean the thread was hijack.



You guys may think you are physics wizards but your math sucks. Symmetrical collapse is the new thermite....



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.


According to this expert, the WTC should not have fallen and I believe him, because the WTC where designed to withstand multiple attacks. The only thing that makes sense, is demolition had to been involved to caused such a rapid freefall explosive collapse.
Oh, and do explain the WTC basement blown up before the WTC came down? To many eyewitness accounts verify this is true.

Perhaps that explained why the FBI hid their written statements that went on records.
It took the NY Times to sue the FBI under the FOIA to get their records release to the public, because the FBI was busy hiding the truth from the American people, because it does not support the OS fairytale.

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:


I don’t think you bothered to watch the video. You completely ignored what the builder has to say. I think I would rather take the word of an on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, than you. Your expertise is what again?

How many WTC have you built?









[edit on 9-1-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Yes, I am the great deceiver. Yes, this is a hijacked thread that has moved away from the OP. The SAME explanations come out EACH time a thread is created in the 9/11 forum. How did we go from surviving a plane hitting the tower to a symmetrical collapse? that is a hijack...Read my post about NADS here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think that the 9/11 forum should be earned on this site and then maybe some actual conversation would occur and some points would be made.

As far as this thread, I have already agreed that the towers were able to sustain the hit but they could not survive the damage from the attack, the fires or the pull of gravity as the buildings started the road to global collapse. The problem is that if someone believes any part of what you would consider the OS than ANYTHING they say is beaten back, made fun of and ganged up upon until they leave the thread.

I come to this forum waiting for the day that someone can show me something that is anomalous because it has not happened yet. Please do not preach common sense either because you are a SMALL fraction of the population that believes in anything but the OS.

Also, please do not tell me that I did not watch the DeMartini video or that I am not informed. What is never included is the rest of the statement from John Skilling who said



Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there....


This is true and the structure was still there and should have provided enough time to for evacuation which is what the building is designed to do in case of catastrophe. They were designed to withstand an impact just as a car is made to 'survive' a high speed impact but they are have differing results based on variables that are entered into the equation.

Did the men who stated it would survive know that the upper floors would not have fireproofing nor working sprinklers to fight the fires? Were they anticipating multiple floors with huge fires as well as more than a 1/4 of the support of each tower 'gone' to not be able to redistribute the weight of the towers?

My inturpretation of the comment


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.


is this. (And this can also be used by those who want to prove there was a jet at the Pentagon)

I believe that they were thinking that a jetliner hitting the tower would 'shoot through' and cause minimal damage. Fact is though that this did not happen and it can be shown in simulation how much damage occurred.

People, engineers included, can be wrong folks. I mean, if you were managing or trying to build a 100+ floor skyscraper would you ever mention that it could collapse? This is not implying shoddy design or construction as a reason but how did they test this in the 60's if we barely have the tech to recreate a collapse today? they used faith in the design.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


The thing that I find funny is by definition, you are a "truther" since you believe that flight 93 was shot down and the US government lied about it.

But, yet, you still get harrassed around the threads because you don't believe the exact same as some of the "truthers" here.

Can't we all get along and just try to come to the conclusion of the truth without mud slinging? This is not directed to you esdad. Just all of us.

Please. Before we get out of hand as usual, let's try and discuss this like rational adults.

Sorry to be off topic about DeMartini.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Yes, I am the great deceiver.


I believe you said it all right here, you have a nice day.



de•ceiv a•ble adj.
de•ceiv er n.
de•ceiv ing•ly adv.
Synonyms: deceive, betray, mislead, beguile, delude, dupe, hoodwink, bamboozle, double-cross
These verbs mean to lead another into error, danger, or a disadvantageous position by underhand means. Deceive involves the deliberate misrepresentation of the truth: "We are inclined to believe those whom we do not know, because they have never deceived us" (Samuel Johnson).
Betray implies treachery: "When you betray somebody else, you also betray yourself" (Isaac Bashevis Singer).
Mislead means to lead in the wrong direction or into error of thought or action: "My manhood, long misled by wandering fires,/Followed false lights" (John Dryden).
Beguile suggests deceiving by means of charm or allure: They beguiled unwary investors with tales of overnight fortunes.
To delude is to mislead the mind or judgment. The government deluded the public about the dangers of low-level radiation.
Dupe implies playing upon another's susceptibilities or naiveté: The shoppers were duped by false advertising.
Hoodwink refers to deluding by trickery: It is difficult to hoodwink a smart lawyer.
Bamboozle means to delude by the use of such tactics as hoaxing or artful persuasion: "Perhaps if I wanted to be understood or to understand I would bamboozle myself into belief, but I am a reporter" (Graham Greene).
Double-cross implies the betrayal of a confidence or the willful breaking of a pledge: The thief double-crossed his accomplice.


www.thefreedictionary.com...




