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: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
"The Captain may, by simply moving an electric switch, instantly close the doors throughtout and make the vessel practically unsinkable."


Since when did the Irish News and the Belfast Morning News become a designing engineer?


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"


Again. Since when is the vice president of a company a designing engineer?


You might want to read your own sources.


You might want to reread MY post as it specifically states "Engineer". Did you miss this or are you disinforming people again?


In addition, you might want to reread my post and see the word "virtually".


So, you agree that NO ENGINEER ever said "unsinkable"?




posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Follow up:


Why was Titanic said to be unsinkable and where did the story come from?

The Titanic was described in the popular press as "practically unsinkable." This was not unusual as for decades, ships had watertight compartments to limit flooding in case of an accident and the press used this phrase as a matter of routine for many years. After the Titanic sank, the story of her loss was turned into a modern fable and the original description—"practically unsinkable”—became just "unsinkable" in order to sharpen the moral of the story. No educated person in 1912 believed that the Titanic was truly unsinkable, but it was difficult to imagine an accident severe enough to send her to the bottom.


www.cincymuseum.org...



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
It was the media who created the 'unsinkable Titanic' story, not engineers.
Practically unsinkable is not literally unsinkable. They were also not considering that bad rivets might be used in construction. If the ship had the correct rivets it would probably NOT have sunk when it hit the iceberg.

I could say that 757's are practically un-crashable, which is true. It doesn't mean they can't crash, especially if they are not built as the designers and engineers ordered, as per the Titanic.

So where is the comparison with the towers? What were the bad 'rivets' in that incident? So far there are none.

Swampy doesn't understand the physics involved in the WTC collapses, so when an Engineer says the towers could withstand a plane crash he has no idea WHY that would be true, and put it into context with the rest of the physics, and because it goes against the official story he tries to use unrelated physics to justify what he believes. He fails every time like all the other debunkers with their silly unrelated analogies.


Pronunciation: \ˈprak-ti-k(ə-)lē\
Function: adverb
Date: 1571

1 : in a practical manner
2 : almost, nearly

www.merriam-webster.com...

[edit on 12/8/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Trying to goad me into playing your game. Its not going to happen. White Star Line advertised its ship as being unsinkable and Capt EJ Smith (who just might know a little about the subject) said that with modern shipbuilding, it was inconceivable that a ship would founder.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Yawn.....

Nice to know that in Nutopia, everyone is perfect. Here in the real world, engineers make statements and boasts, and still screw the pooch on occasion.

If I wasnt such a humble person, I might get an inflated ego from the idea that I have most of you worrying about me every minute "Swampy this, Swampy that...."




Swampy doesn't understand the physics involved in the WTC collapses, so when an Engineer says the towers could withstand a plane crash he has no idea WHY that would be true, and put it into context with the rest of the physics, and because it goes against the official story he tries to use unrelated physics to justify what he believes.


Fine, argue with these guys...

web.mit.edu...
www.caddigest.com...
www.hera.org.nz...
www.civil.usyd.edu.au...


[edit on 8-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Nutter
 


Trying to goad me into playing your game. Its not going to happen. White Star Line advertised its ship as being unsinkable and Capt EJ Smith (who just might know a little about the subject) said that with modern shipbuilding, it was inconceivable that a ship would founder.


And again. NO mention of a single engineer who stated anything remotely close to "unsinkable", "virtually unsinkable", "pratically unsinkable" or anything close to that.

If you can't understand the difference between an engineer saying something and a NEWS agency or PR department saying something then I can't help you.

But, just face it, this comparison is bullocks because the engineers of the Titanic never did any calculations to confirm nor did they ever state that the Titanic was unsinkable.

Unlike the WTC where both Skilling's and Robertson's design firms did.

