|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 25, 2007 7:55:52 GMT -4
How on Earth can you say that NIST had some damn reason to ignore floor levels in buildings in which they were given the objective of determining
The how word being the one they totally ignored and the why being the bit they screwed up three times.
For me to continue to argue that the Machinery floors could withstand overloading would imply that I believe that they should have been in the way of a falling mass. I don't, I'm also pretty dusty with a calculator but I reckon my Daughter could work it out if she had access to the data, we don't. All I comment on is the misrepresentation of the construction of the towers, the cores were fragile little staircases for years and the perimeter walls were just hanging in the breeze relying on some dodgy not to be heated trusses to stop them flying around Manhattan. That IMO is what we were led to believe. There is another theory which doesn't have to present the towers as a disaster waiting to happen, it takes into consideration the actual design, the design that foresaw the impact of a large Boeing aircraft that planned for in it's construction damage by fire.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jul 25, 2007 9:23:06 GMT -4
My understanding of the design parameters of the towers was that they should be capable of withstanding a glancing blow from a low speed aircraft that had strayed from its correct take-off/landing path. Like the glancing blow suffered by the Empire State Building many moons ago.
That is a substantially different proposition to withstanding a head-on highspeed collision with an aircraft full of both fuel and passengers.
By way of analogy, try driving your car into a tree.
A glancing blow at 20mph will likely leave you a little shaken up, whilst your car still runs but has a dented wing and broken headlight cluster. The tree will survive that pretty well too.
A head-on collision at 40mph will likely leave you with little left of your front end, a lengthy stay in hospital (or a funeral bill for your family) and in all probability a tree in urgent need of attention or felling.
Same basic principle, totally different result.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 25, 2007 16:57:20 GMT -4
In other words you haven't got a clue how to show that the towers should have reacted in the way you claim they should and are just guessing.
9 months is record time? The clean up finished on the 30th May, 2002.
Ad Hominen attack
lol. You obviously have zero knowledge of how Dr Greening is viewed by the JREF regulars. He posts under Apollo 20 there, try going and reading a few of his posts and see how people react to him. Many have him on ignore and others think he is doing nothing but trolling. I don't have him on ignore because every now and then he gets rid of the texas sized chip on his shoulder and actually posts something worthy of noting.
And yet you trail along after Dr Steven "handwaving" Jones?
Sinced you have admited that you are merely guessing that the towers should have fallen as you think they should, and since you can't show in any way that you are right and that NIST was wrong, other then waving your hands and using "If I ran the Zoo" arguments, I can't see the point in continuing to go around in circles. Wake me up if you have something new to add because till then all you have is your unsupported layman's opinion and that's worth less that the chewing gum stuck on the pavement.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 26, 2007 8:15:51 GMT -4
My understanding of the design parameters of the towers was that they should be capable of withstanding a glancing blow from a low speed aircraft that had strayed from its correct take-off/landing path. Like the glancing blow suffered by the Empire State Building many moons ago. That is a substantially different proposition to withstanding a head-on highspeed collision with an aircraft full of both fuel and passengers. By way of analogy, try driving your car into a tree. A glancing blow at 20mph will likely leave you a little shaken up, whilst your car still runs but has a dented wing and broken headlight cluster. The tree will survive that pretty well too. A head-on collision at 40mph will likely leave you with little left of your front end, a lengthy stay in hospital (or a funeral bill for your family) and in all probability a tree in urgent need of attention or felling. Same basic principle, totally different result. I don't think I've ever heard of the glancing blow thing. From what I understand they were designed to to withstand the accidental impact of a B707 or DC8 at speeds up to 600 mph. Because of the exterior walls and the way they were designed.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 26, 2007 8:26:57 GMT -4
;D
Sleep tight and don't let common sense bight.
