banie01 wrote: » There was no consideration paid to fully fueled aircraft impacting the towers. There was a pen and paper study in 1964 that claimed it would survive an impact. However given that the study a 3 page thought experiment with no impact modelling, or load data available it is only of interest to those claiming conspiracy. Modelling the impact resistance of such an impact, is hugely dependent upon theory and assumes that each and every building element is operating at optimum efficiency and that loads follow the predicted path. In the days before dynamic load analysis software, any such paper analysis is little more than a best guess. The actuality of such an impact is far removed from the theory. A worthwhile study now that the blueprints are available would to be create a dynamic analysis of how the impact would play out.
Overheal wrote: » It’s a bit like arguing the Hyatt Regency Walkway was designed to not collapse on itself.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » I reading the document and they did consider a collision at 600mph an hour. So you guys were wrong. Flight 11 hit the tower at 423mph an hour. So those posts before now are waste of time. Fuel not mentioned, but we got this. Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times: John_Skilling Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling was rightfully confident that neither the impact of a large passenger jet nor the ensuing office fires was capable of bringing down the Twin Towers. “We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side. . . . 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. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
Dohnjoe wrote: » https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/05/09/WTC_Part-I_Introduction.pdf
Buildings are not specifically designed to withstand the impact of fuel-laden commercial airliners. While documents from The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicate that the impact of a Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph, possibly crashing into the 80th floor, was analyzed during the design of the WTC towers in February/March 1964, the effect of the subsequent fires was not considered. Building codes do not require building designs to consider aircraft impact.
Buildings are not designed for fire protection and evacuation under the magnitude and scale of conditions similar to those caused by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The load conditions induced by aircraft impacts and the extensive fires on September 11, 2001, which triggered the collapse of the WTC towers, fall outside the norm of design loads considered in building codes.
Prior evacuation and emergency response experience in major events did not include the total collapse of tall buildings such as the WTC Towers and WTC 7 that were occupied and i n everyday use; instead, that experience suggests that major tall building fires result in burnout conditions, not overall building collapse.
banie01 wrote: » So? The Towers were never designed to withstand an impact of any aircraft at cruise speed! The were designed to take the impact of a lost plane on a runway approach... What part of that needs to be explained any further to you? No high rise building could feasibly expect to withstand an impact from a 110tons at 600mph! Why does this need to be repeatedly explained to you?
Dohnjoe wrote: » For everyone else wondering where these telltale specific (23,000 gallons) figures are coming from, this is the likely sourcehttps://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/360-faq-2-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-withstand-the-impact-of-the-airplanes
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » It smaller by six feet, has the same fuel load as 767 and 770 travels faster than 767 at cruise speed. They assumed the 770 would hit it at 600mph an hour with 23,000 galloons of fuel. I already admitted that mistake in a post. I was mistaken it was larger plane than 767 in a post.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » https://www.infoplease.com/passenger-planes-boeing-707 cruise speed is 600mph an hour.
banie01 wrote: » Just stop, please! Don't try and lay blame on the man you selectively quote for a mistake you perpetuate. The 707 is a 1950s design. It entered service in @1958. When the Towers were building the 747 was already in Service as the largest aircraft in civilian use and the DC10, the Lockheed Tristar were all in service. That he claimed a 707 as the largest aircraft and you repeated it as a fact is disingenuous in the extreme.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » True, I looked it up he was talking about the plane being the largest when the building was constructed. The interview was in early 2001 so i thought he meant then. The guy went missing on 9/11 says on top of the page on the video. Probably died that day. 707 was a faster plane with comparable fuel load 23,000 galloons. They probably assumed it hit at cruise speed would be about 600mph for 707.
Overheal wrote: » I believe I asked you to stop posting in bad faith: please stop posting in bad faith. You, I, every other contributor, and reader, can see how you tried to push off his opinion as a fact - an alternative fact at that.
banie01 wrote: » It's also worth remembering the single plane scenario they were designed for was a low speed flaps deployed impact of a "lost" plane on a landing approach. There a world of difference between a nose high attitude jetliner impacting a Tower than there is with a jetliner of any type, hitting a Tower with the throttles firewalled at 490mph+ The energy involved in the 2nd scenario is exponentially higher.
banie01 wrote: » Cheerful, why do you constantly lie? The 707 is not a bigger aircraft. The energy potential of any impact is based on the weight and speed of the aircraft on impact. The 707 is a 1st generation narrow body airliner, that albeit 4 engined is a narrow body aircraft. With a significantly lower fuel capacity, Lower empty and take off weights and lower Passenger capacity. The 767 is a significantly larger aircraft. The whole impact calculation is predicated on weight and speed. Also as has been explained to you previously in detail, the Towers were never designed to cope with the impact loads or resultant damage of a high speed deliberate impact.
Overheal wrote: » You posted deliberately misleading information. You presented it as a fact that the towers were designed to withstand 3 simultaneous airliner strikes. The reality is that was merely the belief of one person; the buildings were only designed for a single plane scenario at most.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » It's he believe it can withstand multiple plane impacts at the same time. He would have said only one impact- yet he said multiple means over one. Yes, but he was on site construction manager. It's his claim not mine. You asking me to ignore his opinion why?
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » It's true they designed it to withstand two or three commercial airliners hitting at the same time. This is what the designers of the building said on video.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » . 707 was a bigger plane than the one that crashed on 9/11.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Only one plane crashed at each tower. He claims 707 jet would do nothing and explains why. 707 was a bigger plane than the one that crashed on 9/11. He said he believes multiple plane impacts would also have no effect. Posted no lies, i just posted what guy claimed would have happened.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » So not what you claimed at all? How are people supposed to take your claims seriously when you continue to post lies, half truths and put your own spin on what they actually say?
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
“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
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Can you please post a CREDIBLE source for this claim please?
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » It's true they designed it to withstand two or three commercial airliners hitting at the same time. This is what the designers of the building said on video. The claim is fires brought it down not the planes. NIST got around this by claiming that the fireproofing was knocked off at the steel core. One building came down in 45 minutes, impossible with fireproofing that holds for three hours. That theory unprovable because the fireproofing would have just disappeared during the collapse and when in the rubble burning away. So NIST saw fireproofing was missing from steel so they used it to make the claim the plane knocked off the fireproofing allowing to burn hotter.
