"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

page: 65
17
<< 62  63  64   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


And NIST`s lies have been proven so NIST is not a reasonable source.
2nd


Proven how, exactly? It would be enlightening to learn of these experiments and papers which refute the NIST. I mean, it would be a huge story to know that their recommendations for building construction were faulty. We can't allow buildings to be constructed under lies, can we?

So, show your sources for the refutation of NIST's work. I'll believe you in a second if you can show it.




posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft

The delusional beleif is that 19 men with box cutters hijacked planes and proceeded to pull of the greatest maneuvers known to man in 747s and 757s , then some how managed to collapse 2 very very strong towers, attack the pentagon (which was defended as allways) and crash one into a feild leaving no distinctive marks.


OIC.

I supply evidence that high temps are not required for collapse, you cannot refute it, so you change the subject again to something irrelevant that avoids the science and relies on your personal incredulity and dependence on misinformation that has been repeatedly shown to be nothing more than easily repeated talking points for the cannon fodder like yourself that the site admins at "those damn fool conspiracy sites" send out to spread the truthy word.....

In case you didn't know, people notice this behavior, and recognize it as an utter inability to defend the post that I was responding to.

This is why you cannot answer to my post, nor the OP.

Twice I have shown that I have done research into the technical issues of 9/11. and you have zero rebuttal to it.

No wonder truthers are going nowhere.....



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by EleninPfft
 


Stop trolling please.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


What you provided was pure dribble i posted the links to the blueprints before , find em and look for yourself , youll see how strong all 3 towers were if you have any idea at all how to read blueprints ... unlike some OSers i wont mention .... but they know who they are



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


The fact that you all ignore the facts i have posted is proof that you dudes are trolling not me

2nd



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft

What you provided was pure dribble


I think you meant drivel......


i posted the links to the blueprints before , find em and look for yourself , youll see how strong all 3 towers were if you have any idea at all how to read blueprints


Yes, I've studied them. And you know what? they are as strong as they need to be, and no stronger.

Also, since you believe the words of Bazant regarding high load, moderate temp creep to be drivel, then you should have no problem showing that with science and sources.

But just remember, when you fail to do that, others WILL take notice, and see that you're an unreliable source of information.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


The fact that you all ignore the facts i have posted is proof that you dudes are trolling not me

2nd


Facts? Come on man. What facts or proof have you provided? You're joking right?

From the moment I've followed this thread (and others) you've assumed at least 2 different names and have done nothing to promote constructive discussion. You keep claiming that you have, but I certainly haven't seen it. Perhaps if you were providing facts that would be considered useful to the discussion then you wouldn't have been banned in the first (second?) place.

Seriously though- What is your agenda here?

Because you're the worst kind of poster and your trolling tactics are very deliberate.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

But just remember, when you fail to do that, others WILL take notice, and see that you're an unreliable source of information.


He is a very reliable source of entertainment.

And he also claims to be sitting on a smoking gun.

I hope he tells us what it is before he gets banned again.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


From your source:



The strength of the towers was enormous but they would not have been designed for aircraft strikes


Try again.


The towers themselves were built strong. They had to be to withstand the strong winds from frequent severe storms that pass the area. A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling at 600 mph , this speed is of course greater than the impact speed of either of the jetliners used on September 11. The original study mentions that the building could withstand the impact of a 707 with a full fuel load. The Boeing 767-200s used on September 11 were only slightly larger than the anticipated impact by a 707 or DC 8 the World Trade Center's designers prepared for. Interestingly the 707, although a fraction smaller than the 767, actually has a faster cruising speed than the 767.

Boeing 707-320: cruise speed 607 mph

Boeing 767-200: cruise speed 530 mph

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) released its official report in 2002. In Chapter 1 of the report appears a graphic which accurately compares the size and impact damage on a large building caused by a 707 and a 767. The graphic is revealing because it shows that a 707 actually impacts slightly further than a 767. This is because a 707 retains a greater kinetic energy due to its size and travelling speed. Interestingly the two types of aircraft both share a similar fuel capacity but on September 11 both 767’s were only carrying 10,000 gallons of fuel which is about 40% of the total capacity of a 707. What this means is that the towers were designed to withstand greater impacts than those witnessed on 9/11.



