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: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I am glad you didn't miss the day in school where you learned about comparisons, but you skipped a class. Let me help.

The Titanic itself weighed 46,000 tons. The icenberg was est. to be 20,000 and 25,000 tons.


The WTC were estimated to be 500,000 tonnes each. So we are talking 1 million tons not including WTC.

The planes? 365 tones.

The iceberg? A natural phenomenon. The towers, man made.

The only similarities between the two was that it was a moving man made object hitting something.

In the case of the titanic, you have objects at least in the same range hitting each other. Well, in the case of the WTC, you are throwing a pebble at the Berlin wall.

Now all that being said, I do understand where your coming from that anything man made has the potential to be fallible. It is hard to consider every element and mistakes can be made. I am not dismissing that.

BUT, if your going to come on here and start making wide blanket statements that it is engineers, you really should understand physics more and the actual scenario before making such a statement. You basically have proven you have no knowledge of physics or engineering if you keep comparing something like the Titanic to the WTS.

That would be like saying all atser's have divorced parents. Or wear green socks.

Have engineers made mistakes? Sure! I am afraid of bridges just because of galloping gerdie.

But there are also some remarkable feats to be considered as well. Just look at the pyramids, and all they had was some wood and stars to look at.




posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
After hundreds or even thousands of similar buildings have suffered far worse fires, far worse impacts


Please list 100 other buildings that have also been hit by aircraft creating a far worse impact than those that hit the WTC.

Or is that claim just more truther crap?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Talk about being on the off ramp.......

Going to make this as simple as I can. Members of the truth movement cling to the idea that because a human being said the Towers would withstand being hit by an airliner, then the Towers could not have been knocked down that way. I pointed out that just because someone says it, doesnt mean its going to be true.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by nixie_nox
 

Members of the truth movement cling to the idea that because a human being said the Towers would withstand being hit by an airliner, then the Towers could not have been knocked down that way. I pointed out that just because someone says it, doesnt mean its going to be true.


Swamp, how can you say this? This isn't a matter of someone saying that the towers couldn't have been taken down by the planes and to just take their word for it. There have been many articles and even peer reviewed papers that have pointed out in great detail why the towers couldn't have been brought down by the planes that hit them and the fires that ensued alone. Have you read any of them? I'd be happy to point out a few for you if you like.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by scott3x
 


And in the end, they ALL get down to HUMAN beings. All the experts in the world used to think the world was flat, and they had the "science" to back themselves up. Then they thought the Earth was the center of the universe, and they had Religion and Science both to back them up. Human arrogance has caused more problems for more people in history than most anything else.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





The only similarities between the two was that it was a moving man made object hitting something.

In the case of the titanic, you have objects at least in the same range hitting each other. Well, in the case of the WTC, you are throwing a pebble at the Berlin wall.


Forgetting the velocity - TITANIC was moving at 20 knots (23mph) when
hit iceberg. Aircraft were moving at 500 knots, speed of pistol bullet.

The aircraft impacts were enough to cause the buildings to violently lurch
several feet from the force.

Add in fires ignited by fuel.....



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme


A normal office fire can reach up to temperatures that is enough to weaken steel.


Care to prove that?





Do you ever step beyond the truther sites, and check into reality? You know, checking with firefighting sites, fire safety engineers, and people who work with fire?

www.houstontx.gov...


The following are some problems that steel, used in construction, gives firefighters:

1. Elongation can take place in a steel member at ordinary fire temperatures. Heated to 1,000 degrees , a steel member will expand 9 ½ inches in 100 feet of length.
2. Expanding steel exerts a lateral force against the structure which restrains it. If restrained, as by a masonry structure, and the temperature of the fire is sustained in the 1,000 degrees range, the expansion of the steel may cause the displacement of the masonry, resulting in a partial or total collapse.
3. When steel is raised to temperatures above 1,000 degrees, it starts to lose strength rapidly.



www.firenuggets.com...


Unfortunately, unprotected steel warps melt sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1,100 to 1,200 degrees F.


