WTC Challenge

I have never seen ANYWHERE that said it could withstand the impact of MULTIPLE 707s.

You can now no longer say that.

Yes I can.

Yeah, you can still say that alright (sarcasm).

It's funny how you guys morph your arguments and statements to fit the evidence against what you're saying, and yet the arguments against remain constant.

An architect saying the buildings could withstand a 707 is not an architect saying it could not withstand multiple 707s. At any rate, both buildings clearly withstood the impacts, and the fires were pathetic at best. You only have to look at photos to gather that much. There was no window shattering, there was no spreading to new floors, beyond where the fires were originally, and there was absolutely no glowing steel at any singular filmed moment at the WTC complex on 9/11. Your "evidence" falls apart at those staments alone, because any fires and steel heated to the alleged temperatures would simply do all of those things. And they didn't. Again, did can Muslims alter science?

[edit on 9-7-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by SportyMB
Yeah Anok, your little comment was unsat and uncalled for

Some people :shk:

BTW, I bet if that person were a jihad extremeist you would not say the same.......can't talk about your friends now can you.

LOL... I don't give a # what you think of my comment...
Leave my free speech alone you fkn PC Nazi!

And WTF are you talking about, my comment was directed at the fires not the person in the picture...
I was making fun of the people who can't see the truth, because they can't think for themselves.

And if I have the power to upset you by making a stupid comment then you need to realise the box and slave mentality you put yourself in!

Why is it people think that cause you don't buy the government story then you have no respect for the victims, or we are gosh pro-terrorist or something? Oh I know, you are TOLD to think like that. And the sad thing is you have no idea your thoughts are not your own.
The people who question and keep questioning until the truth is told have far more respect for victims (we are all victims of government) than the sheeple do...The people who just except what they're fed by the powers that be are the ones with no respect for themselves or the "victims"...
But the sad thing is in our modern World, good is bad and bad is good.

Man! Just answer my questions!...Oh sorry you can't can you?

Anyway back on topic...

*Deep breath*

You all seem to read into posts what you want to read and ignore what you can't answer. Read them again, this time without being defencive and stubborn in your viewpoint...

No one is denying the A/C damaged the interior of the building...

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE....There would still have been more damage on the side that the plane hit.
And you'll keep saying the outer walls were load bearing.
Sooo that means on the side that the plane hit would have been the side the building would have failed first.

And Howard thank you for posting that full pic of the raging fires pouring out of the gaping hole, I didn't realise they were that bad

Originally posted by bsbray11

I have never seen ANYWHERE that said it could withstand the impact of MULTIPLE 707s.

You can now no longer say that.

Yes I can.

Yeah, you can still say that alright (sarcasm).

It's funny how you guys morph your arguments and statements to fit the evidence against what you're saying, and yet the arguments against remain constant.

An architect saying the buildings could withstand a 707 is not an architect saying it could not withstand multiple 707s. At any rate, both buildings clearly withstood the impacts, and the fires were pathetic at best. You only have to look at photos to gather that much. There was no window shattering, there was no spreading to new floors, beyond where the fires were originally, and there was absolutely no glowing steel at any singular filmed moment at the WTC complex on 9/11. Your "evidence" falls apart at those staments alone, because any fires and steel heated to the alleged temperatures would simply do all of those things. And they didn't. Again, did can Muslims alter science?

[edit on 9-7-2005 by bsbray11]

Yeah, you're right. All the things that they DIDN'T say about what the WTC could withstand must mean that it COULD withstand them. What is so hard to understand about him saying it could withstand A 707? There were a LOT of things that the towers couldn't withstand that he DIDN'T mention, but that doesn't mean it could withstand them. What, now you expect to get a detailed list of what it could and couldn't, and if it's not on the list it COULD have withstood that? You're talking about one persons BELIEF, and what it was DESIGNED for. I guess from now on we better get a detailed list of everything a building is designed to withstand from now on.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The reality is, after the building was designed, the principle engineer calculated the effect of a low speed impact from a 707. His calculation indicated that the building would survive the impact. He did not, however consider the effect of the subsequent fires in his calculations.

Now your just making things up Howard.

Part 4 of "the Height of Ambition" a worthwhile read.

Leslie Robertson, one of two engineers who designed the World Trade Center, was in Hong Kong when he first learned of Tuesday’s terrorist attacks.

The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707—the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project—and Robertson says it could have survived even the larger 767s that crashed into the towers on Tuesday morning.But the thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel finally brought down the noble structures. “As the fire raged it got hotter and hotter and the steel got weaker and weaker,” he says
msnbc.msn.com...

