|
Post by scooter on Jul 27, 2007 14:17:04 GMT -4
3onthetree, What was NORAD's alert posture that day? What specific data were they receiving real time from FAA? What is VMax for an F-15/F-16? You speak as such a demeaning expert on NORAD's response that morning, I am betting you were never in the air defense business, much less had to counter a nebulous threat with a lot of bad information muddling the picture. What picture were those radar operators looking at that morning? Methinks you watch way too much TV and movies, and actually accept it as reality.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 28, 2007 4:04:40 GMT -4
YOU are not getting it. Were any of these buildings built like WTC 1, 2, and 7? It IS a factor, because the structure of a building determines how it responds to damage and fire. WTC 1 and 2 were quite different than WTC 7 in their structural design. And so were the many thousands of other buildings which have been subjected to fire and/or damage. But none of them were designed to go from a stable condition into a complete, symmetrical collapse within seconds. And yet, once again, this is exactly what you are suggesting occurred with the three WTC buildings. That they were "uniquely" designed to collapse symmetrically from random, progressive, and asymmetrical fires and damage! The manner of damage is also crucial. Asymmetrical damage, which is common to all the buildings in my comparison. The same applies to my examples of ships. For instance, the Titanic broke in two on it's way down. However, the battleship Bismark only had it's stern cracked off. The difference with these two wrecks is due to structure and the manner of sinking. Such is the case with the WTCs and other buildings that have suffered damage. There is a critical difference here that you don't understand - while each ship broke apart in a quite different manner, there are still perfectly valid explanations for the features which were unique to each of these events. That is entirely untrue for the WTC buildings. All your disagreements in the world, BTW, also won't change the FACT that steel framed buildings have collapsed from fires before . Again, this is a different issue, already covered at length in other threads. Steel framed highrises have never totally collapsed from fires before or since 9/11. And steel framed structures of any type have rarely collapsed from fires, either. And certainly none of them collapsed in the same manner as I've described regarding the WTC buildings. When the buildings collapsed, they were not structurally sound. Again, you're simplifying matters. What evidence is there that suggests otherwise? A few inches of inward bowing, over a couple of floors, along one face? Even if I accept that as true, it's insignificant compared to the damage inflicted earlier by the planes, after which the towers remained structurally sound for the next hour or so.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 28, 2007 9:06:38 GMT -4
YOU are not getting it. Were any of these buildings built like WTC 1, 2, and 7? It IS a factor, because the structure of a building determines how it responds to damage and fire. WTC 1 and 2 were quite different than WTC 7 in their structural design. I'll leave this one to those that know the buildings better than I do. I just remember reading that they all used tube-in-tube construction. The difference in the construction is the reason why many other buildings survive. THAT'S what I'm trying to tell you; WTC 1 and 2 were involved in unquie situations. If you want to take THAT view, okay. The view I have is that the fires distorted the frame work, caused it to bow. This would eventually lead to a collapse of the upper floors, which came crashing down. As one poster put it, it was estentially an office building coming down on an office building. But the design of the WTCs were NOT common. You're using a double standard. While you acknowledge difference in design for the two ships in my example, you refuse to see the difference the design of the WTCs has in relation to other buildings. Open up your tunnel vision. . Few highrises are exposed to situations like the WTCs. Even fewer share the tube-in-tube design. Most such structures also have concrete in their construction. Structures that have ONLY steel and that have been exposed to a long duration fire have collapsed. First off, your descriptions are inaccurate. Second, as I said, few were designed exactly like the WTCs. A few inches? The bowing was notiable from quite a ways, for all three buildings. That indicates MORE than a few inches. So, I guess you're more clever than trained engineers that examined this stuff, huh? Let me know when you come back to planet Reality.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 28, 2007 10:40:48 GMT -4
What was NORAD's alert posture that day? What specific data were they receiving real time from FAA? What is VMax for an F-15/F-16?