Hey recall the Madrid fire? What happened to the steel parts of that building within an hour of being engulfed?

Also you might want to read about the effects of fire on steel here:
www.wpi.edu...

I especially enjoy the graph which shows the fire effects on protected steel and unprotected steel and the time to reach "steel critical temperature". Its on page 42 of the report (page 50 on the PDF) Also more graphs of strength of the steel in those fires as well.

I guess this re-enforced concrete building didnt get the memo that its not suppose to collapse from fire alone either:
Delft University of Technology
video.aol.com...

www.europeanfireacademy.com...=710654

Must have been blown up too right? I mean look at the video! Its got the same look as a building demolition! Delft University was "pulled"!



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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]

Great explination you just forgot one thing speed adds force to the impact.An object in motion tries to stay in motion this is why a rocket can penetrate a tank the velocity adds to the mass.

This is why rail guns are so effective take a chunk of metal get it close to the spped of light and theres nothing that could withstand the impact.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
The structural integrity of the WTC could have been evaluated by the architect who pioneered the design that made it possible, Fazlur Rahman Khan, the designer of the Sears Tower, now called the Willis Tower in Chicago. Unfortunately in 1983 he died suddenly in Saudi Arabia at the age of 53 of a heart attack even though he was very careful of his health and not the slightest bit overweight.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
Great explination you just forgot one thing speed adds force to the impact.An object in motion tries to stay in motion this is why a rocket can penetrate a tank the velocity adds to the mass.

This is why rail guns are so effective take a chunk of metal get it close to the spped of light and theres nothing that could withstand the impact.


That's not quite true. Think of it this way, if for example the building was moving and aircraft was stationary, would the damage to either object change? Or will the object with the most mass still receive the least damage?


Now, suppose that the mass of the body in question is a constant. This assumption, known as the conservation of mass, rests on the ideas that (i) mass is a measure of the amount of matter contained in a body, and (ii) matter can never be created or destroyed, only split up or recombined. These are very reasonable assumptions for everyday objects, though, as we will see, the situation gets more complicated when we take special relativity into account. Another point to note is that, even in classical mechanics, it is sometimes useful to treat the mass of an object as changing with time.

For example, the mass of a rocket decreases as the rocket fires. However, this is an approximation, based on ignoring pieces of matter which enter or leave the system. In the case of the rocket, these pieces correspond to the ejected propellent; if we were to measure the total mass of the rocket and its propellent, we would find that it is conserved.

When the mass of a body is constant, Newton's second law becomes

F = m \frac[dv][dt] = m a

where 'a' denotes the acceleration of the body.

This equation illustrates how mass relates to the inertia of a body. Consider two objects with different masses. If we apply an identical force to each, the object with a bigger mass will experience a smaller acceleration, and the object with a smaller mass will experience a bigger acceleration. We might say that the larger mass exerts a greater "resistance" to changing its state of motion in response to the force.

www.wordiq.com...

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, Newton. On other words when two objects collide (regardless of velocity) the forces on each object is the same, this is why objects with more mass always receive the least damage. The forces are equal, so the more mass the less that force will effect it. Force causes deceleration of the object, which is what causes the damage, the more the object is forced to decelerate the more damage it will receive.

Velocity changes the amount of damage received by BOTH objects, not just the one that's moving, or stationary.

And rail gun projectiles are made from tungsten.

[edit on 12/5/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

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


So you now claim the WTC towers design was helped by a 12 year old child?

You really are babbling now

[edit on 6-12-2009 by dereks]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





The only similarities between the two was that it was a moving man made object hitting something.

In the case of the titanic, you have objects at least in the same range hitting each other. Well, in the case of the WTC, you are throwing a pebble at the Berlin wall.


Forgetting the velocity - TITANIC was moving at 20 knots (23mph) when
hit iceberg. Aircraft were moving at 500 knots, speed of pistol bullet.

The aircraft impacts were enough to cause the buildings to violently lurch
several feet from the force.