Note, that Robinson never says The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the reporter does. Robinson also confirms what I've been saying all along. the combination of the impact and the fires brought down the towers.

The jet fuel added heat to the fire. In addition, it served to ignite all of the building contents at once, as opposed to a typical office fire that starts small and builds up over time.


From the above article:

Still, he recalls that he addressed the question of an airplane collision,
if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity. For whatever reason,
Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the
impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He
says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching
for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded
that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and
the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after
the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more
than strong enough to withstand such a blow.
Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost --
he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked
with him at the time, including the director of his computer department,
say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port
Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the
results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working
for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a
prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved
that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600
miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had
considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up
about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question
was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be
expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances.
There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of
the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing
to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the
Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later.
The second problem was that no one thought to take into account
the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly
as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire
protection would become its Achilles' heel.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Note, that Robinson never says The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the reporter does. Robinson also confirms what I've been saying all along. the combination of the impact and the fires brought down the towers.

Your right, instead Robinson says this:

LESLIE ROBERTSON: We had designed the project for the impact of the, our largest aeroplane of its time, the, the Boeing 707. That is to take this jet aeroplane, run it into the building, destroy a lot of structure and still have it stand up.
www.bbc.co.uk...

After the fact he assumes it must of been the jet fuel but NIST say it wasn't the jet fuel but instead the office fires, the fireman say the fires upto floor 78 were contained. Survivors on floor 84 say they only saw small flames, no inferno.

Round and round we go.

Woah, Howard! Are you suggesting that, had it not been for the fires, the buildings would have still stood? A pretty obvious observation, of course, but if you accept that, you're simply pinning yourself in a corner if it can be shown that the fires were not hot enough. Oddly, that's exactly what I've been arguing!

You're just starting to back yourself in a corner with your hair-splitting of whether it was a specific design, or whether it just worked out that way. Just like your hair-splitting with what the official cause of the collapses were. It hardly proves anything. It just serves to allow you to sidestep evidence and information, and refuse to face it directly.

All the things that they DIDN'T say about what the WTC could withstand must mean that it COULD withstand them.

I'm simply saying there was no denial, and yet you cling to the word "a" as if it's a life or death situation. You simply can't say 'they don't think they could've withstood multiple 707s!' unless they said that first. "A" is not a very convincing argument, and you're just putting words in their mouths.

Again, no acceptance, no denial. Therefore you can't hold such statements as if they were either. The only statement I know of on record that goes either way, is Demartini's, stating that the buildings could withstand multiple impacts.

wecomeinpeace, I will repeat this to you one more time.

You can not compare the Windsor tower to the WTC towers. The Windsor tower had reinforced concrete columns in the core. The WTC towers did not. Your contention that the WTC towers had a concrete core is based totally on fantasy. If there was a concrete core, then how come the stairwells were choked with broken drywall?

The Windsor tower was much smaller and not nearly as tall as the WTC towers.

The fire load of the two buildings was entirely different. The windsor tower was not hit by an airplane.

Etc. Etc.

Now YOU'RE putting words into HIS mouth. He NEVER said it COULD withstand multiple impacts from a 707.

And I quote:

"I BELIEVE that the building PROBABLY could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

You are talking about his BELIEF like it's a proven fact that it CAN withstand multiple hits.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Woah, Howard! Are you suggesting that, had it not been for the fires, the buildings would have still stood? A pretty obvious observation, of course, but if you accept that, you're simply pinning yourself in a corner if it can be shown that the fires were not hot enough. Oddly, that's exactly what I've been arguing!

Actually that is a very good question. Would the buildings have survived if there were no fires?

My gut feeling is this: WTC 1 - maybe. It was hit high enough it might have survived.

WTC 2 - probably not. The tilt of the building immediately after the impact meant that the eventual creep deformation on the whole structure would have doomed it before too long.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Remember also that it wasn't nessessary to melt the steel, just heat it up enough so that it started to buckle. Given the impact damage and the redistribution of building loads as a result of the impact damage, it would not have taken much to critically weaken the structure.

Sorry, thats total bunk.

Why do they fireproof buildings then?

Now YOU'RE putting words into HIS mouth. He NEVER said it COULD withstand multiple impacts from a 707.

At least he expressed an opinion either way.

You simply took someone saying they could withstand a 707 and suddenly they've said they couldn't have withstood more than one, which they didn't even suggest.

