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 bsbray11
Originally posted by thomk
There is no way on earth that Skilling or Robertson or any other engineer on the planet could possibly have done any sort of MEANINGFUL study to prove the resilience of the towers to airplane impact in 1964.
Haha, how old are you? I wonder because you call us "kids" but I've had a 90-year old electronics professor who could calculate things in minutes by hand that would leave you scratching your head (including the younger instructors, in their 40s). These guys knew the ins and outs of the formulas and what realistic variables were or how to gauge them using basic physical measurements alone.
You assume you would need a computer to do this. No way. Remember that we taught the computer the math it knows, aka top-down programming. We have known this math for decades, if not centuries in many cases. Older generations of engineers who were forced to rely on calculating things by hand were extremely proficient at it.
[edit on 17-12-2009 by bsbray11]
Originally posted by Lillydale
Well it seems you have quite a few claims to back up. I am patient.
Originally posted by thomk
Why don't you give me a brief description of how you'd solve a system of a couple of million simultaneous equations without a computer.
Originally posted by thomk
Originally posted by Lillydale
Well it seems you have quite a few claims to back up. I am patient.
You better be.
Your attitude means you get ignored.
Pester someone else.
Tom
Originally posted by thomk
You know, nut, it's kind of touching, the deferential respect you pay to us in that statement above. (I'm a mechanical engineer, 35 years experience). Why does it strike that you're not quite that sincere?
While engineering starts out with the same (nah, somewhat above average) competence as any field, industry is intolerant of incompetence. So, you're given about 5 years or so as a baby engineer to show what you can do. If you prove yourself incompetent as an engineer, you're shunted off someplace else. Sometimes into engineering management.
The good news is that, if someone has simply survived as a working engineer for 20+ years (and is not in a union or gov't service), then you can have a fair assurance that they have a certain minimum level of competence.
This also explains clearly why there are virtually NO experienced working engineers in AE911T.
First, you've got VERY few engineers who have any expertise that is pertinent to the collapse of the towers. (Definitely structural & mechanical. & some civil.)
Nonetheless, I find your "respect" for engineers less than convincing. Where is this respect for the 1000 or so incredibly successful & experienced engineers from NIST, academia & industry that contributed to the NIST report?
Now, you & this guy ANOK have said a bunch of things that show that you also don't understand much about why the buildings stood,
or why they fell down. If you've got some specific questions about them, feel free to ask.
Originally posted by theonlyrusty
To tomk and nutter....
I don't understand why people say they have a hard time pulling up the blueprints for the WTC's. They seem to make it sound as if it is some clandestine operation that has "covered up" the design of the WTC's so no one can get answers.
If anyone cares to look, here are the blueprints for the WTC's.
911research.wtc7.net...
I am competent and capable of reading these design blueprints because I designed buildings for 15 years. I am not a PE nor am I an architect. I worked for my in my fathers architectural firm for 15 years and was involved with the design of many different styles of buildings.
tomk and nutter....care to give us your take on the structural integrity of the buildings? And also, how did the "turrurists" ever manage to do a study of the buildings blueprints and come to a conclusion that by flying a plane into a certain floor, it would have "total structural fail" capabilities?
How do you (tomk and nutter) feel about the "squibs" coming out the sides of the buildings pre-collapse?
Originally posted by theonlyrusty
The link I provided actually gives you ALL blueprints.
You just have to scroll on the right side of the title bar and it pulls up every floor for Architectural, Mechanical, Electrical, Structural.
Did the hijackers/engineers know they needed to hit a certain floor or many?
Would the results have been the same if they had hit the 102nd floor or the 20th floor?
Originally posted by PersonalChoice
reply to post by xX aFTeRm4Th Xx
Well, Ill take you and Tomk up on your offers to field questions, especially since both of you seem to have a lot of experience.
First, I know you can both only speculate, but there seems to be only two answers to this question that either side will tell you.
Those answers being...
1) by product of thermitic reaction that began to finally leak out of the building due to the sagging of the floors.
2) Some sort of back up batteries that were cooked to bright orange flowing liquid on the floor slab until it finally began to sag and some of this molten material began to leak out.
All of this just moments before the collapse.