I don't know why I typed bight instead of bite. Strange.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 26, 2007 8:53:48 GMT -4
I don't think I've ever heard of the glancing blow thing. From what I understand they were designed to to withstand the accidental impact of a B707 or DC8 at speeds up to 600 mph. Your source must be looking up something different. Did you look at this first?The relevant paragraph is the 13th one down. Here's a excerpt: (my emphasis): "Seeking to land". When you're seeking to land, you're going a lot slower than 600 mph.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 26, 2007 8:55:42 GMT -4
;D Sleep tight and don't let common sense bight. I don't know why I typed bight instead of bite. Strange. Common sense is no substitute for mathematics and engineering. The mentality that is otherwise is a blight in the CT world. ;D
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 26, 2007 9:09:52 GMT -4
"Seeking to land". When you're seeking to land, you're going a lot slower than 600 mph. And don't forget that energy is proportional to velocity squared
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 26, 2007 11:52:21 GMT -4
"Seeking to land". When you're seeking to land, you're going a lot slower than 600 mph. That scenario would also suggest that the plane would also be low on fuel, you don't try and land at an airport that is in heavy fog unless you don't have a choice, particularly if the airport is one with lots of big buildings (aka plane swatters) in the area.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jul 26, 2007 12:23:38 GMT -4
OK then just point out the highlights. I believe the firefighters who died in the WTC collapses saw no signs of an imminent global collapse, because they were CD'ed. You assume that is my "logic" to decide whether or not any building fire is a CD - on the sole basis of whether or not a firefighter died in it without any signs of danger!! Your logic as described above is a bit circular (You believe they didn’t see any signs because it was CD {rather than because reasons I have given), the fact they didn`t see signs is evidence of CD. That aside as I understand it, your reasoning is as follows: 1) FACT - The fire fighters who didn’t hear the evacuation order neither evacuated the building nor made any comments on the radio heard by anyone who survived about seeing signs of an imminent collapse. 2) Thus we can safely assume they didn’t see any signs of impending collapse. 3) Thus the buildings probably (definitely) collapsed due to CD not structural failure. OK with the caveat that since the radios were only working precariously it’s possible one of them did say something but was not heard I agree that 2) probably follows from 1). But it’s your leap from 2) to 3) that bothers me and if I’m not mistaken most of the others here. How do you explain the numerous other fires where buildings collapsed with firemen inside? Also you continue to ignore the inconvenient fact that there is no record of there being any firefighters in the areas where NIST said the collapses initiated (i.e. where the trusses sagged and perimeter columns bowed). The closest fireman was Chief Orio Palmer in a stairwell on the 78th floor of the South Tower. He was at the bottom edge of the fire/impact zone. He said he saw small fires and NIST said the fires there were small. I notice that you have stopped saying his radio call contradicts NIST, is that a tacit admission you were wrong? That their fallen comrades would have ditched the building at the 1st sign of real danger. I didn't say that.. I said that they wouldn't have gone into the buildings if they had been signs of imminent global collapse. They didn't see any such signs, so they all went in. I also said that they did not report any signs of imminent global collapse when they were in the buildings. As far as we can determine, they saw no such signs, so they stayed in the buildings, fighting the fires. Firefighters face "real danger" all the time. It comes with the job. They don't "ditch the building" at the first sign of it. But if they see signs that the whole building is about to come down on them, the order will go out for them to evacuate. You “didn’t say that” but it seems implicit in your theory. What do think would have happened if based on what they saw they though global collapse was a possibility? As already pointed out an order to evacuate was given but not heard due to problems with the radios. As noted above you have to deal with the facts that none of them were in locations where signs of impending collapse could have been seen and that radio communications between firemen in the towers and commanders on the ground was close to zero. The OEM and NYPD Aviation Unit saw signs for WTCs 2 & 1 respectively. Also since apparently no steel frame building had ever collapsed in NYC before and most if not all collapses in the city had been of nonframe or wood frame buildings they might not have been trained to recognize any “signs” the towers might have given IF they had been in the right locations. Funny truthers love to go on about the towers’ load redistribution capacities, And so does everybody else, such as FEMA and NIST. Are you suggesting it's incorrect? I assume you don't. Correct thus it is not unreasonable to assume the buildings would have looked more or less stable and symmetrical as structural elements failed locally till a “hair that broke the camel’s back” point was reached. Are you serious? That's probably the silliest "collapse theory" I've ever heard! "The Hair That Broke The Camel's Back" - by lenbrazil The towers were designed to redistribute loads (if structural damage occurred) better than virtually any other highrise at the time. Sadly, however, nobody ever realized that they were, in fact, designed too efficiently. After the planes hit the towers, the loads were redistributed to every critical support structure of the building. That set the structure on the brink of total collapse. All it would take from there was the slightest failure (the “hair that broke the camel’s back”) - maybe a broken truss connector or something - and the whole thing would come down like a house of cards. . No that`s your spin. Since load was efficiently redistributed we would not expect