Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Building Collapse (World Trade Centre)

  • 25-02-2010 07:31PM
    #1
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭


    Hello I hope this is the right forum for this, anyway can I ask you engineer's on here if you think the twin towers should have fell like the official explanation says it did, no impact resistance, 10 floors per second reduced to rubble.
    Is it possible?, or do you think there had to be other "extra's" needed?.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s04VUk_41r8


«1

Comments

  • #2
    REFLINE1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 443 ✭✭REFLINE1


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Hello I hope this is the right forum for this, anyway can I ask you engineer's on here if you think the twin towers should have fell like the official explanation says it did, no impact resistance, 10 floors per second reduced to rubble.
    Is it possible?, or do you think there had to be other "extra's" needed?.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s04VUk_41r8


    Haha Jim Corr is posting on boards Eng forum :D


  • #3
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    REFLINE1 wrote: »
    Haha Jim Corr is posting on boards Eng forum :D


    No its a serious engineering question, architects and engineers are raising questions, so if you have nothing relevent to add don't add anything.


    COPY AND PASTE:

    Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect and a member of the American Institute of Architects. He is the founding member of AE911Truth. He has been a practicing architect for over 20 years and has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings
    http://www.ae911truth.org/aboutus.php


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM


  • #4
    Prenderb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,560 ✭✭✭Prenderb


    NIST (US National Institute of Science and Technology) carried out a review of the collapse...available here.

    To answer your question, my thoughts currently are on the "yes, it could have" side of things. First of all, it did. There were no pictures or videos released showing any "extras." I reckon that once one floor collapsed there were 20 floors or so worth of dead load impacting on the collapsing building, which is a lot of dead load.


  • #5
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Prenderb wrote: »
    NIST (US National Institute of Science and Technology) carried out a review of the collapse...available here.

    That review is a couple of years old, does it mention that thermite has been found in the dust?, does it "really" explain the collapse?.

    The Open Chemical Physics Journal
    http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM


  • #6
    Prenderb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,560 ✭✭✭Prenderb


    Material submitted by members of the public was tested according to that article/paper, and the material apparently exhibited properties (fairly closely are words used in the article) matching properties of thermite.

    Same paper describes this dust as containing iron, aluminium, silicon, carbon and oxygen. All those elements are abundant in the environment we all live in, let alone in a 110 storey-building which, in its being impacted at high speed by a plane with some kerosene in it, the building itself being set on fire and subsequent collapsing, might have imparted huge levels of energy (kinetic and electromagnetic) into those elements causing them to react and form these particles.

    If it was thermite, would it not have been used up in the chemical reaction that it would have been used for?


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    PRESS CONFERENCE 19th February 2010, please look at the video's.
    Are you an engineer?, what level and experience do you have, what do you specialise in?.
    I'm here looking for an engineer's conclusion, not to get into a meaningless game of some sort, I don't want links to this or that report, I'm looking for personal theories, understanding and logic, or more to the point in your personal opinion are these people talking rubbish?, if so, why.

    Here's a press conferance from lastweek, if it was all sorted and explained I doub't these people would still be going on about it.



  • #8
    Prenderb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,560 ✭✭✭Prenderb


    uprising2 wrote: »
    I'm here looking for an engineer's conclusion

    I think you have your conclusion to be honest. I've offered you my opinion, as you requested. FWIW I have a relevant background, but I won't be able to give you what you wanted - you seem to have plenty of links and videos of people who want to challenge the "establishment" point of view. I'm fairly sure from your response to my NIST link that you won't accept any of my links or views!


  • #9
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Prenderb wrote: »
    I think you have your conclusion to be honest. I've offered you my opinion, as you requested. FWIW I have a relevant background, but I won't be able to give you what you wanted - you seem to have plenty of links and videos of people who want to challenge the "establishment" point of view. I'm fairly sure from your response to my NIST link that you won't accept any of my links or views!

    I have got my conclusion, I've looked at the evidence and footage and double checked everything before coming to this conclusion.
    Thank you for your reply, but do you honestly believe this is possible from 2 planes?, wouldn't high winds put much more strain on the building, why was there no resistance as each floor hit the one below?. It simply doesn't make sense and I came here to see if it can easily be explained by somebody with experience in this field of work.

    911wtc6craterwestair.jpg


  • #10
    civdef
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,058 ✭✭✭civdef


    The search function will probably show hundreds of occasions this has been discussed over the last few years, including a number of times on the engineering section.