Well that all depends on how well the lies told have affected your perception of NORAD and FAA flight controllers on 911. Because on that one day we are supposed to believe that they both dropped the ball in identifying and tracking a threat as well as dropping the VMax for an F-15 to I had no idea US fighters had replaced Mach indicators with Ape gauges but hey, what ever works.
You speak as such a demeaning expert on NORAD's response that morning, I am betting you were never in the air defense business, much less had to counter a nebulous threat with a lot of bad information muddling the picture.
I don't pretend to be an expert on anything, I'm demeaning by nature and as for countering a nebulous threat with bad information muddling the picture, welcome to the real 911 investigation. The information gleaned from all this is intended to deceive and activate responses in us using pre programmed notions and emotion's NORAD response is another example of this type of planted disinformation. With response, intercept and readiness as well as the number of interceptors said to have been active all changing depending on what you're conditioned to believe . This isn't for you to understand or your kind but for anyone who happens to read it.
Edited for clarity, but me thinks still need to explain further
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 28, 2007 11:21:24 GMT -4
3onthetree, this gives as good an account of the NORAD response that day as I have found to date. Have you read it? www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608It bugs me when some uninformed types impugn the character and professionalism of the line folks who were trying to do some good that day.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 28, 2007 12:37:22 GMT -4
I'd provide a comment about 3onthetree, but such comments are forbidden by forum rules.
Why the Hell Michigan I waste time talking to him and his pal are beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 28, 2007 13:36:08 GMT -4
I didn't read the one about radios. Do you have a link? Oh, just that we know there were problems with the radios that didn't get resolved post-the first bombing, but the CTs don't get angry about that, and it's a real problem. Maybe they really have just seen too much of The X-Files, and they think you can get reception everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 28, 2007 15:34:56 GMT -4
All I meant was that if a building is going to be CD'ed (specifically in a covert operation a la 9/11), there will be no detectable signs of imminent collapse for firefighters (or anyone else) inside the building, before and up to the time it's demolished. This pre-supposes that the covert controlled demolition of such a structure, with no indications of preparation to either occupants or emergency response personnel, is even possible.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 29, 2007 5:18:07 GMT -4
I'll leave this one to those that know the buildings better than I do. I just remember reading that they all used tube-in-tube construction. That's one of the terms first coined to describe the structural design of the towers, although another general (and less misleading) term used is "tube and core" design. The inner core was hardly a "tube", much less a "hollow tube", as some have described it. The difference in the construction is the reason why many other buildings survive. You're saying that as if it were an established fact, but most certainly it is not. It's your personal opinion. A theory which you believe to be true. Which is fine - we're all entitled to our own opinions. But that's all it is. THAT'S what I'm trying to tell you; WTC 1 and 2 were involved in unquie situations. No way! Really?? Come on - obviously they were unique situations. I've never said otherwise, and I really shouldn't have to point that out to you by now. I said... And yet, once again, this is exactly what you are suggesting occurred with the three WTC buildings. That they were "uniquely" designed to collapse symmetrically from random, progressive, and asymmetrical fires and damage!If you want to take THAT view, okay. That's not my view. That's essentially what your argument is saying. The view I have is that the fires distorted the frame work, caused it to bow. This would eventually lead to a collapse of the upper floors, which came crashing down. That's no different. You just left out the features I noted. As one poster put it, it was estentially an office building coming down on an office building. ?? Must have missed that post. What's it supposed to mean? You're using a double standard. While you acknowledge difference in design for the two ships in my example, you refuse to see the difference the design of the WTCs has in relation to other buildings. . Once again, it's not about that the buildings were designed differently, or uniquely.They were. But that point doesn't serve as an automatic "answer" to any and every question that you can't give a valid explanation for. Why did ____ happen? Because the building was "unique". Why did ____ happen? Because the situation was "unique". Can you see how those answers just don't cut it? Few highrises are exposed to situations like the WTCs. Even fewer share the tube-in-tube design. I rest my case. Most such structures also have concrete in their construction. Structures that have ONLY steel and that have been exposed to a long duration fire have collapsed. The fires in the towers weren't long duration, first of all, And I already pointed out no other steel framed highrises have totally collapsed from fire, and very few steel framed structures of any type ever have. So, I guess you're more clever than trained engineers that examined this stuff, huh? Let me know when you come back to planet Reality. Same lame rhetoric, different day.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 29, 2007 18:46:29 GMT -4