localized failures to cause the building to loose symmetry. Loads weren’t redistributed evenly trusses and columns adjacent to the failed ones took up more of the extra load than ones further away making them more likely to fail especially if they had been damaged by the impacts and/or were weakened by fire. Each additional failure put greater load on the remaining elements thus making additional failures more likely. A sort of vicious circle that finally got to the point where remaining elements were unable to resist the mass of the floors above them. “Millions”, “not one”, “never” - I suppose you have some citations for those claims? A couple of Brazilian, Indian, Turkish and American buildings have collapsed pretty much without warning due to age and/or poor construction. On 9/11, fires and damage supposedly caused three buildings to go... from an intact, fully stable structural condition, Immediately into total, symmetrical collapse to the ground, within mere seconds. Your examples are invalid. I'm asking for any previous cases which fit the description above. If there were 3 of them on just one day, then it should be easy for you to find at least one other previous case in the past 100 years or so...... 1) You made the claim that no such collapse even happened previously it`s up to you to document that claim not for me to debunk it. 2) Most of these collapses weren’t well documented so we have no way of knowing which if any of your conditions were met. Thus you have no basis for your claim that the cases I cited were invalid. In the Brazilian cases at least none of the buildings were obviously tilting to one side before collapse and debris distribution was roughly symmetrical. 3) None of the WTC towers were “intact” your complaint breaks down there and only CT`s say they were in a “fully stable structural condition” since the bowing of perimeter columns was noted in both towers before they collapsed and the FD pulled (out of) it (7 WTC) due to it giving signs hours beforehand it was going to collapse. 4) WTC 2 didn’t exactly collapse symmetrically since it tilted; in neither case was debris dispersal completely symmetrical. 5) There are very few cases of buildings being struck by large planes and none AFAIK buildings at all resembling the Twin Towers. They weren’t built to do so but they did. The terminal at DeGaulle (sp?) airport seemingly collapsed without warning and there was no apparent cause (fire, impact etc) the buildings in Poland and Germany that collapsed a few years ago due to excess snow don’t seem to have give much warning either. Those are not even close comparisons, as I noted above. These are different cases. Do you deny that a local collapse in the Towers could have triggered a global one?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 26, 2007 13:57:30 GMT -4
Gillianren makes a good point that conspiracy theorists don't latch onto. I've made a few in my day. Which one are we talking about? (I think both the "no ship since Titanic" and "why not get angry about the radios" are both valid points.)
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 26, 2007 17:41:01 GMT -4
I don't think I've ever heard of the glancing blow thing. From what I understand they were designed to to withstand the accidental impact of a B707 or DC8 at speeds up to 600 mph. Your source must be looking up something different. Did you look at this first?The relevant paragraph is the 13th one down. Here's a excerpt: (my emphasis): "Seeking to land". When you're seeking to land, you're going a lot slower than 600 mph. Do planes take off from NYC? Or is the sky over NYC reserved for aircraft in one condition of flight only? Is that why you can't get a cab there, because they're all ferrying people to the nearest take off only airport.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 26, 2007 19:57:47 GMT -4
Your source must be looking up something different. Did you look at this first?The relevant paragraph is the 13th one down. Here's a excerpt: (my emphasis): "Seeking to land". When you're seeking to land, you're going a lot slower than 600 mph. Do planes take off from NYC? Or is the sky over NYC reserved for aircraft in one condition of flight only? Is that why you can't get a cab there, because they're all ferrying people to the nearest take off only airport. According to this entry, it would seem the answer to your question is "yes". Perhaps one ought to locate where WTC 1 & 2 were in relation to the location of one of those airports. You also forgot something else: lost in a fog.. Believe it or not, despite all the high tech gear on airliners, they can, and do, get lost in fog. You know, engineers make these statements and incorporate features into a building for a reason. The fact that the feature was made makes your ridicule of what I told you look foolish. Enlighten me; why should people take what you say seriously?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 26, 2007 19:59:49 GMT -4
Gillianren makes a good point that conspiracy theorists don't latch onto. I've made a few in my day. Which one are we talking about? (I think both the "no ship since Titanic" and "why not get angry about the radios" are both valid points.) The one on Titanic. I didn't read the one about radios. Do you have a link?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 26, 2007 21:38:35 GMT -4
Your source must be looking up something different. Did you look at this first?The relevant paragraph is the 13th one down. Here's a excerpt: (my emphasis): "Seeking to land". When you're seeking to land, you're going a lot slower than 600 mph. Do planes take off from NYC? Or is the sky over NYC reserved for aircraft in one condition of flight only? Is that why you can't get a cab there, because they're all ferrying people to the nearest take off only airport. A takeoff is usually, much safer as the pilots are climbing to altitude as soon as possible. Again, as mentioned, note the phrase, lost in fog. In a takeoff, they would be climbing above the fog as quickly as possible. another thing to consider, is that there is a speed limit of 250 knots for all planes under 10,000 feet. That would also be taken into account as it makes it much less likely for a plane to be traveling faster while trying to land.
|
|