The above mentioned white paper released in 1964 states candidly:



“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.”

source: James Glanz and Eric Lipton City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 131

John Skilling, head structural engineer for the World Trade Center, confirmed the strength of the towers in a 1993 interview:



“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.”

source: community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...

That the towers were designed to withstand impact by airplanes should come as no surprise, in fact the towers were over-engineered to cope with a variety of emergency scenarios. This is not unique to the construction of the towers but is actually standard practice. [source: Factor of safety, StateMaster.com, [cached: 911research.wtc7.net...]

Massive structures must typically be over-engineered to withstand five times the anticipated static load and three times the anticipated dynamic load. The 1964 white paper confirms this over-engineering and further insists that the towers would survive 100 plus mile winds even if all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face were missing. This incredible over-engineering was confirmed by John Skilling who told Engineering News Record in 1964 that:



“…live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs.”

source: How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, ENR, 4/2/1964

On January 25, 2001 construction manager for the World Trade Center, Frank A. Demartini, told a television interviewer:



“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.”


These are not the remarks of inexperienced observers. Demartini for example was an architect first hired by Leslie E. Robertson Associates to examine the damage from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. His office was on the 88th floor of the North Tower and he was killed during the attacks of September 11, 2001.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
The World Trade Center (WTC) towers were, at the time of design, the largest buildings ever conceived. The designers were aware that such massive structures required extra planning and so they over-engineered the towers to ensure rigorous safety standards. In the decades prior to the attacks on 9/11 the towers had withstood a bombing (1993) and a little-mentioned fire with no significant damage to the structure. On February 13, 1975, an arsonist started a fire on the 11th floor and it quickly spread to limited portions of six other floors, burning for three hours. Fire suppression systems such as sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing were not present at the time and the fire burnt out of control.

Engine Co. 6 captain Harold Kull described fighting the fire as "like fighting a blow torch." The New York Times reported that "flames could be seen pouring out of the 11th-floor windows" on the tower's east side, but described damage to the tower's core as "apparently confined to electrical wiring." This is relevant because it shows a severe fire burning in an unprotected building showing fairly limited damage. This limited damage is revealed in the New York Times report which states:



"The fire spread throughout about half of the offices of the floor and ignited the insulation of telephone cables in a cable shaft that runs vertically between floors. Commissioner O'Hagan said that the absence of fire-stopper material in gaps around the telephone cables had allowed the blaze to spread to other floors within the cable shaft. Inside the shaft, it spread down to the 9th floor and up to the 16th floor, but the blaze did not escape from the shaft out into room or hallways on the other floors..."

Source: Trade Center Hit by 6-Floor Fire, New York Times, 2/14/75, page 41

The 1975 fire was in fact a lot more severe than the fire witnessed on September 11, 2001. This is evident by the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames to pour out from the broken windows indicating a temperature greater than 700°C. On September 11 the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C. In many of the harrowing phone calls made from the burning floors to emergency services that day, telephone operators are heard urging trapped survivors to break windows.

It can be concluded then that the towers were built to withstand many potential stresses, from high winds, to airplane impacts and even severe fire. James Glanz and Eric Lipton in their book 'City in the Sky: The rise and fall of the World Trade Center', quote an engineering report stating:



“The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings… The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure.”

Source: James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The rise and fall of the World Trade Center, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, pages 134-136.

In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the WTC Towers “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.” [Source: Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center, New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press 1999, page 117] They based this award on the fact that the towers, although incredibly massive, had been so over-engineered as to render them virtually indestructible.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
The towers were designed with potential catastrophe in mind. Not only natural and accidental events but actions carried out on purpose. In 1984 the Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks, spent four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It specifically wanted to examine if the towers were capable of sustaining a terrorist-type attack. The resulting report:



“…examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability…”O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”

Source: Glanz and Lipton, 'City in the Sky', Page 227.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sapatos
 


Your quote clearly states "slow moving airplane." This is significant, is it not? The airplanes that hit the towers were very fast moving airplanes with a lot more energy than a slow moving airplane.





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 62  63  64   >>

log in

join