My gut feeling is this: WTC 1 - maybe. It was hit high enough it might have survived.

WTC 2 - probably not. The tilt of the building immediately after the impact meant that the eventual creep deformation on the whole structure would have doomed it before too long.

How was building 2 tilting? o.O

Anyway, the impact into the South Tower missed the core columns almost completely, which is something we can't be sure of for the North Tower since the view was apparently obstructed or some such problem.

The only major damage from the South Tower impact appears to have been the perimeter columns it knocked out, and that wasn't much. Only 23 of the 240 perimeter columns were knocked out by that impact. The rest of the columns, combined with the relatively healthy state of the core columns, would suggest that the South Tower would hold up as well. At any rate, I don't think it was in any immediate danger of collapse, especially if the North Tower wasn't, because it received a pretty direct hit.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Remember also that it wasn't nessessary to melt the steel, just heat it up enough so that it started to buckle. Given the impact damage and the redistribution of building loads as a result of the impact damage, it would not have taken much to critically weaken the structure.

Sorry, thats total bunk.

Why do they fireproof buildings then?

Howard, your entire point is bunk, not one little aspect of it. Nice try at diversion there.
I'm sure they DO fireproof buildings and i'm sure ENOUGH heat would stress steel to weaken, i don't think anyone is debating that point.

Problem is, it won't weaken it evenly and it won't collapse it evenly at a virtual free fall speed without assistance plus no one has proven there was enough heat to cause the steel to weaken, it's only assumed because there's very few doors left to walk through without acknowledging the heat being created via an alien (not spacemen) force within these buildings.

NIST have said the building came down from office fire NOT jet fuel.
NIST have said the building fell within 12 seconds.
Firemen IN the building fighting the said fires needed only two more lines to contain them at the point of impact and were calling for ambulence assistance at that level. Why would they do that if they thought there was ANY chance of the building coming down or the fires raging uncontrollably?
Survivor on the 84th floor have said he saw little fires, no inferno but a lot of black think smoke as we've seen in videos, something a smoldering office would produce.

The point of ENOUGH heat being created has yet to be proven by NIST, it's their assumption. If bombs were allowed to be considered in their report, do you still think they'd be trying to prove an office fire caused an implode?

It's a load of patriotic bollacks to act like there's any shred of respect for the firefighters on 9/11 if your not going to give any creedence to what they reported on the day. All the play on emotions about how many 'brothers and heros' were lost on the day means NOTHING if their reports, vision and experiences are falling on deaf ears after the fact and NIST are not acknowledging them unless it falls in line. That's not investigation.

LESLIE ROBERTSON: We had designed the project for the impact of the, our largest aeroplane of its time, the, the Boeing 707. That is to take this jet aeroplane, run it into the building, destroy a lot of structure and still have it stand up.
www.bbc.co.uk...

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.

thewebfairy.com...


So again, it's not the plane that is the issue, it's the fire.
NIST said the jet fuel was burnt or vaporised instantly so therefor it was an office fire.
Firefighters have said it was 2 lines from being contained and they were requesting medical assistance for survivors on the 78th floor.
A survivor on the 84th floor above the wreckage had said all he saw were small flames, no inferno, just a lot of smoke.

The towers were not brought down by weakening steel due to office fires at a rate within 2 seconds of freefall speeds.

The integrity of the building from those impacts stood as they were designed.

And, to add to that, the facts I've brought up repeatedly about a) the lack of window shattering (putting the fire at or below about 600 degrees Celsius), b) the lack of spreading to other floors (suggesting what we already know from photos: the fire was not very widespread), and c) the fact that no glowing steel was seen at any point, at any time, on the WTC complex on 9/11. I posted above a diagram of the colors steel will turn at certain temps.

So yeah, the issue is the fire, as we've pretty much agreed the impacts themselves were not enough to bring the buildings down, and there is no evidence that it was at the alleged temperatures. To the contrary, the evidence suggests it was much below it.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You can not compare the Windsor ffsftower to the WTC towers. The Windsor tower had reinforced concrete columns in the core. The WTC towers did not. Your contention that the WTC towers had a concrete core is based totally on fantasy. If there was a concrete core, then how come the stairwells were choked with broken drywall?

The Windsor tower was much smaller and not nearly as tall as the WTC towers.

The fire load of the two buildings was entirely different. The windsor tower was not hit by an airplane.

I addressed all of your points in my original post. I won't bother repeating it again, because if you didn't read it properly the first time, then you won't the second. It stands for others to read.