The question should be obvious by now(Jeopardy anyone lol):
What was the molten material flowing from the south tower before the collapse?
What do you think caused it to form and flow at that time?
I guess I'll just start off with that, and see what kind of response I get. I thank you(both) in advance.
Originally posted by theonlyrusty
I am NOT a structural engineer, nor have I claimed to be and I would feel fairly confident in hearing YOUR explanation as to what caused the failure.
You seem to have nothing to gain or lose by putting your expertise out there, and it doesn't sound like you are in the "coffers" of any government organization.
Albert Einstein said, "The only real valuable thing is intuition". When I saw the buildings come down on 911, my first thought was demolition. What was yours?
I read in one report that the buildings were actually "overdesigned". I realize that design in the 60's and design today are different,
but can you glean any info, from just the architectural drawings, that would lead you to believe that you could cause "total failure" to the WTC's by hitting them with a plane?
Originally posted by thomk
Why does it strike me that you're not quite that sincere [about the the deferential respect] ?
Originally posted by Nutter
It should strike you as sincere because I am speaking of myself also. I am a professional engineer (PE) in Civil Engineering with 15 years of experience in transportation, geotechnical and structures. All disciplines I have had to utilize in my career as a construction manager.
Originally posted by Nutter
I must be doing well then with 15 years experience and a PE license to back it up.
Originally posted by thomk
The good news is that, if someone has simply survived as a working engineer for 20+ years (and is not in a union or gov't service), then you can have a fair assurance that they have a certain minimum level of competence.
Originally posted by Nutter
I only have 5 years to go until you consider myself competent.
Originally posted by Nutter
BTW, did you know that Robertson was only 14 years into his career when he helped design the WTC?
Originally posted by thomk
This also explains clearly why there are virtually NO experienced working engineers in AE911T.
Originally posted by Nutter
I don't belong to that group. I don't need a group to define who I am and what I believe and know.
Originally posted by thomk
First, you've got VERY few engineers who have any expertise that is pertinent to the collapse of the towers. (Definitely structural & mechanical. & some civil.)
Originally posted by Nutter
Since structural is a subsect of civil, I have no idea why you listed them twice. Unless you ment the geotechnical (soils) aspect of a civil engineer?
But, regardless, they all belong under the category of civil.
Originally posted by thomk
Nonetheless, I find your "respect" for engineers less than convincing. Where is this respect for the 1000 or so incredibly successful & experienced engineers from NIST, academia & industry that contributed to the NIST report?
Originally posted by Nutter
I don't need to show "respect" to my peers. I am able to critic them without impunity.
Originally posted by Nutter
That's interesting as I have studied structural engineering. Care to debate me on any subject within the realm of structural engineering?
Originally posted by thomk
I saw you vehemently defend the position that Skilling, Robertson, et al, analyzed the effect of fire resulting from the plane crash. Every bit of evidence that I've seen, including the Seattle newspaper story you quoted, says that they specifically did not do so.
Do you have any other references to suggest that they did?
"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."
Originally posted by thomk
First, every civilized human should show respect to others as a matter of habit. And maintain it, right up to the point that the other person has manifestly demonstrated that they don't deserve it.
Second, as a PE, your Code of Professional Ethics demands that you do so.
Third, you can "critic" [sic] them respectfully. Or you can do it disrespectfully. Your choice, your consequences.
Originally posted by theonlyrusty
I like your theory of "tilting the wings" in order to do as much damage as possible.
Originally posted by theonlyrusty
Noticing that NIST and other studies rarely even take into consideration the core columns, what was it, in your estimation, that would have totally "pulverized" them. I would have expected to at least see some very large sections of the core columns intact after the collapse.
Originally posted by theonlyrusty
I am also in question as to why some of the structural engineers (private investigation vs government) have such differing views on the exact cause of failure to the buildings. I never realized that the NIST specs. could be looked at so differently by varying firms.
Originally posted by theonlyrusty
Did the outer shell and floor connections "outside" the core columns actually have enough energy to pulverize the inner columns?
Originally posted by theonlyrusty
Albert Einstein said, "The only real valuable thing is intuition". When I saw the buildings come down on 911, my first thought was demolition. What was yours?