9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by Pilgrum

 

The paper clearly states it was designed for a plane going at 600 mph!!

But no one seems to be able to verify the study was actually done.

Originally posted by L driver
But no one seems to be able to verify the study was actually done.

No one has access to the structural plans, either, but are you going to doubt their existence, too? That the towers could withstand 600 mph was both stated by the same engineers that designed the towers, and proven on 9/11 when two planes did slam the towers at around those speeds, and the towers did not immediately collapse as a result. It took more than that, whether you think it was fire or something else.

reply to post by bsbray11


I am pretty sure I have heard statements by the designers that they did not anticipate impacts from planes as big as those planes.
Planes are tending to get bigger after all.
And those buildings were sorta old.

But eh.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
I am pretty sure I have heard statements by the designers that they did not anticipate impacts from planes as big as those planes.

You're probably thinking of Leslie Robertson. He hadn't done those calculations, Skilling's firm did. The towers weren't built by one group of people.

reply to post by bsbray11


*sarcasm warning* You don't say? *sacrasm warning end*
No pretty much multiple people (designer types) have said it.
Don't know and haven't paid much attention.
On what the designers said about the collapse.
They of course obviously did.
We're just arguing on the whys.
*shrugs*
Also as I have read multiple times I have heard from designer type people (you know people with PhDs and etc) repeatedly say they would have to of made those buildings into bunkers to make them 100% safe or ANY building. And nor is it cost effective to do such.
I am pretty sure I posted an article on one of these threads somewhere.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Don't know and haven't paid much attention.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Let's just say there's no reason to doubt Worthington Skilling Helle & Jackson when they say they did the analysis. Unless you would like to prove that they are lying.

reply to post by bsbray11


Since you obviously couldn't get past that one line and the partial thought it inspoused. Which on a sidenote I caught and edited.

Also as I have read multiple times, I have heard from designer type people (you know people with PhDs and etc) repeatedly say they would have to of made those buildings into bunkers to make them 100% safe or ANY building. And nor is it cost effective to do such.
I am pretty sure I posted an article on one of these threads somewhere.

Sidenote:
Do I need to put you back on ignore?




[edit on 4-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

I take it you accept what I posted since you're ignoring it. Why should I take any informal opinions from people who didn't do the analysis or design the buildings, over formal statements of actual analysis performed by the actual designers of the building?

And how can you suggest that the buildings couldn't take the physical impacts, when they obviously did on 9/11? Again, whether you think it was the fire or something else, the impacts didn't do it. So any calculations saying the impacts couldn't were right. It took more than that. You can put me back on ignore if these kinds of observations unnerve you that badly.

Here's the actual quote from a "white paper" issued by the firm, as taken from the book City in the Sky and posted on the STJ911 website:

3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.


--City in the Sky, p 131

Realize that the above quote describes the actual impacts on 9/11. They did only localized structural damage (even on the impacted floors, a minority of columns) and did not actually kill that many people relative to how many worked in the building, etc.

Also:

A telegraph from the architectural firm Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, was distributed to reporters on February 14, 1965. The telegraph was in response to claims by real estate baron and Lawrence Wien that the design of the Twin Towers was unsound.

["]THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...["]
--City in the Sky, p 134-6

[edit on 4-2-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


LoL!!! Read my previous post on the previous page towards the bottom and see why I am laughing.
And yea I probly should put you on ignore.


And must be great to pick and chose only the reports you want to be true.
And call only those true.
The rest is disinfo/false/etc etc etc.
Unless I am misremembering you as a CDer.


[edit on 4-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


The last post on the last page reads like an emotional outburst and has nothing to do with what I'm posting. If you don't feel obligated to believe that these guys were doing their jobs correctly (or to believe anything else that anyone shows you) then that's your call.

What were you saying about the impacts earlier, though, and design claims? That's what I was talking about. If that's really so hard then putting me back on ignore sure would save you all the beating around the bush.


Actually, as far as planes impacting the buildings, there are no reports that say the impacts could have collapsed them. So really it doesn't matter what I pick.

