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)

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,705 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    uprising2 wrote: »
    it's impossible as far as I'm concerned.
    And your qualifications sir?


  • #33
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Victor wrote: »
    And your qualifications sir?

    I left school at 15, 3 business's, phd in life, masters in common sense, thinking of going back to do my junior cert.

    Are you actually saying you don't have a problem with the centre core collapsing/disintigrating?.
    I'm amazed, to what standard are engineer's taught?, is it part and parcel of the qualification not to question major failing's?, the very people who should have a problem with this fairytale are the very one's either turning a blind eye or don't understand the things they should.


  • #34
    C.D.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 670 ✭✭✭C.D.


    uprising2 wrote: »
    I left school at 15, 3 business's, phd in life, masters in common sense, thinking of going back to do my junior cert.

    Are you actually saying you don't have a problem with the centre core collapsing/disintigrating?.
    I'm amazed, to what standard are engineer's taught?, is it part and parcel of the qualification not to question major failing's?, the very people who should have a problem with this fairytale are the very one's either turning a blind eye or don't understand the things they should.

    I have been reading this with interest- I strongly believe that the a inquisitive mind willing to challenge the status quo and conventional thinking, combined with critical analysis skills are the bedrock upon which Engineering is built.

    I don't dispute there that appears to be some ambiguity about what it was that caused the collapse of the two towers. However, I often find that conspiracy theorists do not possess the above traits and when presented with information that conflicts with their desire to see a conspiracy theory in everything, instead of evaluating the information critically, they dismiss it, pouring scorn over those who supplied the information by questioning their 1) education 2) affiliation (i.e. they have vested interests aligned with the perpetrators of the conspiracy).

    I am seeing this right now- somebody with no formal Engineering qualification, no professional qualification and no academic qualification comes on here asking for the opinions of Engineers. When said Engineers present opinions that differ from your own you start to question to what standard they are educated. I will say this for us all: Those of us who are Engineers here are most certainly taught and educated to a much higher standard than you. If anybody should be questioning their own failings, personal or otherwise, I believe it should be you.

    The lack of respect shown by you and the public in general to Engineers is a pet hate and stems from the fact that the guy who comes to connect my washing machine to the water mains is, as one poster here put it an "Edgineer hurhur".

    As an FYI, I am educated to degree level and work in Biomedical Engineering. So while I do not have the expertise a Structural Engineer might have in these matters, our skillsets in terms of thinking, evaluation and understanding of mechanical concepts would be very similar.


  • #35
    Pembily
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,404 ✭✭✭✭Pembily


    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.

    My father and grandfather (both engineers - grandfather was part of the team who safely demolished Nelson's Pillar) had this discussion. The way they expalined it to me (also an engineer) was that it the Twin Towers had a steel support down the middle, surrounded by concrete and off this there were metal supports on which each floor was built - this metal core would have been protected by the concrete under normal heating but avaition fluid heats higher and as the plains were fairly full with fluid the core melted quickly causing the floors to collapse in a compact downwards action!!!

    There is a thing called self weight - this would have caused the force you say didn't exist from the towers!!!!!!!

    mawk wrote: »
    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..

    Exactly - perfectly explained and it is first, second, third and fourth year materials in Mech Eng!!!

    uprising2 wrote: »
    I left school at 15, 3 business's, phd in life, masters in common sense, thinking of going back to do my junior cert.

    We all have phd's in life - build a bridge and get over it!!!
    uprising2 wrote: »
    Are you actually saying you don't have a problem with the centre core collapsing/disintigrating?.

    Will be shot down for this but any way as you have no formal education in this specific area what makes you so qualified to say the core collapsing
    was not perfectly natural under those specific conditions???
    uprising2 wrote: »
    I'm amazed, to what standard are engineer's taught?, is it part and parcel of the qualification not to question major failing's?, the very people who should have a problem with this fairytale are the very one's either turning a blind eye or don't understand the things they should.

    I am amazed how an non engineer is quesitoning what many qualified engineers have said on this thread ALONE - it wasn't conspiracy - the building failed cos of the exteme conditions it was put under and as already stated - no engineer would have designed that building to be protected against a plain of that size or a fire of the heat and extent!!!!!


  • #36
    Ciaran500
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,225 ✭✭✭Ciaran500


    uprising2 wrote: »
    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.
    You should know this. The towers were designed to take a strike from a slow flying plane lost in fog, just like the Empire State building crash. They were never designed to have an airliner hit and at high speed.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Pembily
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,404 ✭✭✭✭Pembily


    Ciaran500 wrote: »
    You should know this. The towers were designed to take a strike from a slow flying plane lost in fog, just like the Empire State building crash. They were never designed to have an airliner hit and at high speed.