  • #11
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,138 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    Since you already know about http://www.ae911truth.org/ , what would you expect us to add here on an Irish forum?

    You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.

    ―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray



  • Advertisement
  • #12
    OSiriS
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,657 ✭✭✭OSiriS


    I believe this is a more fitting place for your post. This matter has been discussed to death, and conspiracy theorists are always able to come out with these so-called "experts" to corroborate their beliefs. Judging by your posts, you seem to be fishing for an engineer to agree with you, rather than actually looking for an opinion.


  • #13
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    bnt wrote: »
    Since you already know about http://www.ae911truth.org/ , what would you expect us to add here on an Irish forum?

    Some basic knowledge of collapse for starters, a viable explanation of how it was possible that it did simply collapse and nothing else was needed (explosives, thermite, etc), or somebody to say it's a lie how they say it happened because of X, Y or Z, just basically some for and against debate, I don't want to drag it into Conspiracy theorie, just stick to the actual science behind the collapse and if its possible that it could collapse at freefall speed, and keep collaping all the way down on its steel and concrete structure far beyond the impact area's and as the top section of one of the towers actually toppled over so there wasn't as much impact force from that tower.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXh5u62oJCU


  • #14
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    OSiriS wrote: »
    I believe this is a more fitting place for your post. This matter has been discussed to death, and conspiracy theorists are always able to come out with these so-called "experts" to corroborate their beliefs. Judging by your posts, you seem to be fishing for an engineer to agree with you, rather than actually looking for an opinion.

    No that link is not where my post should be, I'm looking for an engineer's opinion.
    Seem's like a few of you here made up your minds or simply accepted the official report without question, I'm only focusing on one event and the engineering failures of the building that I just don't buy, or building 7 for that matter, I would just like the opinion of a qualified/experienced engineer and discuss how such failings could have occured, because there hasn't been a full every avenue exhausted investigation, and defies intelligence, inderstanding and reason, how they supposedly came down.
    Again I don't want to discuss any conspiracy just the engineering science behind the collapse.


  • #15
    civdef
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,058 ✭✭✭civdef


    I'm a fire engineer. I agree with the NIST findings. I can't think of a single competent professional in my field who doesn't.

    Happy?


  • #16
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    civdef wrote: »
    I'm a fire engineer. I agree with the NIST findings. I can't think of a single competent professional in my field who doesn't.

    Happy?

    So the fire brought down the buildings at free fall speed?, why was there no resistance as one floor slammed into the next?, surely if you accept the NIST findings you'll have a reasonable explanation why there was no resistance delay, surely each of the floors should have had some resistance and slowed down the collapse, and wouldn't it have been much easier for the top above the "melted steel" to flop over rather than fall directly down, and how do you explain the force that threw debris up and out as the collapse was occuring.

    This picture shows the top above the fire as it collapses, its clearly falling to one side.
    wtc2collapse.jpg


  • #17
    mawk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭mawk


    2 feet of rebarred concrete floor wouldnt put up an awful lot of resistance when faced with a few petajoules of potential&kinetic energy on it. the fall starts slowly and builds to near free fall speed because each floor that fails added god knows how many extra tonnes to the weight hitting the floor below

    any tall building is designed to fail safely in a catastrophic event. it would be beyond stupid to have tall buildings in a city that could easily fall sideways. Structural engineers are not children building towers from lego.


  • #18
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    mawk wrote: »
    2 feet of rebarred concrete floor wouldnt put up an awful lot of resistance when faced with a few petajoules of potential&kinetic energy on it. the fall starts slowly and builds to near free fall speed because each floor that fails added god knows how many extra tonnes to the weight hitting the floor below

    any tall building is designed to fail safely in a catastrophic event. it would be beyond stupid to have tall buildings in a city that could easily fall sideways. Structural engineers are not children building towers from lego.

    If you bothered to read the thread or look at the video's you would see that qualified architects and engineers are raising these questions and implying that the building shouldn't have collapsed like that, if your equally qualified or higher qualified than these people please put your case forward, if your just giving your random thoughts on how you believe it should be, don't bother, I posted this in engineering for a reason.

    "The fall starts slowly", does it really?.....


