Prophetable
Well-Known Member
Alarum said:
Actually the buildings were designed to sustain impact from a Boeing 707. That's pretty good resistance for 95% empty space..... Where do you get these arguments, from a Weeties packet?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Alarum said:One does not have to be an engineer to figure out that a structure that is 95% empty space, from an engineering perspective, provides little resistance. .
trunks2k said:He's talking about little resistance when it collapses.
A Boeing 707 didn't hit the tower.Prophetable said:Let me elaborate. The buildings were designed to sustain impact from a boeing 707, so that they don't collapse.
No, it's an attempt to simply put the fact that once the tower started to collapse, there was little resistence to stop it.The 95% air argument is a strawman argument.
We know this? How do we know this?It's introducing a factor that quite frankly isn't a factor. Everybody knows that buildings contain air. However we also know that the 200,000 tonnes of steel is there to support the building.
200,000 tonnes of steel which we know could not have possibly collapsed.
That's interesting. I wish we know how it couldn't have possibly collapsed, because it did collapse. Buildings don't always act like they were designed to. In this case, we'd never ever slammed a 707 into a building before. We couldn't model the effects. Structurally it could withstand it, but the burning jet fuel was not properly factored in. A rather big oops, but then again this was basically a worse-case senario (a plane fully loaded with jet fuel for a cross-country flight is as bad as it could get).Prophetable said:Let me elaborate. The buildings were designed to sustain impact from a boeing 707, so that they don't collapse.
The 95% air argument is a strawman argument. It's introducing a factor that quite frankly isn't a factor. Everybody knows that buildings contain air. However we also know that the 200,000 tonnes of steel is there to support the building.
200,000 tonnes of steel which we know could not have possibly collapsed.
Yes it is. Here's an idea. Take a steel bar. Lets make it a quarter of an inch thick, solid. Now bend it. Take concrete, anchor it into the ground. Take your truck. Now bend it. Good luck with that.Prophetable said:Actually the buildings were designed to sustain impact from a Boeing 707. That's pretty good resistance for 95% empty space..... Where do you get these arguments, from a Weeties packet?
I do? At best I can count 1, if I squint really hard and make some assumptions. What is your working definition of line of symmetry?applepowerpc said:In your still photo, you have 2 lines of symmetry, intersecting at point of impact. You know where they are. Which is really not surprising--what do you expect to happen when you plan a demolition for 12 weeks and then an airliner crashes into the building?
Alarum said:In this case, we'd never ever slammed a 707 into a building before. We couldn't model the effects. Structurally it could withstand it, but the burning jet fuel was not properly factored in. A rather big oops, but then again this was basically a worse-case senario (a plane fully loaded with jet fuel for a cross-country flight is as bad as it could get).
Now please explain how the 95% air is a strawman arguement. The arguement was that the building could not collapse at near free-fall velocities without demolitions. The fact is, once the supports broke there was nothing to stop it from doing exactly that. That's not a strawman. It's called a fact.
Evidence the jet fuel was factored in please? You have none, you provide none, you make these statements that are completely unproven and expect me to believe them.Prophetable said:This is incorrect. The jet fuel was factored in. The supports did not break. The only possible way they could have been destroyed is by thermite charges.
Alarum said:Evidence the jet fuel was factored in please? You have none, you provide none, you make these statements that are completely unproven and expect me to believe them.
The supports expanded and weakened under the heat of the jet fuel. The expansion moved more of the building's load onto them, the weakness made them unable to handle that increased load. There are many, many ways to break any given structure. Thermite would work, but it is not exclusive.
Nobody is claiming that all the supports melted, and it would be foolish to assume so. this site explains how the supports were sufficiently weakened to warrant a collapse: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.htmlProphetable said:Even if some of the supports were weakened by heat (Which it has been prooven that the temperatures reached would have barely been able to do this!) - Even then for all of them to collapse as we observed they would all have to be melted.
Maybe you missed this:According to Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, 1 and 2 World Trade Center were designed to survive an impact and resulting fires from a collision by the largest commercial aircraft at the time, a Boeing 707-340.
Prophetable said:Plenty of evidence. First of all Jets have jet fuel. People who designed the buildings for impact from jets would have been intelligent enough to realise this. To blindly oppose this demonstrates that you are choosing to be in a deluded state.
Even if some of the supports were weakened by heat (Which it has been prooven that the temperatures reached would have barely been able to do this!) - Even then for all of them to collapse as we observed they would all have to be melted.
Lets look at the following quote from http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html This site has some fantastic information:
The quote:
According to Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, 1 and 2 World Trade Center were designed to survive an impact and resulting fires from a collision by the largest commercial aircraft at the time, a Boeing 707-340.
Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer, addressed the problem of terrorism on high-rises at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany, last week, Chicago engineer Joseph Burns told the Chicago Tribune.
Burns said Robertson told the conference, "I designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." "Fire melts steel," Burns told the Tribune, speculating that the impact from the planes had damaged sprinkler systems in both towers.
"You never know in an explosion like that whether they get cut off," Burns said. The World Trade Center was designed by architect Minour Yamasaki, whose Rochester Hills, Mich., firm, Minoru Yamasaki and Associates, is known for its sweeping use of glass.