    Exactly - you are dealing with American arrogance - their thoughts are no one would ever attack the Twin Towers!!!


  • #38
    C.D.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 670 ✭✭✭C.D.


    Ciaran500 wrote: »
    You should know this. The towers were designed to take a strike from a slow flying plane lost in fog, just like the Empire State building crash. They were never designed to have an airliner hit and at high speed.

    While I don't know the mindset of the designers of the Towers, this is commonplace practice in Engineering. For mainstream application (i.e. not military, NASA etc.) you design for 99.9% of the possible events that could put your structure/machine/device at risk. Designing for the other 0.1% is generally not economically feasible due to the small chance of it happening and the significant work and cost involved in trying to accommodate that risk.

    It is safe to say that having to design a skyscraper to survive the impact of an airliner, the added weight and the resulting fire would result in a significantly different structure and I do not think anyone could really fault those who designed the towers many decades ago for not building a skyscraper to survive this. I think any Engineer here would be able to appreciate how considerable the forces involved in an airliner crashing are considering their speed and mass.


  • #39
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,591 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    As a semi-regular on the Conspiracy Theories forum, I've written about this topic before. But I'll quickly give my reasons for believing the official story. To clarify, I am a Building Surveyor. Part of my course was Structural Design and Detailing. As part of my job, I regularly design steel beams and columns etc, albeit on a much smaller scale. But just applying the principles of structural design will be used to demonstrate my points.

    Firstly, the building did not collapse as a result of the fire. It collapsed as a result of fire, and the fact that it was hit by a plane. Skyscrapers are designed to withstand the impact of a plane, but that is taking into consideration that the impact of a plane would be accidental and the plane would be attempting to slow down and divert. These planes were flown at full force into these buildings.

    Structural steel members are designed to withstand fires for a certain period in order to allow the safe evacuation of the building and to try to allow the firemen to extinguish the fire before the structural integrity of the building is compromised to prevent the building collapsing. To give the required fireproofing to the steel, different methods can be used. The problem is, due to the impact of the planes, it is highly likely that a lot of the fireproofing (for example, the steel being cased in concrete) would have been compromised and the steel exposed to the fire.

    With the amount of structural steel which would be required for this type of building, each member is dependant on the other members around it. Removing one places additional loading on the others, and also causes the forces acting upon those members to change (eg. a column with additional loading and with support at the top removed may start to be pushed outwards, pulling other members with it).

    So with a number of the steel members being displaced by the impact of the plane, and more members with reduced fire-proofing being weakened by the fires, it is entirely plausible that the top section above the impact zones would collapse down onto the rest of the building.

    As far as resistance of the lower floors goes, I ask you this.... How much do you think 25 floors of a skyscraper weighs? The building is designed to carry this load, but not when the load is collapsing onto it. For example, I can carry a bag of coal. But if someone drops a bag of coal on me, either it or me is ending up on the floor. And I don't agree that there was 'no' resistance. With the amount of debris and dust, it cannot be said for definite that there was no resistance. That building did not fall at 'free-fall' speed. I'm sorry, but it didn't. But remember that with every floor which collapsed, the weight falling onto the floor below increases, and more members of the structure are being displaced or removed, so less resistance is possible.

    As for WTC7, the building was not only hit by falling debris from the other towers, but also vibrational energy from the impact of 2 skyscrapers falling nearby. Then with the fires which started in that building, as I said, steel is designed to withstand fire for a certain amount of time, but the fires in WTC7 were allowed to continue burning as the building had already been evacuated, and they wanted to focus efforts elsewhere. The building collapsed after 5 o'clock, about 7 hours after the collapse of the first tower, and had been pretty much burning continuously. With the damage caused by the falling debris, and the way the building was designed, the building collapsed. It can be seen from videos that a 'kink' appeared in the roof just before it collapsed. This would have been caused by the steel under it collapsing first. This indicates that the internal structure collapsed before the external structure, which would also have lessened the so-called 'resistance'

    Also, the logistics of wiring up the buildings for a controlled demolition, whether it be explosives or nano-thermites or whatever, is next to impossible. The work to bring 3 building down by controlled demolition could not have been undertaken without being noticed is just plain illogical.

    Anyway, like I said, I'm not a full structural engineer or anything, just know the basics of structural design. But from the knowledge I have, I believe it is entirely plausible that the buildings were taken down in accordance with the official reports.


  • #40
    C.D.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 670 ✭✭✭C.D.


    uprising2 wrote:
    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.

