The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by homervb

 

The rough edges are on the side of the OS...

The towers were designed to take MULTIPLE hits from airliners.

Both got hit in a different angle, different part of the structure, 2 different plane models, yet they both came down in exactly the same way?

Yeah right.

The Titanic was designed to take a hit from an iceberg and not sink. Not all designs stand up to the circumstances that take place after the event. The towers DID withstand the impacts, but the fires affected the then fireproofless impact areas and caused steel failures.

reply to post by Varemia


The impact areas.. I might very remotely ever get a slight feeling of believing a fuel fire can weaken steel.

Still won't make the entire tower crumble like a pile of sand.

Originally posted by Romekje
The towers were designed to take MULTIPLE hits from airliners.

They were? Care to show us where the designer or builder stated that.....

reply to post by spoor


Link

Further references and sourcing can be found within the link.

ETA: this is by the way just an explanation as to why they fell while being designed to take these kind of hits. I'm still not satisfied with the explanation of that though. It's pretty much the OS, which i simply don't believe.

Originally posted by Romekje
Link

Further references and sourcing can be found within the link.

Nothing there about multiple hits.... care to show a link to that claim?

reply to post by spoor

Frank A. DeMartini - WTC Construction Projection Management (was killed on 9/11)

Originally posted by Romekje
Frank A. DeMartini - WTC Construction Projection Management (was killed on 9/11)

He had nothing at all to do with the design or construction of the WTC...

reply to post by spoor

Profile: Frank De Martini
Frank De Martini was a participant or observer in the following events: January 25, 2001: WTC Construction Manager Says Tower Could Sustain Multiple Plane Impacts. [Source: New York Times]
Frank De Martini, an architect who works as the World Trade Center’s construction manager, is interviewed for a History Channel documentary about the WTC towers. He says, “I believe 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 the screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” [Dwyer and Flynn, 2005, pp. 149] De Martini will be in his office on the 88th floor of the North Tower when it is hit on 9/11. He will die when the tower collapses, after helping more than 50 people escape.

Link

The functions of construction project management typically include the following[1] : Specifying project objectives and plans including delineation of scope, budgeting, scheduling, setting performance requirements, and selecting project participants. Maximizing resource efficiency through procurement of labor, materials and equipment. Implementing various operations through proper coordination and control of planning, design, estimating, contracting and construction in the entire process. Developing effective communications and mechanisms for resolving conflicts

en.wikipedia.org...

Nah, nothing to do with the construction of the WTC at all

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by homervb

 

The rough edges are on the side of the OS...

The towers were designed to take MULTIPLE hits from airliners.

Both got hit in a different angle, different part of the structure, 2 different plane models, yet they both came down in exactly the same way?

Yeah right.

The Titanic was designed to take a hit from an iceberg and not sink. Not all designs stand up to the circumstances that take place after the event. The towers DID withstand the impacts, but the fires affected the then fireproofless impact areas and caused steel failures.

If it was actually the Titanic that sank

The ship that sank was meant to sink.

The buildings that fell were meant to fall.

Originally posted by Romekje
Nah, nothing to do with the construction of the WTC at all

Very true - he was only 14 when they started groundbreaking to build them, and was not even working there until 1993, 20 years after the south tower was finished....

and his job actually was "

the man to see when you wanted to move a wall or rearrange the plumbing.

"
www.legacy.com...

so still no valid source....

reply to post by spoor


Just the SOUTH tower was built indeed.

And why would this man be put in charge of all that? Because he had the knowledge about how the building was put together.. Maybe?

ETA sorry read your post wrong and the WTC was fully completed then. Still doesnt change the FACT that this guy was an architect put in charge of constructional changes that had to be made to the towers after completion. Still validating my above point.

Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by spoor

 

Just the SOUTH tower was built indeed.

And why would this man be put in charge of all that? Because he had the knowledge about how the building was put together.. Maybe?

Funny how you refuse to accept he had nothing at all to do with the design or construction of the WTC....

I expect you also think anyone with the name 'engineer" in their job title is actually a qualified engineer....

reply to post by spoor


I don't "refuse to accept" as you can see in the edit i made above.

And no, im not some idiot that thinks every "engineer" job requires a PhD.

An qualified architect does require a degree, though.

Originally posted by spoor
Funny how you refuse to accept he had nothing at all to do with the design or construction of the WTC....

I expect you also think anyone with the name 'engineer" in their job title is actually a qualified engineer....

Hmmm so you think to understand the construction of the towers you need to be an engineer?

Are you an engineer?

reply to post by ANOK


Ofcourse he is!

And ofcourse he has more knowledge about these buildings than the actual architect who's job it was overseeing the towers (albeit AFTER construction)

I mean, it's not like architects rely on blueprints and all, they do it all on gut feeling.

Originally posted by Varemia
The Titanic was designed to take a hit from an iceberg and not sink. Not all designs stand up to the circumstances that take place after the event. The towers DID withstand the impacts, but the fires affected the then fireproofless impact areas and caused steel failures.

Thing is though when the Titanic was hit by the iceberg it did what you would expect, it sunk because it made a hole. It was found the rivets used were substandard.

Now the towers, no matter what was claimed, could not completely collapse from a hole 3/4 of the way up. In fact according to NIST the plane did not cause the collapse, sagging trusses did.

Sagging trusses can not put a pulling force on the columns. IF they could, and the connections were substandard, then they would have failed before they could pull in columns. So what else would be substandard in order to allow the collapse?

Flawed logic.

reply to post by ANOK


Hmm somehow this popped up as a reply to me but it isnt.

Fully agree with you though.

Originally posted by Romekje

Frank A. DeMartini - WTC Construction Projection Management (was killed on 9/11)

Leslie Earl Robertson (born February 12, 1928) was one of the structural engineers of the World Trade Center in New York, which was destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks and was responsible for the design of the buildings' sway-reduction features. He has since been structural engineer on numerous other projects, including the Shanghai World Financial Center and the Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong.

en.wikipedia.org...

LESLIE ROBERTSON (Engineer, World Trade Center):
"We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.

And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two."

www.bbc.co.uk...

Click "impact of plane" to watch.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia
The Titanic was designed to take a hit from an iceberg and not sink. Not all designs stand up to the circumstances that take place after the event. The towers DID withstand the impacts, but the fires affected the then fireproofless impact areas and caused steel failures.

Thing is though when the Titanic was hit by the iceberg it did what you would expect, it sunk because it made a hole. It was found the rivets used were substandard.

Now the towers, no matter what was claimed, could not completely collapse from a hole 3/4 of the way up. In fact according to NIST the plane did not cause the collapse, sagging trusses did.

Sagging trusses can not put a pulling force on the columns. IF they could, and the connections were substandard, then they would have failed before they could pull in columns. So what else would be substandard in order to allow the collapse?

Flawed logic.

edit on 7/1/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Can't you see that it's the same type of story? The towers withstood the impacts very well. They did not collapse from the impact-alone. The problem was substandard fireproofing and no built-in defense for anything other than static placement of the floors. The floors were never intended to begin falling, and once they did, there was nothing in the design to prevent a global collapse. The trusses simply were not strong enough to resist a moving vertical force.

reply to post by waypastvne


ok quite compelling.

Still won't convince me it's the plane that takes a tower down, nor the fire.

You really believe a kerosene fire can burn so hot molten metal is still found at almost the end of the cleanup?