Food for Thought: WTC Was Designed to Withstand Direct Impact from a 707 (vid)

[Thunderdog]

Quote from JohnnyK:

I looked at the global warming post. There's a scientist who swears the administration is squelching him regarding his findings.

Is this surprising? What else am I supposed to think about it?

Re the jet...are you not aware of eyewitness descriptions of the jet, confirmed by the pics and film, that hit the south tower? Have you not seen the slowed down video showing it carried some equipment on it's underbelly that should not have been there...and that it fired something at the tower in the last 500 feet toward impact?

JohnnyK

Again, you did not answer the questions I posed. What am I to think? Let's try again:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1022558#post1022558

And I quote (myself):

"Actually, that doesn't quite wash. If 'those in power' knew about the plot and if its follow-through was to their advantage, then why get involved at all and risk being implicated? Why not simply allow it to happen? Are you suggesting that the outcome would have been any different if the buildings didn't fall? In my opinion, the outrage would have been sufficient either way to engage a war on terror. Further, I suspect that the buildings would have been taken down even if they did not fall that day. The structural damage would have been irreparable. Even if the heat had not caused the steel structure to collapse that day, it would have at least severely compromised it. If you were a tenant, would you have gone back inside after "repairs?" Would an insurance company have renewed its policy? I have no doubt that there is evil in this world. And I have no doubt that there is much in the way of misinformation floating around about any number of issues. But are we to just readily believe that 'those in power' are so stupid?"

 

[JohnnyK]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Again, you did not answer the questions I posed. What am I to think? Let's try again:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1022558#post1022558

And I quote (myself):

"Actually, that doesn't quite wash. If 'those in power' knew about the plot and if its follow-through was to their advantage, then why get involved at all and risk being implicated? Why not simply allow it to happen? Are you suggesting that the outcome would have been any different if the buildings didn't fall? In my opinion, the outrage would have been sufficient either way to engage a war on terror. Further, I suspect that the buildings would have been taken down even if they did not fall that day. The structural damage would have been irreparable. Even if the heat had not caused the steel structure to collapse that day, it would have at least severely compromised it. If you were a tenant, would you have gone back inside after "repairs?" Would an insurance company have renewed its policy? I have no doubt that there is evil in this world. And I have no doubt that there is much in the way of misinformation floating around about any number of issues. But are we to just readily believe that 'those in power' are so stupid?"

Oh, this was several questions. That's good. At least asking questions. I will answer, partly now, partly later as time permits.

The bunglers they were using to pull this off were not experienced enough to pull it off alone...that is, if we can envision that the plan was to hit four symbols in such a way to enrage the american people toward wars and whatever else. Depending on the intended result, they would have estimated how much shock and awe they needed. Falling towers are a lot more shocking than fires being put out. The bunglers were mainly used as foils and fall guys anyway. Let the experts get the job done. As you suggest, the towers may have had to come down anyway. True, who would go back up there? But they would not have been able to take down WTC7 in that scenario. Besides, it's much more tidy for collecting insurance policies and avoiding having to fulfill a purchase agreement if you bring em down with planes/terrorism as pretense. You suggest it's too risky and 'dumb' to assist the bunglers to the degree of demolishing the towers systematically. You may be underestimating who is behind this, how many of them are behind this, and what, in their opinion, they think they can get away with vs. what they know they can get away with. That is why I don't pin hopes on a 'formal' investigation involving anyone in gov positions or appointed by them.

I would like to point out that one of George Bush's brother's, Marvin Bush, was in charge of security of the WTC complex up till 911.

 

[bronks]

Quote from Grob109:

I don't think so.

There was a fire. (More fuel than the fuel of the towers)

The connectors of the elements of the bridge (transfer system) failed where the load was greater than each tower load above the point of failure.

Three buildings.

Three loads (multi story)

Three fuel sources that well exceeded the limits of thermal eneregy standards.

Three focussed points of stress and strain on connectors where heat is applied.

Same design and construction standards. (Which are somewhat focussed on time limits)

Time passes where no efforts are made to dissipate heat.

The Pentagon and White House survived because of the degree of control exercised.

Symbols were built. No strategy of protection exists.

Opportunity and motivation are present.

Very good Jack. Straight and to the point.

Sometimes when people completely disregard logic, there's something deeper lurking under the surface. They substitute one event for not being able to control or counteract another.

My wife does it all the time. When all else fails throw an ashtray at my head. Magicians have a name for this so you take your eye off the ball...can't remember the term.

Oh, I remember now----> HocusPocus (or however you spell it)

 

[JohnnyK]

Quote from bronks:


Magicians have a name for this so you take your eye off the ball...can't remember the term.

It's called *misdirection*. Kind of like a *smoke screen*.

 

[ElCubano]

Quote from bronks:

. When all else fails throw an ashtray at my head.

i get the pinch in the arm...and it freaken hurts

 

[bronks]

Quote from JohnnyK:

It's called *misdirection*. Kind of like a *smoke screen*.

Ah, misdirection. Thanks Johnny.

I here by announce that Achille, Johnny and Ratfink, as misdirectors extrodinair...

And misguided while we're at it. And any other mis-'s I may have missed.

 

[bronks]

Quote from ElCubano:

i get the pinch in the arm...and it freaken hurts

That's gotta hurt.

Mine's italian/irish and will throw ANYTHING she can get her hands on including a fully loaded iron through a picture window.

Freeking catholics...

 

[Grob109]

Quote from achilles28:

Yes.





Tautological and inadmissible for post postmortem consideration.

Science doesn't start with a forgone conclusion and fit facts around that to develop a 'working theory'.

Thankfully, WTC remains were quickly recycled before any meaningful forensic analysis could be completed.


Just like the OKC bombing.


But 'everyone knows' what happened. So this debate is really academic, right?





There is a key distinction you're missing.

The Towers were designed to not only withstand the impact. But SURVIVE it.

Thats why the WTC engineers and architects are on record after 911, flabbergasted the Towers collapsed.


There is no getting around this point.






In order for this to be true, you'd have to assume the WTC engineers forgot to account for fire damage caused by the FULLY LOADED jetliners they originally designed the Towers to withstand.


Patently absurd.

And their own testimony proves it.





The answer: not long.

If you want to get serious, refer to the WTC Collapse report performed by the NIST.

In it, they cite initial fire temps were 1000C. After the first 20 mins, they were no hotter than 500C.

At 500C, highgrade structural steel losses less than 35% of its strength.


Further, in NISTs' 'worst case' mockups, 500C truss temps were localized to no more than 15% of any one floor.

Think about that.

In order for the official truss theory to be true, a failure of 8 or 9 trusses (out of some 60 per floor) would lead to the cascading structural failure of the ENTIRE building.

A building that was explicitly overengineered around just such a contingency.

Sure.




I am glad to see you valiantly charge to his rescue. (I would too if the roles were reversed).

But he's debating strawmen and ignoring the best reconstructive data we have as to the WTC collapse.





Thats a nice theory.

Unfortunately, the NIST investigative team couldn't replicate your theory using pragmatic failure tolerances and empirical data.

Instead they had to concoct a 'severe' collapse model - that admittedly ignored empirical fact and slashed assumed Tower strength - to generate the observable conclusion.

That is a huge red flag.






This conveniently ignores the fact the WTC engineers built the Towers to survive such a collision in the first place.

It's not very important whether we have any meaningful conversation or not.

I am pragmatic and get my hands dirty. I got pay checks from AIA, EOP and people who have bought buildings. ASTM has invited me to serve. One book I worte (with others) had a second volume devoted to standards and their measurement in the field. There was a section on how to avoid errouneous measurements by not taking inot consideration stuff that could interfer with what was desired.

I have done construction restarts when prior contractors failed. So has Bronk, I am willing to bet.

For the humor of it, at UCSC, I kept a cigar box of failed connectors on my desk. I occasionally would get one out and fool with it as if I were changing its distorted appearance with my hands.

One of the films I remember from college was the one that showed the Tacoma bridge going through it final moments. The last designer I spoke to on a project that was the largest of its sort said they were using LED's for lighting because everything else was too "noisey".

The practical application of standards is what gets standards changed as a consequence of experience.

Since I observed the event, I have done some reading from a variety of sources and had some conversations. I definitely need a larger cigar box for this one.

Perhaps you will get what Bronk is saying someday.

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from Grob109:

It's not very important whether we have any meaningful conversation or not.

I am pragmatic and get my hands dirty. I got pay checks from AIA, EOP and people who have bought buildings. ASTM has invited me to serve. One book I worte (with others) had a second volume devoted to standards and their measurement in the field. There was a section on how to avoid errouneous measurements by not taking inot consideration stuff that could interfer with what was desired.

.............................

Perhaps you will get what Bronk is saying someday.

ok brainiac... explain wtc7........ why did it fall? why did silverstein admit on pbs that he gave permission to pull it? why has the msm blacked out all coverage of this event so that 99% of the population have no idea what i am talking about when i mention it. and just a little heads up... the Popular Mechanic's article was done by chertoff's cousin.

 

[bronks]

The whole "Pulled..." fiasco:


The Silverstein Quote

This theory was further fueled by a quote within a PBS documentary America Rebuilds, which aired in September 2002. Larry Silverstein, the lease holder for Building Seven and insurance policy holder for the World Trade Center Complex was quoted during the film as he recalled the events of that morning:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Some suggest this statement could only have been referring to demolition as theorists allege "pull" to be a standard industry term used at the moment a collapse is triggered.

* Critics of this theory argue the term "pull" was in reference to evacuating the firefighting team from the building.

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

Mr. McQuillan has commented that by "it," Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

Others point out that the building had already been evacuated at the time of Silverstein's statement casting doubt on the notion that "pull it" could mean "evacuate." Opponents to this theory point out that according to firefighter testimony, building seven had already been evacuated at the time of Silvertein's statement because of fear that a [73]fourth hijacked plane may be targeting WTC 7. Once a fourth airplane attack was no longer a threat, firefighters went back to fight the fires on building seven. Also according to firefighter testimony, after Silverstein and the fire chief spoke, the contingent of firefighters were "pulled" from the area, outside a collapse zone. This further clarifies Silverstien's comments and the followup clarification by McQuillan.