Add in fires ignited by fuel.....


and winds could make the chandaliers swing some days and the wate swish out of the toilet bowls. That is because all skyscrapers are designed to move.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Im sure one of the amatuer, professional, ATS architects will correct if I am wrong. Aren't most skyscrapers over a certain height designed with counterweights to minimize the sway?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


I don't know about "most" skyscrapers, but the WTC Towers didn't have such weights. They compensated for it in the truss system. The WTC Towers were designed to sway several feet from side to side in hurricane-force winds. I'm sure you are competent enough to find this information from a reliable source yourself using the internet.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Not only that but Swampy again doesn't understand what really happened to the Titanic, only the typically uninformed BS that generally infests uneducated and uninformed groups of society.

What failed when the Titanic hit the iceberg was the soft iron rivets that held the hull plates together, the rivets broke under stress causing splits in the ships hull. The rivets they used were substandard and they would have more than likely eventually failed anyway due to stress.

It's a completely bogus comparison, with a completely different set of physics involved.

[edit on 12/7/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


NO you're wrong. You know that is not the only reason we believe the planes could not have brought down the towers. What a lame argument for someone who knows better. Or have you really not pain ANY attention all these years you've been spouting the same BS.

You and the government have yet to even show how the planes could have bought the towers down, otherwise we wouldn't be here looking for the answers. NIST report is based on assumptions, even NIST could not know how much damage the planes caused to the central columns, yet their hypotheses demands it, a real scientific paper would not leave open questions, and make assumption that could not be tested, and call itself fact.

And we know, and have tried to explain, the physics that would not allow the planes to go through one set of steel columns and still have enough mass and velocity to then damage another set of thicker columns to the point of failure. And if any columns did fail, severed columns do not a global collapse make. There so much physics involved that you ignore, like thermal energy exchange, friction and resistance, angular momentum, path of least resistance, conservation of momentum etc., if that stuff is included in your argument then I'd listen, but they're not and when they're bought up they are ignored. All you know is what NIST tells you.

How can you argue for something you just don't understand? And don't tell me you do cause I know you don't, I've read your posts.

[edit on 12/8/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



Do you ever step beyond the truthers sites, and check into reality? You know, checking with firefighting sites, fire safety engineers, and people who work with fire?


You will not find reality in your websites. Try looking beyond your disinformation websites. Do some real research.


Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST


www.911blogger.com...


Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation


www.ae911truth.org...





The Missing Jolt:
A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis


www.journalof911studies.com...


29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11


www.ae911truth.org...

www.ae911truth.org...


Must have been blown up too right? I mean look at the video! Its got the same look as a building demolition! Delft University was "pulled"!


You may want to do some real research.


Architects, Engineers, and Scientists Analyze Failings of NIST's WTC 7 Final Report


www.ae911truth.org...


CIA Veterans Reject "Official" 9/11 Story


www.ae911truth.org...



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


And yet another poster hops on the off ramp....


The point is, that anything humans design and build, is not perfect. Not to mention, those objects will rarely live up to the claims of their designers and in quite a few cases fall well short of expectations.

However, if you want to examine the Titanic, I will gladly respond if you start a post on another subject thread. I blame the officer of the deck personally, had he decided to hit the iceberg head on, the ship would have stayed afloat.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Talk about being on the off ramp.......

Going to make this as simple as I can. Members of the truth movement cling to the idea that because a human being said the Towers would withstand being hit by an airliner, then the Towers could not have been knocked down that way. I pointed out that just because someone says it, doesnt mean its going to be true.



The differences of comparing the Titanic to the WTC disaster.

1. NO engineer EVER claimed that the Titanic was unsinkable.

www.snopes.com...

Name ONE designing engineer that claimed this or admit that you are mistaken.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


From the snopes page you so thoughtfully posted....

"The Captain may, by simply moving an electric switch, instantly close the doors throughtout and make the vessel practically unsinkable."

And this one, credited to the Vice President of the White Star line when reports of the Titanic's sinking reached New York...

"We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable"

You might want to read your own sources. In addition, you might want to reread my post and see the word "virtually".



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join