I'll leave this one to those that know the buildings better than I do. I just remember reading that they all used tube-in-tube construction. That's one of the terms first coined to describe the structural design of the towers, although another general (and less misleading) term used is "tube and core" design. The inner core was hardly a "tube", much less a "hollow tube", as some have described it. Different names for the same design. No, it IS a fact that different structures can behave differently in the same situation. You admit it occurs for ships in my examples. But for some reason, you don't think this will apply to buildings. Why is that? You're acting like it WAS a common situation. Get it straight and quit being a jerk. And is the simplified view. It doesn't examine the situation that lead to the collapse. And we're back at square one. IIRC, it was PhantomWolf. It means that the mass of the section that initiated collapse was about the mass of a regular office building. As the WTCs were giant office buildings, the phrase means that the falling section that imitated collapse was essentially like dropping an office building on the rest of the floors. You seem to think that ALL buildings, regardless of design, should behave the same. You never outright asked for a reason WHY the towers fell. Are you doing that now? You never had a case to begin with. Name how many steel framed highrises were hit by jet liners going about 500 mph and fully loaded with fuel. Also name how many are the exact same design at the WTCs. Only seems lame to the people that don't understand. Namely, you.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 30, 2007 2:33:34 GMT -4
You're acting like it WAS a common situation. Get it straight and quit being a jerk. I'm not "acting like it was a common situation". That's a mistaken impression of my viewpoint you've got stuck in your head. Please stop acting like a five-year-old. You seem to think that ALL buildings, regardless of design, should behave the same. This is getting annoying. NO, I DO NOT THINK THAT ALL BUILDINGS, REGARDLESS OF DESIGN, SHOULD BEHAVE THE SAME. You never outright asked for a reason WHY the towers fell. Are you doing that now? Not exactly, but at least you're getting warmer. The point is this: By saying that the WTC buildings were "unique", or the events of 9/11 were "unique", you're really just stating things I already consider to be obvious. That is - the events were unprecedented, and the building designs were unique in many facets. But.... THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER FOR WHY THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED IN THE MANNER THEY DID ON 9/11.Name how many steel framed highrises were hit by jet liners going about 500 mph and fully loaded with fuel. Also name how many are the exact same design at the WTCs. Deja vu, all over again! That's been answered several times, as recently as 10 seconds ago. YES, YES, YES - THE EVENTS AND BUILDINGS WERE UNIQUE. BUT THAT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED IN THE MANNER THEY DID ON 9/11.All you keep saying is that the buildings had unique characteristics to their collapses simply because the buildings (and the events) themselves were unique. Think rationally for a minute, and try to understand why that is not a meaningful explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 30, 2007 7:23:07 GMT -4
Making big, bold sentences doesn't help. I can read just fine.
You implied that you think that buildings should behave the same way in situations when you replied to my examples. Implied.
Now, let's all take a collective breath and relax.
Okay, so why did the buildings collapse the way they did?
In a nutshell, a 767 hit each WTC 1 and 2 at about 500 mph. The shock loading knocks off the cladding of the steel supports. The jet fuel ignites, starting a big fire. The fire is further fueled by the contents of the planes (luggage, upholstery, possibly the metal itself, which does happen) as well as the contents of the building (furniture, office supplies, computers, ect). So, we got the fire. Now, it burns for about an hour. In that timeframe, the steel is heated to a point where it weakens. In addition, the area about the site of the fire is deformed, due to thermal expansion as well as the temperature different in the framework. After the respective time from impact to collapse, the steel has been deformed to a point where it is no longer supported. So, the structure gives way, and leads to the collapse. Since it's such a massive structure, it's interia prevents it from falling any other way but straight down. As for WTC 7, fires are started after it was hit be debries. In this case, it is diesel fuel for it's auxillery generators that sets off the fires. That, of course, sets the rest of the interior section that was damaged on fire. After that, it was a similar situation; steel gets deformed, leads to failure, leads to collapse.