[edit on 9-1-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

I don’t think you bothered to watch the video. You completely ignored what the builder has to say.


Not this lie again, so you think the WTC was built by a 14 year old child, it just shows how silly the truthers are, claiming a child was the WTC builder! How pathetic is that!

[edit on 9/1/10 by dereks]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


I don’t think you bothered to watch the video. You completely ignored what the builder has to say.

Not this lie again, so you think the WTC was built by a 11-12 year old child, it just shows how silly the truthers are, claiming a child was the WTC builder! How pathetic is that!


Get real, no one said anything about children.

Please show where I have said 11-12 year old built the WTC or apologies for calling me insulting names.

So what dose your statements have to do with the thread topic? Can you disprove the WTC manager for the construction Co is not right? If so, I am sure you have plenty of creditable internet sites that you can show.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Please show where I have said 11-12 year old built the WTC


I was wrong, he would have been 14!

Right here, where you said "I don’t think you bothered to watch the video. You completely ignored what the builder has to say."

You apparently think Frank De Martini, the person in the video, is the builder. As he died when he was 49, that meant he was born in 1952. The WTC was started in 1966, so he was 14 then


Can you disprove the WTC manager for the construction Co is not right?


He was not the WTC manager for the construction manager, he was just the bloke to see when you wanted to move a wall or rearrange the plumbing in the WTC. And as the towers came down with only one plane hitting them, he was wrong there also!

[edit on 9/1/10 by dereks]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Nope, you are correct. Which makes as a conspiracist think more and more that they are spreading disinfo to keep away from the 93 and 587 incidents.

Impressme, do you have anything to add to this conversation without deflection or ridicule and plan to actually add something to this? With you it is all prove prove prove someone wrong. It is not up to any of us to prove Demartini wrong but for us to find out how the statements he is repeating could not be correct or have the proper supporting documentation to avoid argument and com e to an agreement.

I have already agreed that his statement is correct in that it survived the impact. That does not mean it will survive the subsequent chain of events that may have followed.

2 simple items could have assisted but again it would be to save lives and not the buildings are Fireproofing and a working sprinkler system that could have handled the fires.The sprinklers were designed to fight a small 1500-2000 sq ft office fire not an entire floor or floors with ignited materials from a jet fuel explosion. Both towers had severed pipes.

Also, DeMartini was a Building manager so the initial OP title should be changed as well. IMpressme you really put your foot in your mouth this time.Congratulations


[edit on 9-1-2010 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

LOL I'm not even gonna bother going through that lot, as I've already explained everything I would just be repeating myself.



Well, I can't realy blame you for taking that route.

After all, anyone with any knowledge of physics at all realizes that anything that falls slower than g acceleration is indeed encountering resistance.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

In contrast, the building's structural components shredded apart and caused a global collapse when much lighter debris at a much slower rate of speed than the aircraft fell on it?



Partly correct.

The plane weighed +/-135 tons and was traveling horizontally, and thus didn't impart much vertical load onto the floors.

The upper parts of the towers weighed +/- 100x times what the plane did, and of course, when they fell, they fell down. This overloaded the floors.

Rational people realize that the building may react differently when a 135 ton plane traveling horizontally and a 12,000 ton building traveling down impact it.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
OK I think they're trying to say because debris was thrown outwards that the building collapse wasn't symmetrical?


Not at all.

What I'm saying is that the top of 2 fell not symmetrically since the damage from the plane and fires affected the building not symmetrically.

The bottoms weren't affected by much, and so their collapse was roughly symmetrical.


Now the problem with this is if there was ANY resistance AT ALL, even slightly, there would be a slowing, or even stopping, of the collapse at the point of resistance.