I'm pretty sure this is all just one of those old debunker points that has been decimated by now simply by reading even NIST more carefully, but people still cling on to it just as people cling to the foggier conspiracy theories. The physical impacts did NOT do that much damage, and could not collapse the towers alone. Everyone (that would know any better, or that even watched 9/11) agrees on this.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Otherwords, it wasn't a fire that brought them down.
It wasn't a impact and the subsequent structural damage that brought them down either.
It was the double wammy of massive structure damage to that location and the jet fuel fueled fire that brought them down.
Neither one was suffiencent enough to bring them down just by themselves.

So your saying all the reports that state the building withstood the plane impacts and the fires were not hot enough or last long enough to cause the collapse are wrong or lied ?

You are also missing the point of the molten steel found in the basements and debris. We know the fires did not get hot enough to melt steel so something else had to cause the molten steel.

I also have posted steel buildings that had longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the WTC buildings and they did not collapse.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

So your saying all the reports that state the building withstood the plane impacts and the fires were not hot enough or last long enough to cause the collapse are wrong or lied ?

Nope, as I have said a few times now, I don't care what any report says.
I know what I know.
And I see what I see.
I am not one of those that pick and choose what report to believe because I don't bother much with any of them. And no the Perdue video is not a report it is a simulation.

It should also be noted I can see the benefits to anyone wanting to contribute for whatever reason to the lovely mess we have right now, just to use these forums as an example.

Nice attempt at using my own ploy against me though.
Speaking of that.
Ready to answer yet so is Perdue University Liars or fools?

You are also missing the point of the molten steel found in the basements and debris. We know the fires did not get hot enough to melt steel so something else had to cause the molten steel.

Oh yea. The steel HAD to be molten before it got underground.
Couldn't have been melted by the fact it was then covered in a rather good insolator known as concrete with fires that were still burning heating the area up. And was probly some what hot from the friction of the collapse anyway.
Remember it still burned underground for days after the collapse.
Nah impossible.

I also have posted steel buildings that had longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the WTC buildings and they did not collapse.

And as I have retorted not of the design of the Twin Towers. And probly not the near the same height even.

And if that was you about the Oklahoma City blast. COMPLETELY different animals as I stated then.


Oh and there was a neat line I saw in a unrelated documentary.
"Life after people" or something or simular VERY good documentary btw.
"Within every single thing man creates is the seeds of its own destruction."

*************opinion warning******************
Seems to me alot of truthers intentionally forget that truism. Like there was no possible way an unintentional collapse can occur. That it would take super fires and super planes to damage it enough to make it collapse. If fires or planes even could.
Or DEWs, Anti-matter bombs, Nuclear Weapons, Thermite.
With the first few of those sound exceptionally silly to me.
**********opinion warning ended****************







*****edited because it was ad hominem and I thought better of it and I ignored him anyway, so why say it because there is really no point to in saying it other than getting "a parting shot in".******

[edit on 4-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Nope, as I have said a few times now, I don't care what any report says.
I know what I know. And I see what I see.

I think this is Wraoth pretty much saying he doesn't care about facts or data or anything that might change his mind. Because he isn't going to change his mind.

Oh yea. The steel HAD to be molten before it got underground.
Couldn't have been melted by the fact it was then covered in a rather good insolator known as concrete with fires that were still burning heating the area up.

Insulators only hold in what heat is already there. The heat to melt the steel would already have to be there, so this isn't an explanation. Also I have never heard of friction melting steel to the point of flowing in open air, by any process. It strikes me as equivalent to trying to cut down a tree with a feather duster.

And if I come across to you as if there's no way you can correct me, then why get mad and put me on ignore? Because I never said I knew everything, or anything even close. But if you can't rebut what I post then maybe you should consider that it's just because you're thinking from the wrong state of mind. And that's the entire point, what needs to be changed. Either that or you can actually justify what I'm so off about. It seems like one or the other would be preferable to just putting me on ignore, but then again I don't know why exactly you post here.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


I had to read this post several times to make sure I hadn't missed something.

About the NIST report, you said:

I haven't even bothered to look at the stupid thing.

Further, you

...don't really plan to.

Which is pretty extraordinary, since you've spent a fair bit of time here challenging suggestions that the buildings collapsed as the result of controlled demolitions.

Fortunately, you...

know what I know.

So I guess my question is: how? What is it you 'know' and how have you reached your conclusions, given that you haven't read the 'stupid' (or 'silly', chose whichever description fits your mood) report and, I assume, haven't conducted your own investigation?