In retrospect, you're statement wasn't too inaccurate. It was just your timeframe. It wasn't a matter of seconds. It was a matter of an hour (several hours for WTC 7).
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 30, 2007 11:06:47 GMT -4
Seems to me too much is being made over the "unique" nature of the fallen buildings. They are NOT "unique" as to construction materials or methods. What they are is different in those methods and materials than any other of a very small list of buildings that have suffered similar insults. The list of buildings that have experienced large fires is small. The subset of that list that also experienced mechanical damage is smaller. It should be no surprise then that there are insufficient buildings in this set to give a good statistical representation of building methods.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 30, 2007 11:20:31 GMT -4
By saying that the WTC buildings were "unique", or the events of 9/11 were "unique", you're really just stating things I already consider to be obvious. That is - the events were unprecedented, and the building designs were unique in many facets. But.... THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER FOR WHY THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED IN THE MANNER THEY DID ON 9/11.Saying the events were unprecedented is not intended to explain why the buildings collapsed, it's intended to respond to the CT claim that no buildings have collapsed the same way (and therefore, using their fawlty logic, no building CAN collapse that way): "No other building has ever collapsed this way." "That's because nothing like this has ever happened before."
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 1, 2007 2:20:29 GMT -4
Okay, so why did the buildings collapse the way they did? In a nutshell, a 767 hit each WTC 1 and 2 at about 500 mph. Correct. The shock loading knocks off the cladding of the steel supports. According to NIST's theory. But, as even they would have to admit, this is a completely unknown and unproven assumption. But, for argument's sake, I'll assume that this was the case - ie: that asymmetrical fireproofing was removed from the impacts. The jet fuel ignites, starting a big fire. Correct.. The fire is further fueled by the contents of the planes (luggage, upholstery, possibly the metal itself, which does happen) as well as the contents of the building (furniture, office supplies, computers, ect). Also true. So, we got the fire. Now, it burns for about an hour. True. In that timeframe, the steel is heated to a point where it weakens. Again, this is according to NIST's theory. And again, this is a completely unknown and unproven assumption. But again, for argument's sake, I'll assume that this was the case - ie: that asymmetrical fires heated the steel structure asymmetrically, to a point where it weakens. In addition, the area about the site of the fire is deformed, due to thermal expansion as well as the temperature different in the framework. As above, unproven, but I'll accept it for this argument. After the respective time from impact to collapse, the steel has been deformed to a point where it is no longer supported. Same as above - unproven but accepted for this argument. So, the structure gives way, and leads to the collapse. A symmetrical collapse - from the asymmetrical damage and fires? Since it's such a massive structure, it's interia prevents it from falling any other way but straight down. That would also apply to any other type of structure, under those same conditions, would it not? To wit, if any building is giving way to loads far beyond its ability to support, the load would fall straight down? In other words, asymmetrical damage and fires can cause the symmetrical, straight down collapse of any building, if the load above the failing level is massive enough? Has that ever occurred previous to 9/11? If not, then why not? What was structurally unique to the towers which would allow them to collapse in that manner, unlike any other buildings? As for WTC 7, fires are started after it was hit be debries. Most would agree with that claim. I have my own doubts, for reasons not relevant to discuss in this thread. But I'll accept it for this argument. In this case, it is diesel fuel for it's auxillery generators that sets off the fires. That, of course, sets the rest of the interior section that was damaged on fire. All unproven claims, and, imo, incorrect. But I'll pretend to agree with you, anyway, and move along..... After that, it was a similar situation; steel gets deformed, leads to failure, leads to collapse. I have the same problems here as I do with the towers. Why is this collapse symmetrical, etc, from asymmetrical damage and fires?? In retrospect, you're statement wasn't too inaccurate. It was just your timeframe. It wasn't a matter of seconds. It was a matter of an hour (several hours for WTC 7). I meant seconds to collapse.
|
|