See the difference yet?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Problem is tendency of engineers to design with known or common
situations in mind

TITANIC was designed uising common scenario of the time - front end
collisions . To whit it was assumed the bow would be crushed in and
forward compartments flood. Nobody envisioned side swipe ripping open
hull plates all along side. TITTANIC was designed to survive with first 4
compartments flooded. The watertight bulkheads did not extend all the way from keel to main deck - as bow sank deeper water was able to slosh
over to neighboring compartments flooding them. Eventually enough
compartments were flooded overcoming ships bouyancy and sinking it.

WTC was designed to survive a hit by jet airliner moving slow (> 200 mph)
with minimal fuel. Nobody considered post crash fires and effects on building. WTC was struck by aircraft traveling 3 times design speed
with full fuel loads. Impact smashed all fire supression equipment (sprinklers/standpipes), destroyed access to impact zone (stairs/elevators) and blew off fire proofing on steelwork exposing them to
fires.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
WTC was designed to survive a hit by jet airliner moving slow (> 200 mph)
with minimal fuel.


Wrong. You are probably referring to Leslie Robertson's engineering firm's analysis. There was another engineering team that did a separate analysis, and that was John Skilling's team. You can do a search based on that information.


The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4


The source for the above quote is page 131 of the book "City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center" by two NYT reporters, James Glanz and Eric Lipton.


And you are also wrong about them not considering the fires:


Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"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," he said. "The building structure would still be there."


community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...


That article, amazingly, is almost 20 years old (1993), and still on the internet.



Amazing what you can learn on this forum, isn't it, thedman?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
This whole argument is really pointless.

There is nothing in what happened to the towers that would suggest the aircraft impact, or the fires, were the cause of the collapses. The only way the NIST hypothesis works is if you believe their assumptions, they have zero evidence of critical damage caused by the aircraft. It's a fantasy, not reality.

Science requires verifiable and testable facts. Until you can prove that a single aircraft impact, and office fires, could cause a global symmetrical collapse that defies physics, by both taking the path of most resistance and ignoring resistance and friction, then the NIST report is simply unscientific and should be questioned.

Why do you have a problem with people asking questions Swampy?

Even IF the aircraft did sever central columns the building would still not suddenly take the path of most resistance, and ignore resistance and friction as it does.

Yes YAWN, I'm sorry you're tired of hearing it, how do you think we feel? Personally I feel like I'm debating a person with an extremely short memory. Or just forgets everything on purpose to keep the discussion from moving forward...
Rinse repeat, rinse repeat....



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes YAWN, I'm sorry you're tired of hearing it, how do you think we feel? Personally I feel like I'm debating a person with an extremely short memory.


No kidding.

I would not at all be surprised to log in tomorrow and see that thedman has made new posts still claiming that the towers were only designed for a 707 hitting them at 200 mph, despite me showing him otherwise above.

"Debunkers" generally are best at completely blocking out any new information that we provide to them, as they feel they already know all the answers and are simply arguing with stupid people with no sense of reality. Total arrogance, and nothing but. Well, besides the ignorance that comes with it.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Nobody considered post crash fires and effects on building.


Would you please quit spreading lies?

I know you are lying because I have seen this pointed out to you before. [Edit] And not just by bsbray above.


"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," he said. "The building structure would still be there."


community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...

John Skilling, the Lead Engineer for the trade towers in a Seattle Times interview dated February 27, 1993.

If I see it again I will alert the mods as blatantly lying on this site is against the T & C s

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by scott3x
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.


No plane hit building 7



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
This site has the opinion that the towers were built to be demolished for political gain and as as a result were poorly and cheaply built.


www.reformation.org...



New York State Governor Nelson Rockefeller and his brother David were the moving force behind the building of the Twin Towers. As a matter of fact, the Towers were called David and Nelson. Following in the footsteps of their tightwad grandfather John D., they insisted on the cheapest job possible.

The project managers Austin Tobin and Guy Tozzoli fired the world renowned architectural firm of Skidmore, Owens and Merrill and hired an inexperienced architect from Japan named Minoru Yamasaki.