Hyman Brown isn't mentioned in the article. They literally wrote the sentance, found some article that vaguely resembled what they wrote, and linked to it. That's not scholarship. That's faking it.According to Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, 1 and 2 World Trade Center were designed to survive an impact and resulting fires from a collision by the largest commercial aircraft at the time, a Boeing 707-340. [SIZE=-1] 1 [/SIZE]
Alarum said:Right, now figure out why I love 911research. This is the article they reference as the source of their information:
http://www.medserv.dk/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=896
This is their sole evidence that it was designed to handle fires:
Alarum said:And that's what they used to get "It was designed to withstand the resulting fires." But wait, that wasn't their claim. Their claim was:
Hyman Brown isn't mentioned in the article. They literally wrote the sentance, found some article that vaguely resembled what they wrote, and linked to it. That's not scholarship. That's faking it.
Their evidence is non-existant! They made that up and assumed nobody would click on the little link they so thoughtfully provided, Ann Coulter style.
Yes I do. If they had better sources then that, they would have used them.Prophetable said:That's a pretty big assumption. How do you know they don't have other sources? You dont.
Slanderous propeganda. So if its slander, you can prove it wrong. And yet the article still makes no mention of Hyman Brown, meaning they made up their 'facts.' Your denial involves hoping smily faces and long words disguise the fact that they lied, blatently.Your slanderous propaganda is simply astounding.
The same place you linked me to before. *YAWN*Lets look at a quote from http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
And yet, the explaination betrays a fundimental lack of understanding, doesn't it? The quotes shows that the building was designed with the kinetic impact energy of the plane in mind, not the jet fuel.Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"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."
Undamaged, unheated columns may or may not have been able to support that. Every piece of evidence says the fire topped out well above 650 C, which is when the steel loses half its strength.ALSO......
Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered
One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
Interesting. One side and two corners and a few other columns is about equal to 30%. And yet at 650 C the steel had lost 50% of its strength. Is this supposed to be evidence of why it didn't collapse, or evidence of how it did?There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. 3
Good response, attack the people posting the arguements instead of the arguements themselves. That's not ad hominem or anything. If you can't find any evidence to support this belief system, fine. Don't expect a serious response to an attempt to drag the thread off topic.AmariJah said:You know what's so funny to me about this whole debate- You guys also probably believe that Pres. Bush , Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are actually good well meaning people who are trying to spread freedom and democracy around this planet. I bet you think that Pres. Bush is being used by God to spread the message of Jesus Christ to Iraq and Afghanistan regardless of the fact that he is using bombs and guns to do so? in which case- I rest my case and will move on to other debates!
Hey I learned this method from the pro-Bush Republicans (honestly) that is why I thought you would respect this approach!Alarum said:Good response, attack the people posting the arguements instead of the arguements themselves. That's not ad hominem or anything. If you can't find any evidence to support this belief system, fine. Don't expect a serious response to an attempt to drag the thread off topic.
Your site lied. The engineers never did factor in fire damage, the fire damage caused the support to bow outward, and weakened them, resulting in their break and the collapse of the tower.
Guilt by association and name calling! Apparently, because I can read reports and figure out which sounds convincing and which is arguing with itself and lying to make its case look better I must support Bush! Otherwise, I'd have no agenda for you to attack. I'd simply be seeking the truth, and have decided that it was the official account. And its so much harder to argue facts then to assign me an arbitrary (and incorrect) agenda, then attack the agenda.AmariJah said:Hey I learned this method from the pro-Bush Republicans (honestly) that is why I thought you would respect this approach!
Brilliant. Except that you keep linking to sites that misquote their links and say dead people are alive. Evidence is required, by definition, to be true.Also there is so much evidence showing that the Bush Admin. was most certainly involved or at the very least complicit in 9/11 and OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THE BUSH ADMIN AIDED AND ABETTED IN THE SUBSEQUENT COVER-UP- that you would have to be blind not to see it.
And yet I am not the one who finds myself resorting to name calling because their links were lying.There is also a great deal of evidence which has been presented- in fact more evidence supporting the theories of those in the 9/11 truth and honesty movement than the evidence presented for the official theories. If you think that you have proven anything at this point- you are deluding only yourself and maybe Marek.
But did these 'facts' ever exist in the first place, or were they UFO abductions and bigfoot sitings - a third part wishful thinking (that big events have big causes) a third part distrust of 'officials and people of authority' and a third part a wonderful feeling of superiority obtained by knowing something the plebs don't?On a scale the evidence for US complicity and cover-up is far weightier than any alleged evidence that they were simply taken by "surprise". That is perhaps the biggest and most glaring lie of the Bush Admin. With the hundred of millions of dollars they are spending on surrvellience and National security and spying, if they were indeed taken off guard or surprised by the events of 9/11 THEN THEY SHOULD ALL BE FIRED AND DEMOTED FOR WASTING SO MUCH TIME AND MONEY. But that is not the case many responsible for the alleged "failures" have been promoted.
WAKE UP ! These facts are not ever going to just go away!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?