    Saying that because there were B52's (or planes of that size) in service meant that the Towers should have been built to survive impact by them is like saying that because there are M1 Abrams tanks (weight of >60t) in service in the US means that all US cars should be designed to survive crushing from tanks of similar size to M1's.

    In the 1960's and even today, airliners crashing into skyscraper is extremely rare, more so than I'd say M1 tanks crushing cars. It is quite simply a non-argument and defies logic that anybody would use such absurd reasoning to arrive at such a conclusion.

    Of course skyscrapers design should factor in the likelihood of a plane crashing into it. But that is exactly it, you analyse the probability of events/failure modes and design for the ones that exceed predefined risk threshold. As paddyirishman85 has mentioned, planes of that size flown at full speed crashing into a tower is an extremely rare event.


  • #41
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    C.D. wrote: »
    I have been reading this with interest- I strongly believe that the a inquisitive mind willing to challenge the status quo and conventional thinking, combined with critical analysis skills are the bedrock upon which Engineering is built.

    I don't dispute there that appears to be some ambiguity about what it was that caused the collapse of the two towers. However, I often find that conspiracy theorists do not possess the above traits and when presented with information that conflicts with their desire to see a conspiracy theory in everything, instead of evaluating the information critically, they dismiss it, pouring scorn over those who supplied the information by questioning their 1) education 2) affiliation (i.e. they have vested interests aligned with the perpetrators of the conspiracy).

    I am seeing this right now- somebody with no formal Engineering qualification, no professional qualification and no academic qualification comes on here asking for the opinions of Engineers. When said Engineers present opinions that differ from your own you start to question to what standard they are educated. I will say this for us all: Those of us who are Engineers here are most certainly taught and educated to a much higher standard than you. If anybody should be questioning their own failings, personal or otherwise, I believe it should be you.

    The lack of respect shown by you and the public in general to Engineers is a pet hate and stems from the fact that the guy who comes to connect my washing machine to the water mains is, as one poster here put it an "Edgineer hurhur".

    As an FYI, I am educated to degree level and work in Biomedical Engineering. So while I do not have the expertise a Structural Engineer might have in these matters, our skillsets in terms of thinking, evaluation and understanding of mechanical concepts would be very similar.

    Great post, but it doesn't explain how anything collapsed, I may not have your education but I most probably have a higher IQ.
    I don't have a lack of respect for engineer's but I have looked into how they supposedly collapsed and it just doesn't fit, its a story straight from hans christian anderson.
    Some architects and engineer's are also saying what I'm saying and putting their careers and reputation's on the line in doing so.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    aleybert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭aleybert


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Great post, but it doesn't explain how anything collapsed, I may not have your education but I most probably have a higher IQ.
    QUOTE]

    Brilliant! Gullible AND thick as a plank! :D


  • #43
    C.D.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 670 ✭✭✭C.D.


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Great post, but it doesn't explain how anything collapsed, I may not have your education but I most probably have a higher IQ.
    I don't have a lack of respect for engineer's but I have looked into how they supposedly collapsed and it just doesn't fit, its a story straight from hans christian anderson.
    Some architects and engineer's are also saying what I'm saying and putting their careers and reputation's on the line in doing so.

    My post does not purport to explain how they collapsed. As I said I am not a structural engineer, my post concerned you, your posting style and your attitude to members of this forum who have made some great and informative posts on this issue.

    While I believe that it was an act of terrorism, I am willing to listen to the arguments of the other side and make an objective decision- something you are not willing to do.

    And do not flatter yourself. Not only do your posts lack clear logic, rational thinking or any evidence of objectivity (let alone intelligence), but you resort to personal insults on your hypothesis that you have a higher IQ than me. Not only do you have no way of proving this, but IQ has been consistently shown to be a poor measure of intelligence. Indeed you might "have looked into" the matter, but mainstream "DIY Engineering" websites will not give you the deep appreciation of Engineering fundamentals that eduction or experience will.


  • #44
    aleybert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭aleybert


    Hang on, whats this thread doing in this forum.
    Shouldn't it be with the UFO and Bigfoot forums?


  • #45
    C.D.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 670 ✭✭✭C.D.


    aleybert wrote: »
    Hang on, whats this thread doing in this forum.
    Shouldn't it be with the UFO and Bigfoot forums?

    Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Bigfoot died when the plane he was on crashed into the World Trade Centre Towers.


  • #46
    aleybert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭aleybert


    C.D. wrote: »
    Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Bigfoot died when the plane he was on crashed into the World Trade Centre Towers.