  • #19
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,138 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Some basic knowledge of collapse for starters, a viable explanation of how it was possible that it did simply collapse and nothing else was needed (explosives, thermite, etc), or somebody to say it's a lie how they say it happened because of X, Y or Z, just basically some for and against debate, I don't want to drag it into Conspiracy theorie, just stick to the actual science behind the collapse and if its possible that it could collapse at freefall speed, and keep collaping all the way down on its steel and concrete structure far beyond the impact area's and as the top section of one of the towers actually toppled over so there wasn't as much impact force from that tower.
    So, are you saying that you can't get all that from the AE911 site, and have to come here for that? Quitethe vote of confidence in those architects and engineers, eh?
    uprising2 wrote: »
    No that link is not where my post should be, I'm looking for an engineer's opinion.
    Seem's like a few of you here made up your minds or simply accepted the official report without question
    ...
    Again I don't want to discuss any conspiracy just the engineering science behind the collapse.
    Or maybe some of us are aware that a thorough, detailed explanation of the event would consume time that we just don't have? Or maybe we are aware that whatever we say will be met with an argument, which would require us to spend inordinate amounts of time on arguing with you, and for what? Who benefits? Or maybe some of us have moved on, and struggle to see any lasting, global, relevant significance in the events of September 11, 2001 CE. For example, what about the shoddy building standards in Haiti that killed approx. 200,000 people on 12 January? Wouldn't you call that a greater crime against humanity?

    You accuse us of "accepting the official report without question", yet you say you're not looking for a conspiracy theory? Well, I do have questions about the official report, but I'm not going say a word in public until I have thoroughly investigated them. I'm quite prepared for the possibility I'm completely barking up the wrong skyscraper tree, because I don't know enough detail and don't have the time to go in to it. Better to be quiet and thought a fool, than to open my mouth and confirm it. It remains an academic exercise that will have to wait for time and energy on my part, something that might never happen for me.

    You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.

    ―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray



  • #20
    mawk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭mawk


    uprising2 wrote: »
    "The fall starts slowly", does it really?.....

    yes. It does. Now i may only be a qualified engineer whereas you have read some websites that are more exciting than text books; but my own humble opinion, the speed of stationary.. Is something I would call slow.


  • #21
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    mawk wrote: »
    yes. It does. Now i may only be a qualified engineer whereas you have read some websites that are more exciting than text books; but my own humble opinion, the speed of stationary.. Is something I would call slow.

    If its stationary it obviously hasn't started yet, has it, so we'll start again.
    Take a look at this and just open your mind for a minute and ask is this possible.





  • Advertisement
  • #22
    dan_d
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,819 ✭✭✭dan_d


    Okay. I'm probably going to be wasting my time here, but anyway.

    Start with the fact that the building was designed at a time when a plane that size, let alone with that fuel load was not heard of. The buildings were designed to withstand a plane hitting it.....but not that size of plane. Taking into account the impact and the heat from the explosions.....these things may not have been built into the original calcs at the magnitude they occurred at.

    Following that we have no real idea of what sequence events occurred at at high level in those towers. One of your links (which I might point out, is still disturbing to look at) suggests explosions concealed by the falling debris. What if the "explosions" forcing debris out the windows was just the floors internally in the building collapsing on top of each other "sandwich like" and forcing both the contents of the floors and some structural elements out the windows? (Similar to putting powder on one of your palms, then clapping your hands together....a puff of powder would come out around your hands). I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Would you have preferred that they fell sideways? And if not, exactly what are you proposing? That someone somewhere knew this was going to happen on that days and somehow orchestrated the collapse of the towers from inside....assuming the friggin great jumbo jet didn't do the job??

    I appreciate that you're simply looking for conclusions from a technical point of view...work away. But maybe a large number of the people here have simply moved on - it's 9 years later now and well, to be honest, apparently there are plenty of other people out there researching what happened. Are you an engineer???(and for your information I am....a civil and structural engineer). I suspect that we may pose all the theories out there to you, but unless they tie in with whatever your theories are, you'll reject them. What exactly are your theories?


  • #23
    Prenderb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,560 ✭✭✭Prenderb


    dan_d wrote: »
    Okay. I'm probably going to be wasting my time here, but anyway.

    Yeah, I decided that earlier. Then I read this, and this, so now I'm not so sure. :rolleyes:

    OP, you've made it plain (to me)that you're not going to entertain any of the engineers (including my own) responses to your questions. Why did you ask them? We've tried to be reasonable with you, and have responded in a somewhat interested and positive way to your original post, but you're having none of it, and instead of engaging with our opinions you just post more video evidence! I'm surprised this thread hasn't been moderated yet.