Incorrect. If there is resistance, the collapse front will accelerate at less than g.

What your statement requires is resistance that is greater than the ke of the building in motion. In order to give evidence for this, maths are required to make your point.

But since you get the physics all wrong, it's no wonder that this isn't apparent to you, nor would anyone expect you to supply these maths.

So instaed, I expect to see repeated arguments from incredulity.


the collapse wave is smooth and uninterrupted until there is no more building to collapse. You don't find that unlikely?


Not at all. The increasing strength of the columns is irrelevant to the acceleration of the collapse wave. The strength of the floors and their connections ARE, however,since mst rational people realize that 95%+ of the debris will fall onto the floor.

And since all the floors, except for the mechanical floors, were of similar strength, they will give the same amount of resistance to the falling debris.


And where did your floors that did the crushing go?


Most went down. Some debris went outside the footprint though.

Again, it is irrelevant if some went outside the ext columns or not, given that the floor s are of similar strength. If there's enough debris, at a high enough velocity to overload the floors, the collapse will continue.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
It is not up to any of us to prove Demartini wrong but for us to find out how the statements he is repeating could not be correct or have the proper supporting documentation to avoid argument and com e to an agreement.


DeMartini actually gives a very poor comparison.

A mosquite screen isn't under load. The door frame is. A better comparison would be to compar making "holes" in the WTC ext columns, and the door frame. Or by comparing punching holes in the screen and the windows of the WTC.


2 simple items could have assisted but again it would be to save lives and not the buildings are Fireproofing and a working sprinkler system that could have handled the fires.The sprinklers were designed to fight a small 1500-2000 sq ft office fire not an entire floor or floors with ignited materials from a jet fuel explosion. Both towers had severed pipes.


This is an important point.


Also, DeMartini was a Building manager so the initial OP title should be changed as well.


If memory serves, he was hired as the construction manager after the '93 bombing.


IMpressme you really put your foot in your mouth this time.Congratulations




+1



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
DeMartini actually gives a very poor comparison.

A mosquite screen isn't under load. The door frame is. A better comparison would be to compar making "holes" in the WTC ext columns, and the door frame. Or by comparing punching holes in the screen and the windows of the WTC.


If you want to knit-pick like that, the wire mesh on a door IS under loading. Dead load of the wire itself.


But that doesn't even matter. The planes knocked out less than 15% of the perimeter columns all the way around the building on those floors during either impact. The perimeter columns were designed with a lot of redundancy, commonly cited as having an FoS rating of 3, meaning you could knock out more than every other perimeter column all the way around the building and the over-all perimeter structure could still hold the maximum load for which it was designed.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


I was wrong, he would have been 14!

Right here, where you said "I don’t think you bothered to watch the video. You completely ignored what the builder has to say."

You apparently think Frank De Martini, the person in the video, is the builder. As he died when he was 49, that meant he was born in 1952. The WTC was started in 1966, so he was 14 then


What has this got to do with YOU proving that I said:


Not this lie again, so you think the WTC was built by a 11-12 year old child, it just shows how silly the truthers are, claiming a child was the WTC builder! How pathetic is that!


Again, where did I make such a ridiculous claim?

You have made a false claim about me, please show where I wrote this claim?


You apparently think Frank De Martini, the person in the video, is the builder.


Really, and where did I make that absurd claim? This my statement below to how I referred Frank De Martini.


I don’t think you bothered to watch the video. You completely ignored what the builder has to say. I think I would rather take the word of an on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, than you. Your expertise is what again?


I think you need to stop; you are digging a deeper hole for yourself.
I clearly said in my above post “an on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, thank you.”


Frank Demartini's Statement

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.
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.
Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered
One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

911research.wtc7.net...


Frank A. De Martini, Manager of WTC Construction and Project Management, was killed in the WTC demolition. He spoke those words with assurance, months before in a cable episode of Modern Marvels, (World Trade Center - A Modern Marvel). He died when the towers were intentionally imploded.