    And wasn't it the UFO that caused the crash...:p


  • #47
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Pembily wrote: »
    My father and grandfather (both engineers - grandfather was part of the team who safely demolished Nelson's Pillar) had this discussion. The way they expalined it to me (also an engineer) was that it the Twin Towers had a steel support down the middle, surrounded by concrete and off this there were metal supports on which each floor was built - this metal core would have been protected by the concrete under normal heating but avaition fluid heats higher and as the plains were fairly full with fluid the core melted quickly causing the floors to collapse in a compact downwards action!!!

    There is a thing called self weight - this would have caused the force you say didn't exist from the towers!!!!!!!

    Ok for starters, "Two days after the original damage, Irish Army engineers blew up the rest of the pillar after judging the vestigial structure to be too unsafe to restore. This planned demolition caused more destruction on O'Connell Street than the original blast, breaking many windows."

    The way they explained it to you?, can you not think for yourself?, the core did not melt, the temperature was not hot enough to melt steel, so the core did not melt quickly like you say, are you just repeating what you were told?, because there is a total lack of understanding just there.



    Exactly - perfectly explained and it is first, second, third and fourth year materials in Mech Eng!!!

    Well how come you, after all your years of education can still say the core melted, that it was explained to you, you can't see any problem with the core collapsing, have you no input yourself?

    We all have phd's in life - build a bridge and get over it!!!
    :rolleyes:

    Will be shot down for this but any way as you have no formal education in this specific area what makes you so qualified to say the core collapsing
    was not perfectly natural under those specific conditions???
    No amount of education can give intelligence, the core collapsing was not natural because the specific conditions you believe are false, again I repeat the core DID NOT MELT.


    I am amazed how an non engineer is quesitoning what many qualified engineers have said on this thread ALONE - it wasn't conspiracy - the building failed cos of the exteme conditions it was put under and as already stated - no engineer would have designed that building to be protected against a plain of that size or a fire of the heat and extent!!!!!

    I'm also amazed that a so called engineer cannot even get the basics right to begin with.
    The building was designed to take a plane crash and fire!
    <A shape=rect name=engineers>
    Statements by Engineers

    Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." [SIZE=-1]2 [/SIZE] Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.
    <A shape=rect name=skilling>John Skilling

    John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
    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. [SIZE=-1]3 [/SIZE]
    A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
    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. [SIZE=-1]4 [/SIZE]
    http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html#engineers


  • #48
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Ciaran500 wrote: »
    You should know this. The towers were designed to take a strike from a slow flying plane lost in fog, just like the Empire State building crash. They were never designed to have an airliner hit and at high speed.

    Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.
    <A shape=rect name=engineers>Statements by Engineers

    Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." [SIZE=-1]2 [/SIZE] Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.
    http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html


  • #49
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Pembily wrote: »
    Exactly - you are dealing with American arrogance - their thoughts are no one would ever attack the Twin Towers!!!

    See above!


  • #50
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    C.D. wrote: »
    While I don't know the mindset of the designers of the Towers, this is commonplace practice in Engineering. For mainstream application (i.e. not military, NASA etc.) you design for 99.9% of the possible events that could put your structure/machine/device at risk. Designing for the other 0.1% is generally not economically feasible due to the small chance of it happening and the significant work and cost involved in trying to accommodate that risk.

    It is safe to say that having to design a skyscraper to survive the impact of an airliner, the added weight and the resulting fire would result in a significantly different structure and I do not think anyone could really fault those who designed the towers many decades ago for not building a skyscraper to survive this. I think any Engineer here would be able to appreciate how considerable the forces involved in an airliner crashing are considering their speed and mass.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6H4GaNhTfA


  • #51
    aleybert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭aleybert


    You ARE Jim Corr.:p


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    aleybert wrote: »
    uprising2 wrote: »
    Great post, but it doesn't explain how anything collapsed, I may not have your education but I most probably have a higher IQ.
    QUOTE]

    Brilliant! Gullible AND thick as a plank! :D

    Anything else you'd like to add?, put your theory up and I'll rip you and it to shreds.:D


  • #53
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    aleybert wrote: »
    And wasn't it the UFO that caused the crash...:p
    aleybert wrote: »
    You ARE Jim Corr.:p

    Your a comedian, you made me laugh, now do you have anything with any intelligence to add?, jokes and BS won't make me go away, now please add something so I can put you in your place, because all I have from you so far is stupidity.


  • #54
    aleybert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 44 ✭aleybert


    uprising2 wrote: »
    aleybert wrote: »

    Anything else you'd like to add?, put your theory up and I'll rip you and it to shreds.:D

    Okay, heres my theory. Bear with me cause its a bit "out there".
    Here goes......
    Two big planes hit the WTC and this caused the buildings to collapse.
    Phew, glad I got that out.


