|
Post by jaydeehess on May 17, 2005 18:11:30 GMT -4
Not that I believe much of what has been put 'out there' about 9/11, is there anything about the events of that day or related events that bother you.
For me; I do wonder about the shipping off to recycle of all of the steel so quickly.
I wonder why Sibel Edmonds is being shunted to the sidelines and kept quiet.
|
|
|
Post by Sticks on May 17, 2005 18:17:25 GMT -4
Not that I believe much of what has been put 'out there' about 9/11, is there anything about the events of that day or related events that bother you. Apart from Americans not writing dates properly. 9/11 sounds like the 9th of November to us.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on May 18, 2005 5:27:11 GMT -4
Ali G put it rather less tastefully though There wouldn't have been a huge amount of point in keeping the vast majority of the steel from the WTC for analysis. Perhaps the original fracture surfaces could have shown something interesting, but analysis would have been complicated (and rendered less reliable) by the effects of the subsequent fire and collapse of the remainder of the structure. I've seen one TV programme that suggested that the fireproofing insulation had not been universally applied to the thickness specified in the design: a consequence of building the WTC almost as fast as its remains were disposed of, but it doesn't seem likely that the centre would have survived the attack anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on May 18, 2005 10:19:46 GMT -4
Apart from Americans not writing dates properly. 9/11 sounds like the 9th of November to us. I am Canadian. You think you see this as confusing, we get both the Brit dd/mm/yy and the American mm/dd/yy used here. The only unambiguous dates are those that occur after the 12th of any particular month ;D
|
|
|
Post by frenat on May 21, 2005 11:21:12 GMT -4
I'm in the USAF and the dates can get congusing here too. The standard format would be 21 May 2005 but you often see it written many other ways including some forms that have the date first.
|
|
|
Post by The Supreme Canuck on May 21, 2005 15:31:42 GMT -4
I am Canadian. You think you see this as confusing, we get both the Brit dd/mm/yy and the American mm/dd/yy used here. The only unambiguous dates are those that occur after the 12th of any particular month ;D Ugh. Tell me about it. I simply refuse to use the numers only format.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on May 27, 2005 0:41:46 GMT -4
Does anyone know of any photos of the hijackers in Logan airport?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 27, 2005 14:24:39 GMT -4
There aren't any photos of the hijackers in the Logan airport. That's why they chose the Logan airport: poor security.
As for the fireproofing, it is a bit more complicated. The type of asbestos-based insulation that was specified for the WTC towers was outlawed partway through construction, requiring the crew to use a different formula to finish the towers. This new formula required a greater thickness to achieve the same thermal protection as the older stuff, but it could not be applied in the required thickness because of fit-up constraints with the rest of the structure.
The "anomaly" of moving the steel away so quickly is based partly on the circular notion of there having been something suspicious about the building's collapse. The cause of the collapse was not a mystery to engineers, and the initiating events were witnessed by thousands and caught on tape and photographs from dozens of angles. Airliners flew into the buildings; the structural system was understandably compromised; and it failed. You don't need to analyze steel to determine that.
However, it is of interest to study the steel in hindsight to see how it failed, simply to increase our general understanding. But those goals are secondary to freeing up lower Manhattan for the resumption of normal activity.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 4, 2005 14:49:27 GMT -4
JayUtah wrote: "The "anomaly" of moving the steel away so quickly is based partly on the circular notion of there having been something suspicious about the building's collapse. The cause of the collapse was not a mystery to engineers..." Often engineers don't understand anything. Do you believe that a ridiculous Boeing can distroy, can raze to the ground that way a powerful skyscraper 200,000 tons heavy? Since the plane went against the high part of the tower, a big or small part of it had to stand. Instead all the tower crashed as it was made by butter. Incredible. Something else distroyed the skyscraper that way.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 4, 2005 14:59:36 GMT -4
The planes alone did not destroy the WTC. It was a combination of things... the planes, the fires, gravity, and even wind probably played a small part.
If engineers didn't understand these things then the buildings wouldn't have been built in the first place. The airplanes wouldn't have existed either.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 4, 2005 17:24:45 GMT -4
The fire was burning out in one of the two towers but it was the first to crash, to be destroiyed. Don't you think this is a little strange? ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jun 4, 2005 17:38:38 GMT -4
Not at all.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 4, 2005 19:19:57 GMT -4
Often engineers don't understand anything.
We understand how and why buildings fall down.
Laymen, much more often than experts, don't understand things.
Do you believe that a ridiculous Boeing can distroy, can raze to the ground that way a powerful skyscraper 200,000 tons heavy?
Yes. 200,000 tons contained in a structural system at the hairy edge of feasibility is an enormous amount of potential energy just waiting to be released.
Since the plane went against the high part of the tower, a big or small part of it had to stand.
No. When the upper part falls, it applies a dynamic load to the underlying structure, far in excess of its capacity to bear.
You've already demonstrated you don't understand structural mechanics, in the Apollo thread. So please kindly refrain from attempting to fake your way through this one too.
|
|
|
Post by snakeriverrufus on Jun 4, 2005 20:49:55 GMT -4
unknown wrote
Do you believe that a ridiculous Boeing can distroy, can raze to the ground that way a powerful skyscraper 200,000 tons heavy?
Since that is exactly what happened, yes I do.
unknown wrote Since the plane went against the high part of the tower, a big or small part of it had to stand.
What?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 4, 2005 20:52:11 GMT -4
Unknown doesn't understand why the portion of the building below the impact area collapsed. It's because the part above the impact point fell on it.
|
|