Oh, and one final point: is the following comment aimed at those who have read the report and challenge it, or a commentary on your current state of mind?

You know what, ignorance is bliss.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by coughymachine]

reply to post by bsbray11


Nrg damn my morbid curiosity.

I think this is Wraoth pretty much saying he doesn't care about facts or data or anything that might change his mind. Because he isn't going to change his mind.

Nope. You think wrong, this is an example of taking statements and twisting them to what you want them to say.

Insulators only hold in what heat is already there. The heat to melt the steel would already have to be there, so this isn't an explanation. Also I have never heard of friction melting steel to the point of flowing in open air, by any process. It strikes me as equivalent to trying to cut down a tree with a feather duster.

Did you completely miss where I mentioned the fact about how the fires were burning for days underground? Guess not.
And nor did I say anything about friction melting steel.
Another example of you twisting statements to say what you want them to say.

And if I come across to you as if there's no way you can correct me, then why get mad and put me on ignore?

Nailing jello to a tree is hardly what I consider a constructive persuit.
What I mean by that is no matter what points I make you will twist them to mean what you want them to mean and you will also use that tactic to commit ad hominem often. You know stuff like at the top. Thusly pointless to even see your posts because you will brook no debate and will sink any debate by any means necessary.
Or spend YEARS simply explaining what was actually meant beyond your wild accusations and having those answers twisted.
So I choose ignore I should have left standing and will be reinstating shortly most likely.

Because I never said I knew everything, or anything even close. But if you can't rebut what I post then maybe you should consider that it's just because you're thinking from the wrong state of mind. And that's the entire point, what needs to be changed.

Rrrrrrrriiiiiigggggghhhhhhttttttt see the above examples of you twisting my statements to mean what you want them to.
And I would also like you to at least try to note that what you just said with that last bit was simular to "if someone has a problem with what I say when I am insulting them it is their failing not mine".

Either that or you can actually justify what I'm so off about. It seems like one or the other would be preferable to just putting me on ignore, but then again I don't know why exactly you post here.

And that is exactly what I have done and watched it be twisted into meaning all sorts of wonderfully assinine things, real incentive to continue trying to debate someone.
Please note the sarcasm.

And as to why I post here well.
I won't answer that particular attack.
Too many reasons to bother to list for you for the reasons I state in this post.

And if you still think all that after reading this. I urge to reread or just put me on ignore too. But if after a second time you need to reread again just put me on ignore for the love of the gods.

reply to post by coughymachine


Yea. I plan on spending my time rehashing every conversation so we can then proceed to have the same arguments with no resolution. No thank you.
Especially considering I will just be going down a simular road I face with the person I responded to above. Doubly no thank you.

Oh and kindly lay off the baseless ad hominem. If your going to attack me based on a quote use the whole thing.


[edit on 4-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant

There was no ad hom there at all. I simply quoted what was necessary from your posts (large quotes are forbidden) and asked you to clarify your position. If, however, you feel I've misquoted you or else robbed your comments of their intended meaning, please set me straight.

However, whilst you don't appear to want to back up what you've said, I'm going to press the point. You've spent a lot of time and energy in this thread dismissing those who challenge the official account of the collapses of WTCs 1 & 2. Yet you haven't even read the account in question nor, I assume, have you been in a position to conduct your own investigation.

And yet you 'know' what happened.

I want to know how you 'know'.

I also wnat to know whether you were referring to people like me when you said that 'ignorance is bliss' or whether this referred to the fact you were not in possession of the facts concerning the detail of the NIST report.

It will take far less effort from you to answer these points than it will to come up with increasingly elaborate ways of not answering them.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by coughymachine]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by bsbray11

 

I am pretty sure I have heard statements by the designers that they did not anticipate impacts from planes as big as those planes.
Planes are tending to get bigger after all.
And those buildings were sorta old.

But eh.

Did you not see my post in this thread that shows that a 707 at 600 mph would have more destructive force than the 767 did flying at under 500 mph?

To be fair to all concerned, including designers and constructors, the buildings did cope with the initial impacts and lasted long enough for the majority of occupants to escape but eventually succumbed to a combination of factors. The problem is we don't know what all the factors were. I still haven't seen any energetic events like explosions taking place immediately before the collapses started.