You must be getting tired, Howard. A multi-screen post and all you can come up with is an off-hand dismissal consisting of a few lines? You're slipping, old chap.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
wecomeinpeace, I will repeat this to you one more time.

What? You think just because you say it three times it's going to come true? Why don't you try clicking your heels together at the same time, Dorothy? That might work.

^ lol at the picture.

TheShroudOfMemphis, you got my way above vote.
You made complete and easy to read posts, good job.

Only a fool still accept the Govt theories about 9/11.

This looks like a fire related collapse to you?



Fire has never caused to the total collapse of a steel framed building, yet on Sept. 11, it happened three times in one day? Yeah. Odd considering that most of the fuel from the aircraft burnt up on impact.



Here's a steel framed building in Spain that burned for 12 hours at temperatures of over 1000 degrees, yet no collapse...



It didn't collapse because fire doesn't cause steel framed buildings to collapse.

And still nobody has explained why this man's security company pulled the bomb sniffing dogs out of the WTC complex the weekend before 9-11.
Meet Marvin Bush, whose security company was contracted for both the Airport and the WTC towers...



Here's an interesting quote from the Washignton Post no one seems to want to address...
""Officials at an instant-messaging firm Odigo confirmed today that two employees received text messages warning of an attack on the World Trade Center two hours before terrorists crashed planes into the New York landmarks.
Citing a pending investigation by law enforcement, the company declined to reveal the exact contents of the message or to identify the sender.
But Alex Diamandis, vice president of sales and marketing, confirmed that workers in Odigo's research and development and international sales office in Israel received a warning from another Odigo user approximately two hours prior to the first attack."

Can you say Squibs?
st12.startlogic.com...


A few other questions, why weren't the Firefighters allowed to testify before the 9-11 Committee? Why did NORAD release a erroneous timeline for the day, after standing down for hours even after the planes were being reported Hijacked? How does a oxygen starved hydrocarbon based fire melt steel to begin with?

Why did they pull the bomb sniffing dogs out of the WTC complex Roark?

twitchy

That's the first I've read about bomb dogs being pulled. Do you have any sources for material on it? Not doubting you, as I think BS engulfs this 911 deal, would like to read on it.

Your pics about the charges, if you back up I think 2 pages, you'll see a pic I posted of one of the towers in mid collapse. The pic, considering the crappy pics that are out, is great resolution and large, one can plainly see a floor width of charge expulsion, about 11 floors below the collapsing action.

Misfit

Hello again,

Have been reading all the B.S. on how everyone is an expert and making all the claims....that's all they are.....no one and i mean no one can be an expert on the WTC building since they are so different in design from "all" other buildings.

And all the "Little pieces" of fact made bigger then they are shows how nut's it is to make these assumtions....for example....

The Firemen w'r able to "see" small fires....what the hell y'a talking about man.....you can see fires when fighting em from inside.....there would be 2 much smoke......most people don't know this it's not the fire that kills people it's "smoke" kills you way before the fire gets to you and thats a FACT...but 2 take a "little" clips of audio and try to have that as "see the fires w'r small" I am sure there w'r some areas that had "less" fire then other areas and maybe the firemen thought it was small from his perspective from his "smokey" vision from some stairwell.

And I am sure that the firemen would go into a building no matter what the situation was that's why they are so respected they "risk there life" for others...so to say why would they go in to a building ready to fall. (and please note I do include 'all" safty people in the firemen...police, medics etc.) they are brave people and on that day proves that they are the bravest of all.

But come on people when you have real proof show it and we can talk about it........with an open mind....

But between just Howard and myself we have over 40 years in the Construction buzz.......what do you people making these crazy claims have?

Maybe we should have you show what you do for a living and if you have any experience in this field of construction let alone "structural" desings...and Architect DO NOT have the no how to design structural...that why they have structural engineers to desing and approve it.

Y'r Canadain friend,
Sven

Originally posted by svenglezz
no one and i mean no one can be an expert on the WTC building since they are so different in design from "all" other buildings.

But between just Howard and myself we have over 40 years in the Construction buzz.......what do you people making these crazy claims have?

Your first statement basically makes a moot point of your second. Even your 40yrs is nul concearning WTC

Maybe we should have you show what you do for a living and if you have any experience in this field of construction let alone "structural" desings...and Architect DO NOT have the no how to design structural...that why they have structural engineers to desing and approve it.

You want a resume so people can post. Your statements here show me how high on a pedestal you have placed yourself.

I have 20yrs, multi-facet. Bridging was my fav.

There's your fukkin' resume'

Misfit