More than 300 New York firefighters died that day. They were intentionally murdered. The confident words of that one firefighter team, at the impact site----"we should be able to knock it down with two lines"--- still resonate with me.
USAF veteran, Alaska commercial fisherman, and 57-year old certified firefighter, and regular Rense columnist Douglas Herman believes in healthy skepticism, the power of the honest individual over the inherent dishonesty of the state, and the Supreme Power that resides in all of us. Contribute to Rense, for a continuing free (internet) press.


www.rense.com...

You might want to try using creditable sources like me, instead of spouting misinformation with no sources.
Now again, where is this claim that I supposently made that” children built the WTC”?







[edit on 9-1-2010 by impressme]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Again, where did I make such a ridiculous claim?


In your post when you said " You completely ignored what the builder has to say"

The only person talking in that video was Frank De Martini, so you claimed he was the builder. Truthers tell so many tall stories they get themselves all confused!



He died when the towers were intentionally imploded.


Here we go again, another tall story!

Just how were the tonnes of explosives smuggled in?
Just how were the tonnes of explosives installed and no one noticed?
Just how were the people who spent man months installing the explosives not noticed?
How come the siesmographs did not detect the tonnes of explosives going off?
How come no one detected any traces of these tonnes of explosives after they went off?


Now again, where is this claim that I supposently made that” children built the WTC”?


When you said the video contained "what the builder had to say" - the only person speaking in the video was Frank - and he was a child when the WTC was built

Try not get so confused!



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


My friend , what exactly are you bringing to this debate.

You slice up threads in sentenaces , then twist it out of context.

And you actually think you accomplish something??

Please , this is a big boys topic, add some content of your own please.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


You are wrong. DeMartini was hired after the 93 bombings to assist with reconstruction but was NOT part of the original construction team.

As a property manager he was the one who would make the call about reorganizing floors, adding plumbing or making changes to the existing structure. Sure sounds different when explained like that. He was a property manager. Those sites that you are using would not get the same impact if you called him that so they use construction manager. Perception strikes again.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by impressme
Again, where did I make such a ridiculous claim?


In your post when you said " You completely ignored what the builder has to say"

Where does it say that I wrote 11 and 14 year old children built the WTC?


The only person talking in that video was Frank De Martini, so you claimed he was the builder. Truthers tell so many tall stories they get themselves all confused!


Stop twisting what I said around. Reread my above post of how I clearly referred to Frank De Martini. You really think people in here can’t read what you are doing?


He died when the towers were intentionally imploded.

Here we go again, another tall story!


Well if you want to be ignorant, and continue to ignore my creditable sources and facts then that is your choice.



9-11 Heroes

Leave your memorial thoughts for Francis (Frank) Albert De Martini.

In Memory of Francis ( Frank) Albert De Martini.


www.9-11heroes.us...


Now again, where is this claim that I supposently made that” children built the WTC”?

When you said the video contained "what the builder had to say" - the only person speaking in the video was Frank - and he was a child when the WTC was built


I never made no such claim as children built the WTC and you will not present any evidences of this claim but you make erroneous claims and twist word around to fit your nonsense.

BTW how was Frank A. De Martini, Manager of WTC Construction and Project Management, fit to being 14 years of age? Are you trying to state that Frank A. De Martini was 14 years old when he was appointed this job? Please verify your information, and we would like to see some facts with creditable internet sources to back your claim. If you want to debate me bring some creditable sources to the table.

If you want to play a game of twisting information then go find someone else to play with.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Where does it say that I wrote 11 and 14 year old children built the WTC?


where you claimed Frank was the builder, but you "forgot" that he was only 14 when it was built


Well if you want to be ignorant, and continue to ignore my creditable sources and facts then that is your choice.


You are the one being ignorant here, you cannot answer my simple questions as they destroy your silly conspiracy theory!


I never made no such claim as children built the WTC


yes you did when you stated Frank was the builder - which he was not, as he would have been 14 when the WTC was built


BTW how was Frank A. De Martini, Manager of WTC Construction and Project Management, fit to being 14 years of age?


Another truther lie, he was NOT the Manager of WTC construction - he was only 14 when the WTC was built!


Are you trying to state that Frank A. De Martini was 14 years old when he was appointed this job?


No, I am saying he was 14 when the WTC was built - and you claimed he was the builder!


If you want to play a game of twisting information


You are the one twisting information here, claiming Frank was the builder of the WTC

Truthers tell so many lies they get very confused!



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join