  • #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 16,720 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    MOD NOTE:

    As long as the thread stays on the topic of the engineering failure of the building (and buildings in the area) that's grand, but enough of this stuff on 'phd in life' and 'I've a higher IQ' and 'my dad could beat up your dad' (I assume this was also said). Treat everyone else in this forum with civility or there'll be bannings.

    Just as a piece of advice, for those questioning the official reports, please try to make specific mention of where your issues are with them, and try to counter their findings with other reports. It's quite difficult for people to question your findings if all you base it on is a youtube video, and when compared with a report a video presented or voiced by someone often contains some bias. Reports, of course, can be biased too but (in my opinion) it's easier to discuss a report instead of something presented and therefore summed up by someone else.

    Let's try to be professional in our discussions in all this.


  • #56
    C.D.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 670 ✭✭✭C.D.


    uprising2 wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6H4GaNhTfA

    OK fair point, I did not know thgey were designed to survive the impact of 707. That is pretty interesting that they took that into consideration. However, paddyirishman85 made an excellent point and from reading the rest of the literature around, it is immediately apparent that the impact did not cause the collapse- it was the resulting fires, or so the theory goes.

    Paddyirishman85 did point out that the fires did not need to exceed the temperature that the steel was rated for- this is entirely true and is something I studied myself. So it does not take a great leap of imagination to say that an airliner and fires are the 0.1%. As I said I'm not a structural engineer hence why I did not realise that skyscrapers and indeed the WTC are supposed to survive the impact of a 707! I have the uptmost repect for the pre 1980's Engineers- imagine designing such things without the aid of the kind of computational power we take for granted these days!


  • #57
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,591 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    uprising2 wrote: »
    Some architects and engineer's are also saying what I'm saying and putting their careers and reputation's on the line in doing so.

    Also, just as a note, according to 'Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth', they have 1078 professionals who believe the controlled demolition theory.

    While I can't get figures on how many engineers there are in America, according to a census website I found there are over 240,000 registered Architects in America. So while 1078 Architects and Engineers believe the demolition theory, that's less than half a percent, without even adding in the number of engineers, which could also be in the hundreds of thousands. The VAST majority agree with the official reports


  • #58
    Pembily
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,404 ✭✭✭✭Pembily


    I am not even going to comment on what you posted above as I like being a member of boards and will not stoop as low as you!!!

    The planes may have been designed to take the force but not the extent of the fire - the planes were FULL with aviation fluid - that caused the collapse!!!

    Why did you ask the quesiton if you tare each response to shreds, no matter how well backed up with engineering qualifications!!!!

    I am not a fan of conspirary theories - I see numbers and reason and have seen the reasons for the collapse of the TT, and it as paddyirishman said - if it was a planned demolotion someone would have seen it!


  • #59
    uprising2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,627 ✭✭✭uprising2


    Pembily wrote: »
    I am not even going to comment on what you posted above as I like being a member of boards and will not stoop as low as you!!!

    The planes may have been designed to take the force but not the extent of the fire - the planes were FULL with aviation fluid - that caused the collapse!!!

    Why did you ask the quesiton if you tare each response to shreds, no matter how well backed up with engineering qualifications!!!!

    I am not a fan of conspirary theories - I see numbers and reason and have seen the reasons for the collapse of the TT, and it as paddyirishman said - if it was a planned demolotion someone would have seen it!

    There was work carried out in the lift shaft area by a company removing asbestos, AASI and a man by the name Burton T. Fried, who then tried to deny his company were working in the WTC, this work was carried out in the months before September.

    Also there has been super thermite found in dust samples collected from different area,s of NY after 9/11.


  • #60
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,591 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    uprising2 wrote: »
    There was work carried out in the lift shaft area by a company removing asbestos, AASI and a man by the name Burton T. Fried, who then tried to deny his company were working in the WTC, this work was carried out in the months before September.

    Also there has been super thermite found in dust samples collected from different area,s of NY after 9/11.


    Bringing things like superthermites and asbestos removal companies into the discussion does not change the fact that those of us here with experience in this field believe that it is entirely possible that the twin towers should have fallen like the official explanation says they did. Wasn't that the point of this thread in the first place?
    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?.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 16,720 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPQcnjlwtE4

    Thread is just going nowhere at all. If anyone wants to discuss this seriously, professionally, and (perhaps) academically, start another thread. But another conspiracy theory crapfest will be deleted on sight.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement