Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: MrBig2430

No, they weren't, although that's a common misconception.

There are indeed press releases during the building that say the buildings were designed to survive plane impacts, and after the '93 bombing DeMartini also says this. the truth is that chief engineer Leslie Robertson has stated that it would of been next to impossible to do that using a slide rule, and common sense says that it would of been unnecessarily expensive, to the point that they never would of been built.

The truth is, that they were designed without plane strikes in mind. But during the early construction phase, there was public concern raised about this issue and so the designers did a study, limited to see if the buildings would topple or not as a result of the plane strikes, and it was found that they wouldn't.

So to boil it all down, they were most definitely not specifically designed to survive plane impacts. The press releases of the time were nothing but a lie.

Right, that's the only "lie" here! However, claiming that buildings just lose all structural support, at once, when fire and damage occur on a few floors, in NOT a lie!!! It's not a lie that computer models can show buildings lose all support instantly, either. The same way computer models can show how elephants could speak fluent Spanish, is not a lie!

As to the "lie" of designing the towers for plane impacts, where do you get that idea? Leslie Robertson?

The same Leslie Robertson who said, after 9/11, that the towers were designed to withstand plane impacts, only when flying at 'slow-speeds'?

You believe someone who can't even keep his story straight as a reliable source on a "lie"?

originally posted by: MrBig2430
Which dynamic loads?

The dynamic load imparted by the plane impacts? Yes, this study was done.

Or the dynamic loads of a collapse? No, there is no reason to do this. Design concentrates on preventing collapse by building load transfer pathways and using active and passive fire protection on the steel.

The dynamic loads are designed into the structures to prevent collapse in EXACTLY the same scenarios, as 9/11. Indeed, they were designed to withstand FAR WORSE scenarios than that.

You act like the towers were sliced in two, completely separate pieces, and the top chunk plops down onto the lower piece, all at once, smashing everything below it into smithereens, like a massive pile-driver!!

That's nonsense.

Nobody has, nobody can, and nobody ever WILL, replicate such an event.

The towers had random damage. Physical laws are indisputable facts. Physical laws are followed in every prior example, in every test, in every form. as to any possible effect(s) of random structural damage.


It doesn't matter how massive it is, or how 'unique' the structures were - they must hold to the exact same physical laws.

There is no 'Heaviest Mass Ever Dropped Law' in physics, which replaces all other Laws, so completely random structural damage results in a uniform, symmetrical collapse!

The 'experts' are making up 'cartoon' physics, and they damn well know it, too.

Weasels

a reply to: turbonium1

Slow down. Nobody said the tower floors were all collapsing at once.

Is it false to say each floor of the towers had a specific load limit? One floor, and its floor connections are not going to hold more than it's limit and the added safety factor.

I not big on using NIST facts, because NIST makes conspiracists crazy. Unless they want to use the 9 second collapse NIST figure out of context? Conspiracists hypocritical? But NIST has down and dirty conservative figures to create an explanation.

www.nist.gov...

The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.

WTC 1, 29 floors of falling mass hits the static floor below with the theoretical load capacity to take 6 falling floors. The floor connections shear and break away from the vertical columns. The falling mass increases in force from the newly liberated floor. The falling and growing mass hits the next floor to start the process again.

The falling mass went through the path of least resistance. The vertical columns were left mostly standing. The Richard Gage comment the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance is a lie. A lie that they fight to maintain.

Now the quoted nine second collapse time out of context....

www.nist.gov...
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Further proof the floors sheared away from the columns.

Again, the truth movement is built on hypocrisy, lies, and misquotes. Lies it fights to maintain 16 years later. Awesome way to run AE 9/11 Truth.....

a reply to: turbonium1

You? No?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The only evidence needed are Manhattan streets washed in a foot deep blanket of 'dust', micro-sized particles from pulverized buildings...

This is only possible by applying enormous energy against the structures.

And who would have had the capability for this....hmm

What were you originally pushing for?

Would you like to state a actual theory?

Something like: Dooping floor trusses contracted to pull in remaining vertical columns relative to the jet impacts. The bending was so great, the vertical columns buckeled to cause the 12 top floors of WTC 2 to collapse by the pull of gravity into the static floor below. A floor that was limited to take the load equal to six falling floors.

I bet your a Dustification person.....

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: MrBig2430

No, they weren't, although that's a common misconception.

There are indeed press releases during the building that say the buildings were designed to survive plane impacts, and after the '93 bombing DeMartini also says this. the truth is that chief engineer Leslie Robertson has stated that it would of been next to impossible to do that using a slide rule, and common sense says that it would of been unnecessarily expensive, to the point that they never would of been built.

The truth is, that they were designed without plane strikes in mind. But during the early construction phase, there was public concern raised about this issue and so the designers did a study, limited to see if the buildings would topple or not as a result of the plane strikes, and it was found that they wouldn't.

So to boil it all down, they were most definitely not specifically designed to survive plane impacts. The press releases of the time were nothing but a lie.

As to the "lie" of designing the towers for plane impacts, where do you get that idea? Leslie Robertson?

The same Leslie Robertson who said, after 9/11, that the towers were designed to withstand plane impacts, only when flying at 'slow-speeds'?

Research shows that the towers were never "specifically designed to survive plane impacts." - your words.

No one would make such a design decision unless it was a building code requirement cuz it would make it too expensive to build.

To demonstrate my point, The towers were built without sprinklers cuz at the time, it wasn't a code requirement. They were later retrofitted. Why not? Cuz it's an extra expense that they could avoid.

That's how the real world works, kid.

You believe someone who can't even keep his story straight as a reliable source on a "lie"?

Apparently you do when it suits you. And I bet you believe the MSm sources when it suits you too. Right? Anything to keep the delusion alive.

originally posted by: MrBig2430
Which dynamic loads?

The dynamic load imparted by the plane impacts? Yes, this study was done.

Or the dynamic loads of a collapse? No, there is no reason to do this. Design concentrates on preventing collapse by building load transfer pathways and using active and passive fire protection on the steel.

The dynamic loads are designed into the structures to prevent collapse in EXACTLY the same scenarios, as 9/11. Indeed, they were designed to withstand FAR WORSE scenarios than that.

Lol. Where did you read this lie and why are you repeating it?

Again, there's no reason to, nor is there any evidence that these buildings were designed to arrest the dynamic load of a collapse. It's all a made up fantasy, either one of your making or it's something you've read and decided that you can get some mileage out of it by ranting about it.

You can, of course, prove me wrong by supplying evidence that backs your statement. Good luck finding any. Lmao

You act like the towers were sliced in two, completely separate pieces,

Oh dear. Another lie.

and the top chunk plops down onto the lower piece, all at once,

There's zero requirement for it to happen simultaneously. I expect chaos, sections falling and failing areas below them, not some neat and smooth descent.

If that's what you expect to see then that's your problem. explain to us all why your expectations are the right ones again?

smashing everything below it into smithereens, like a massive pile-driver!! [/]

pretty much


[quoteThat's nonsense.

I agree.

The straw man you built above, based on your ignorance of how things are and/or should be, is nonsense.

There is no 'Heaviest Mass Ever Dropped Law' in physics, which replaces all other Laws, so completely random structural damage results in a uniform, symmetrical collapse!

Who are you trying to kid?

It's obvious that you know nothing and are just making stuff up and repeating what you've read cuz you think it sounds cool.

It's obvious that you Dunning-Krueger is in effect here. You've read a little and you think it makes you an authority. It doesn't.

You can't even explain to us why your interpretation and use of the phrase "uniform, symmetrical collapse" should even be addressed like it's true statement.

So now the thoughts and comments of Leslie Robertson mean nothing regarding the design of the towers? Oh vey, how desperate one must be to believe the official story.

originally posted by: Salander
So now the thoughts and comments of Leslie Robertson mean nothing regarding the design of the towers? Oh vey, how desperate one must be to believe the official story.

How desperate for a conspiracy must one be to believe self-inconsistent theories, many of which border on the ludicrous. The problem with the conspiracy theorists is that they generally have little to no technical knowledge and so acquire their ideas from Hollywood with all the artistic license and script errors that make "B" movies fun.

a reply to: MrBig2430

Research shows that the towers were never "specifically designed to survive plane impacts." - your words.

While not "specifically designed" to resist an aircraft impact, the engineers did consider what would happen
if a plane (Boeing 707 - one of the largest and most common aircraft in service) did hit

Calculated that to topple the buildings over would require lateral force of 17 million foot pounds, aircraft impact
would generate force of some 13 million foot pounds. Ergo the building would survive

Left unsaid was what would happen if calculations showed building would fall after aircraft impact .....

multiple post

multiple post

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: MrBig2430

Research shows that the towers were never "specifically designed to survive plane impacts." - your words.

While not "specifically designed" to resist an aircraft impact, the engineers did consider what would happen
if a plane (Boeing 707 - one of the largest and most common aircraft in service) did hit

Calculated that to topple the buildings over would require lateral force of 17 million foot pounds, aircraft impact
would generate force of some 13 million foot pounds. Ergo the building would survive

Left unsaid was what would happen if calculations showed building would fall after aircraft impact .....

Yes!

That is exactly what I'm referring to.

It just amazes me that these conspiracy believers are so misinformed. This info is easily available and not really in dispute.

But I guess a lack of research skills is a prerequisite to becoming a truther in the first place...,

a reply to: MrBig2430

Its like they take pleasure in spreading false narratives. I wonder how legitimate they really are. It's like they try to make conspiracists look bad. But Even flat earth theory gets people jumping on the bandwagon?

originally posted by: Salander
So now the thoughts and comments of Leslie Robertson mean nothing regarding the design of the towers? Oh vey, how desperate one must be to believe the official story.

You have no clue if you think they were specifically designed to survive plane impacts.

But, here's a test:

If you believe that he's truthful, then he's also right when he says the buildings collapsed due to the impacts and fire, right?

Or is he NOW lying?

Can't have it both ways.

Which is it gonna be?

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander
So now the thoughts and comments of Leslie Robertson mean nothing regarding the design of the towers? Oh vey, how desperate one must be to believe the official story.

You have no clue if you think they were specifically designed to survive plane impacts.

But, here's a test:

If you believe that he's truthful, then he's also right when he says the buildings collapsed due to the impacts and fire, right?

Or is he NOW lying?

Can't have it both ways.

Which is it gonna be?

Have you no experience with the human? Any given human can tell the truth, or he can lie. It is a free choice by the individual, and in truth, we all do both, as we rationalize according to the situation. Situational ethics? Probably so, and common in the species.

So it's entirely possible for men to change their stories under pressure. Van Romero out in New Mexico did it. Mr. Miller the coroner did it, but at least came clean as to why he did it some years later.

Kevin Ryan did NOT do it. He spoke truth to power about the absurdity of the claims at WTC, would not take it back, and was eventually fired for his whistleblowing and truth telling.

Leslie Robertson told the truth early on--that the towers had been designed and constructed to withstand being struck by an airliner, which they actually did for an hour or more.

Whatever he might have said later does not really matter much. We are dealing with humans here, not angels.

a reply to: Salander

Like how you must have the "truth" filtered to you through people that tell you what to think? People that exploit 9/11 for notoriety and personal gain.

Again, here is a thread with the video of inward bowing and the initiation of WTC 2's collapse.

www.metabunk.org...

How does the actual video evidence support your false narratives in anyway?

You don't have a reply because the truth movement doesn't have a reply?

a reply to: Salander

Miller, you are so wrong with Miller. And you cannot prove otherwise.

a reply to: Salander

Sorry, your premise on Miller is false. There is no record of the statements you are referring to by miller in a filed.

The is no reference by truth movement sources that miller denied the wreckage and remains while at the shanksville crash site.

Miller has never taken a stance there was no wreckage, no human remains, no crashed flight 93.

The truth movement items I have found that state miller change his stance are based on quotes out of context, and from interviews after Shanksville. The material never referenced statesments by miller made in the field that you claim were made.

You have been caught pushing a false narrative unless you can prove otherwise.

My theory? People got burnt by a truth movement website that falsely stated miller made comments about no jet while standing at the shanksville crash site. That website was shamed into closing shop.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander
So now the thoughts and comments of Leslie Robertson mean nothing regarding the design of the towers? Oh vey, how desperate one must be to believe the official story.

You have no clue if you think they were specifically designed to survive plane impacts.

But, here's a test:

If you believe that he's truthful, then he's also right when he says the buildings collapsed due to the impacts and fire, right?

Or is he NOW lying?

Can't have it both ways.

Which is it gonna be?

Kevin Ryan did NOT do it. He spoke truth to power about the absurdity of the claims at WTC, would not take it back, and was eventually fired for his whistleblowing and truth telling.

Kevin Ryan is a technical incompetent right up there with Steven Jones. They don't know what they don't know and start with conclusions that get them excited and then contort things trying to reach those conclusions. Kevin was fired for being a dolt.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander
So now the thoughts and comments of Leslie Robertson mean nothing regarding the design of the towers? Oh vey, how desperate one must be to believe the official story.

You have no clue if you think they were specifically designed to survive plane impacts.

But, here's a test:

If you believe that he's truthful, then he's also right when he says the buildings collapsed due to the impacts and fire, right?

Or is he NOW lying?

Can't have it both ways.

Which is it gonna be?

Leslie Robertson told the truth early on--that the towers had been designed and constructed to withstand being struck by an airliner, which they actually did for an hour or more.

Actually, there is zero evidence that it was ever designed for any plane strikes:

1- no code requirement

2- no reports anywhere at the time of construction that there was a code variance enacted saying so

3- Robertson could not produce any design study backing that statement

4- none of his worker bees can confirm doing it nor even anyone else doing it

The only thing he has said that can be confirmed is what another poster put up :

That a study was done during the early construction phase that did nothing more than see if it would topple over. Indeed, Robertson vigorously denied that there was study that factored in a 707 fully loaded with fuel doing 600 mph.

To put it simply, it wasn't specifically designed for a plane strike.

Whatever he might have said later does not really matter much. .

Lmao

You are so desperate.

It's sad that you can't admit just how abysmally wrong about your beliefs - nukes, no passengers, switched planes - that you are.

a reply to: pteridine


Judging from his words and actions, Kevin Ryan has more integrity in his little finger than you have in your entire body.

Judging from his work record at UL, he knew exactly what he was talking about. His problem was not following the commands of supervisors to STFU and stop saying things that were too damn true.

Some of us, Ryan being one, cannot stand to live inside the echo chamber that is today's Groupthink 911.

a reply to: Salander

The water lab tester knew exactly what he was talking about in regard to the WTC steel? Are you sure you want to stick with that?

a reply to: Salander

Is that the guy that saw the reports at NIST?

But cannot give an outline of what he saw in regards to the sections of the finished NIST reports, and if what he saw made the reports at all?