The above-mentioned Fazlur Rahman Khan was a partner at Skidmore, Owens and Merrill


Then they put the steel for the building out for bids. The job was so colossal that only the top steel makers in the U.S. bid the job. They were: U.S. Steel and Bethlehem Steel. U.S. steel submitted a bid of 122 million dollars and Bethlehem Steel submitted a bid for 118 million dollars. Both bids were REJECTED as being too costly....Then they put the bid out again and ALL the independent steel erectors were encouraged to bid. Only one small company bid and their bid was 20 MILLIONS dollars.


[edit on 10-12-2009 by m khan]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by m khan
 


If that is the case then why did the 93 bombing not cause a collapse? Or even caused damage that would have condemned the building. The bomb blew a 98 ft wide hole through four sub-levels of concrete. The damage was repaired.

Having said that though I don't believe it would be possible, with all the safety inspections that constructions go through, to get away with using sub-standard materials, and bad workmanship, throughout the whole building to the point that fires would cause complete and global failure.

It would have to be extremely badly made, missing welds and rivets etc., to allow a complete failure through the path of most resistance. Even bad welds and substandard rivets (like the Titanic) would still create resistance in the collapse, as it is extremely unlikely that thousands of rivets and welds would all fail at the same time.

Remember those towers not only survived a bombing, but 30+ years of stress from winds, you do know about stress fractures, metal fatigue etc?
Bad construction would have shown up long before 911.

Edit; BTW construction steel is construction steel, no matter who makes it it still has to meet minimum requirements for strength.

[edit on 12/10/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Where is thedman?

We correct his claim that the towers weren't designed for 600 mph impacts, as per analyses done by John Skilling's firm, and now nothing. I'm just waiting for him to pop up and keep making that stupid claim again anyway.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar


No plane hit building 7


No, just WTC1. From what FDNY had to say, WTC1 messed up WTC7 pretty good.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, just WTC1. From what FDNY had to say, WTC1 messed up WTC7 pretty good.


And other than that there is zero evidence of any structural damage to WTC7...

Lots of pics of the small fires, but none of this catastrophic damage we keep hearing about. Damage that must have effected the buildings weight bearing columns equally, and instantly, throughout the building to have caused the global symmetrical collapse that ensued.

Damage to one side of a building would not cause a global symmetrical collapse. Especially not one with the classic controlled demo giveaway, the penthouse kink. You know how controlled demos work right, or do you need it explained again for the thousandth time?

YAWN, how many years have you heard this Swampy? In one ear out the other? Rinse and repeat?



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





And other than that there is zero evidence of any structural damage to WTC7...


Let's see, the very same people (FDNY) that the truth movement rely on for their belief of bombs in the WTC...appearantly are not to be believed in regards to their testimony about the damage that WTC 7 suffered from the collapse of WTC 1.

Of course, the FDNY's beliefs and statements about WTC 7 havent changed from what they said on 9/11.......



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, just WTC1. From what FDNY had to say, WTC1 messed up WTC7 pretty good.


Yeah, and the terms they used in their testimony were almost that technical.


NIST concluded that damage would have had no significant effect on the collapse. Because it missed any major columns. There was also superficial damage on the SW corner spanning something like 18 floors, also no significant effect on global collapse.

Btw there were also people there who saw the damage and said it DIDN'T justify a collapse. NYPD Craig Bartmer is one.



Though I know you already know all of the above and have heard it 100x. You just ignore it every time you hear it. Apparently firefighters are structural super-experts that trump everybody else, except when they say there are bombs/secondary devices... Hypocrite.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Btw there were also people there who saw the damage and said it DIDN'T justify a collapse. NYPD Craig Bartmer is one.



Hmmm.. Chief Nigro, who was the fire commander said it did. He trumps all since he was in change. He created a collapse zone, pulled the firefighters back, a few hours later he was proven correct.

Have you ever asked Craig Bartmers when he thought 911 was an inside job? don't ask him...go ask Dyldo Avery and Jason Bermas. They are the ones that filled his head with this crap.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join