  • #24
    sprinkles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,510 ✭✭✭sprinkles


    Okedoke. This has been done to death and as with any credible conspiracy theory there are going to be "experts" who can claim that things should have happened in one way or another. (and when I say credible I do not mean I believe in the conspiracy theories, just that they do raise some valid questions).

    In my honest professional opinion (I am a structural engineer who has worked on the design of tall buildings - although not to this scale) it is a big coincidence that both buildings fell vertically within a very small footprint and in hindsight it was a damn lucky coincidence too! Designing the buildings for such a collapse scenario would have been extremely difficult. Given the height of the buildings even the wind could have resulted in the buildings listing to one side when in free fall, not to mention the overhanging weight of the top floors. That said however the buildings did collapse in a small footprint. It is very possible that the dead load above the impact zone coupled with the structural failure at the floors hit led to the progressive collapse without the need for any external influences.

    Now if you are looking for someone here, with no intimate knowledge of the design or the resulting investigations to make a call on whether or not it was an inside job so to speak then you are wasting your time. The most anyone can say with any degree of certainty is that the 2 towers were hit with 2 planes and both suffered extensive structural damage which led to their collapse. There are unanswered questions for sure, but none we are likely to ever get answers to.


  • #25
    mawk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,738 ✭✭✭mawk


    uprising2 wrote: »
    If its stationary it obviously hasn't started yet, has it, so we'll start again.
    Take a look at this and just open your mind for a minute and ask is this possible.

    I happened to be over there when it happened, so while I didnt happen to be there to see them fall irl, I did see the aftermath and every possible video during the media bombardment. So embedding a youtube clip is not going to make me change my mind.

    As to whether i think it could have been possible. Yes I do. Have you ever seen a load extension diagram for a steel member? You put force on it and it deforms elastically put more and it eventually reaches it's elastic limit. The point at which any more deformation becomes perminant. The vast majority of the members strength lies in its elastic limit. Once the for exceeds this point the very quickly deforms and as it deforms it loses its ability to support it's load. The bar will then break at a force considerably below its original safe threshold. The heat from the fire is not enough to directly melt the steel but its enough to rob some of the ultimate tensile limit which causes the building to go from standing to falling very quickly.
    Imagine stretching some chewing gum, the more you have already stretched it, the less you have to pull to stretch it even more. Metal works the same.
    First year materials..

    Yes its very handy the fell in their own footprints, whether by design OR luck. I dont know which for any certainty.


  • #26
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    dan_d wrote: »
    Start with the fact that the building was designed at a time when a plane that size, let alone with that fuel load was not heard of ?

    So there was no aircraft larger than a boeing 757 in 1964?, when was the B52 brought into service?. The production of the B52 had actually finished when the plans for the WTC were being drawn.

    sprinkles wrote: »
    There are unanswered questions for sure, but none we are likely to ever get answers to.

    Thanks.

    While I'm on the WTC subject, do the theories of how the 2 towers fell also extend to WTC7, does any engineer not have a problem with how this building fell?.

    Personally I can't accept these fairytales being spread by the "official" report.


  • #27
    Krieg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,378 ✭✭✭Krieg


    If I say "I don't believe the report",
    Will you go away?


  • #28
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Krieg wrote: »
    If I say "I don't believe the report",
    Will you go away?

    That would be easier than actually thinking I suppose, seriously does nobody here find it a bit "wrong" what happened or is it easier to deny things that make you feel uncomfortable.

    fig3.gif


    fig5.gif


    floor.jpg


    site1099copy.jpg


    WTC%20-%20floor%20truss.jpg

    I find it unbelievable that nobody HERE finds it suspicious that these two buildings fell like they did.

    How did the centre core disintegrate, seriously, look at the pictures and ask yourself "Is this possible?", if anybody who has or seeks a career in engineering doesn't find this suspicious, well I don't know what to say to be honest. I'm amazed and speechless.


  • #29
    3DataModem
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,169 ✭✭✭3DataModem


    uprising2 wrote: »
    I'm amazed and speechless.

    please god let this be true




    On another note, a b25 actually did hit the empire state building in 1945.


  • #30
    argosy2006
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,210 ✭✭✭argosy2006


    Building 7 is the real mystery .. it just fell, nothing hit it, :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Here's an animation, how any engineer cannot question how the centre core collapsed is beyond me, WTC 7 is a story all of it's own, but even ignoring that, I cannot see how anybody can explain away how the 2 towers collapsed, the floor falling on floor is one thing, but how on earth did the inner core collapse on itself simultaniously, it's impossible as far as I'm concerned.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement