Big planes cause big damage

Acutally the WTC were designed to substain multiple airliner hit. Not just one but multiple. I guess they got lucky this time. The amou of fuel is simply ridicolous at best. Well guess those engineers made a few mistakes here and there.

Originally posted by cashlink
9-11 Commission Report Implicitly Discredited by More Than 100 Architects and Engineers

Yeah, while being endorsed by many tens of thousands more. And why is that? Are they all in on it? The American Society of Civil Engineers alone has 144.000 members.

Originally posted by cashlink
The 9-11 Commission Report did not deal with the evidence that supports the conclusion that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 (WTC 7) were destroyed by controlled demolition.

They apparently will be for the WTC7 report, just to indulge the Truthers.

Originally posted by cashlink
You would have to be a foo,l to not ask questions.

Oh, I have, and I simply found the official report more convincing. It backed up it's findings with hard science and is supported by the overwhelming majority of academics, and I'm inlined to trust their judgment.

Originally posted by cashlink
There is however a growing body of very solid evidence regarding these "collapses" that has emerged in the last couple of years

If this is so then why is the scientific establishment not taking this "evidence" seriously?

Originally posted by cashlink
You will find the evidence here in our website as well as at the linked websites. We hope you will find the courage and take the necessary time to review each section thoroughly.

Yeah, I've seen all that, watched all the documentaries, the science behind it doesn't stand up to scrutiny I'm afraid.

Originally posted by cashlink
After all, if in fact these buildings were professionally demolished with explosives, and since it takes months of planning and engineering to place the explosives, and since these buildings were highly secure from foreign terrorists, then we are presented with a horrible conclusion that we cannot deny: that this entire event must have been planned and orchestrated by a group other than those who are blamed by our Government. The questions raised are numerous and ominous that must be answered in the context of a truly independent unimpeachable congressional investigation with subpoena power.

The logistics of such an undertaking would make it practically impossible to realize.

reply to post by Kulturcidist

I see you have a problem with reality.
If you believe in the Government version of 911, then why are you in this thread?

If you bother to read anything that I posted in this thread earlier you might have learn something, a child of 5 years old could see we where lied to.

I see you are a new user or was band and you have started a new profile.
You obviously have an attitude, and I will be putting you on my ignore list
That means I will not be responding to you again.

So you have a nice day.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

Thank you for that information, it was alot, as we all are not 9/11 experts(im a chef), we are here to hear other peoples opinions, and everyone is rewriting facts, we did not get them ourselves. As im sure your facts are correct, the one i was not sure about was what speed the towers were designed to be hit at.
Your source said they could take 600 mph from multipe jets, i heard they were only meant to be hit by a plane flying slowly, as if it were lost in fog, at speeds not much faster then when they are on approach for landing.So while the planes might be heavier or had more fuel than the desingers had in mind, they were going 2-3 times faster, thus very bad for the towers.The designers did not take into account 30 years later terrorists would be using planes as missiles to hit the towers.Simply enough i heard the planes were going way too fast for the towers too handle.Also about the elevators, in normal emergencies im sure these measures work well, but a plane hitting the building at those speeds is not a normal accident.Thanks for replying.



[edit on 20-6-2008 by john_locke78]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by john_locke78]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by john_locke78]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

The buildings were DESIGNED to take a impact from a 707 FULLY LOADED.

Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.

His results were reported in the New York Times where it was claimed that Robertson's study proved the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles an hour

This is why the truth club fails on an epic scale. Just these opening statements highlight a serious, basic lack of understanding around the core facts and the willingness to embellish to promote a the 9-11 truther belief system.

This false charge has been asserted and rebuked for more than six years. But here is the truth club, making the same assertion, insisting it's true. Do you guys (and gals) not realize the Internet is a double edged sword for you? It makes it much easier for you to peddle your myths but it also makes finding the reality equally as easy.

One last point before I answer your assertions: any guesses as to where this bit of truth twisting was born? Yup, truthers. Please stay with me and read everything very carefully as a true understanding of the actual facts requires attention to detail.

So, on to the reality...the truth you claim to be after:

FEMA (of course their “in” on it and therefore everything they say is a “lie”) attempted to explain why the calculations – notice I didn't say study, nor did I say the design documents, more on that later – done decades in the past were over come by the physics involved in 9-11.

What FEMA Says:

The WTC towers were the first structures outside of the military and the nuclear industries whose design considered the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds.

Strange, that's not at all what you claimed. You claimed the towers were designed to withstand an impact from a fully loaded, full-speed 707. That's an interesting stretch, don't you think? But wait!! There's more!

What 9-11 “Truth” says:

That the WTC was designed only to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707 that was seeking to land at a nearby airport, and therefore low on fuel, is an obvious lie.

Wow, a lie they say! What proof do they put forth to support that assertion? Quotes from the (still living) builder of said towers attesting to the “lie” from FEMA? Actual design documents? No on all counts.

Here is the sum total of the truth clubs "proof":

Why is it an obvious lie? Well, because if you take into consideration planes that are landing at an airport, then you must consider planes that are taking off, and such planes are fully laden with fuel.

So the proof the “truth” club offers to support their assertion is...........yet another conspiracy that “must” have happened, right? That's not proof, that's an argumentative position.

FEMA Explains Further:

The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact.

Strangely, still nothing to back up the assertion of a fully loaded, full-speed 707. Odd, don't you think?

Source

Other engineers are on public record as saying that the World Trade Center would even survive an impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747.

Really? You're sure about that? Understanding some really, really basic facts would do much for your understanding of 9-11. Why do I say that?

The construction of the World Trade Centers began in 1966.
Source
The first flight of the Beoing 747 was in February 9th of 1969.
Source

I find it highly odd that the engineers and architects behind the construction of the World Trade Centers were able to factor in physics for airplanes that weren't even in the design phases for another year and half.

In addition, which engineers? With what credentials? Your specific reference(s) please.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Lets continue:

I wonder what Leslie Robertson has to say about your assertion? For those that might not know, Mr. Robertson was the person responsible for designing the World Trade Centers.

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark.

Mr. Robertson's explanation is Here, published in the Spring of 2002.

Well. That certainly refutes your no-proof assertions of a full-speed, fully loaded, 707 traveling at 600 miles an hour. There is one more important fact (although truthers see this as “needless detail”): the 707 can't reach that speed..

The Port Authority has, in the past, claimed the original design documents included a “study” of an aircraft moving at 600 miles per hour as reported here. This has fueled much of the “controversy” the truth club lives within concerning this issue. However, they don't like to discuss (as Harvey would say) The Rest of The Story.

What does the actual designer, again Mr. Robertson, have to say about the Port Authority's claim?

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.

Source

Further:

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

Source

Further Still:

Potentially challenging other statements by Port Authority engineers, Dr. Sunder said it was now uncertain whether the authority fully considered the fuel and its effects when it studied the towers' safety during the design phase.

"Whether the fuel was taken into account or not is an open question," Dr. Sunder said

Source

I appreciate the time and effort you went through to provide information in the language of truth: math. However, you made some gross assumptions that are proven incorrect and therefore your conclusions using these assumptions are also incorrect.

Please don't lecture me, or anyone else, on the “facts” when you lack even the most basic of understanding of what you're talking about.


[edit on 20-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

I think its best to look at both sides (conspiacy vs offical story) as both have good arguments, this way should lead to a better understanding.I once just believed conpsiracy, and defended it, but there are still many logical things for the offical story, so until the offical story gets completely debunked, there is still good in the gov version.Plus how many of you would talk about the 9/11 conspiracy to someone who lost a family member that day, not many i think.

Originally posted by cashlink
I see you have a problem with reality.

I could easily say the same thing.

Originally posted by cashlink
If you believe in the Government version of 911, then why are you in this thread?

I don't believe in the "Government version," I simply find the conclusions reached by an army of reputable experts more convincing than the claims made by the Truth movement.

Originally posted by cashlink
If you bother to read anything that I posted in this thread earlier you might have learn something, a child of 5 years old could see we where lied to.

But all that has been proven incorrect, scientifically.

Originally posted by cashlink
I see you are a new user or was band and you have started a new profile.
You obviously have an attitude, and I will be putting you on my ignore list
That means I will not be responding to you again.

LOLWUT? An "attitude?" Do tell.

Originally posted by alaskan
Please use one of these big words to describe how wtc7 fell, or at least how it was natural.

Certainly, although I am a bit skeptical (pun intended) that a factual understanding of what happened will matter to your convictions.

The evidence for damage

Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

Photographs of the extensive damage can be found within the NIST's report found here

More

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

Source

[More

...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

Source

More

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.

Source

Yet More

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Source

Either they are all liars, or you're assessment skills VIA Google Images trumps their experience, skill and lifetimes of accumulated knowledge.

P.S. Please don't trot out the "six second" collapse claim. It took over 14 seconds, far below "free fall speeds" when you account for the Penthouse collapsing through the center of the building which was the initiation of the collapse.

Since I took the time to try and help you understand the facts, can you answer one question for me? Will you simply go further down the rabbit hole, or will you honestly evaluate the propaganda the truth club continues to peddle to you?


[edit on 20-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by piacenza
Acutally the WTC were designed to substain multiple airliner hit. Not just one but multiple. I guess they got lucky this time. The amou of fuel is simply ridicolous at best. Well guess those engineers made a few mistakes here and there.

Utterly incorrect. Not trying to beat up on you in any way. Take a look at the above posts and decide for yourself.

Lots of items listed in this thread to be incorrect....if you go to other threads here on this web site...It will go into great details on many topics brought up here.

For one the BUILDONG 1 and 2 are very very different from all other buildings....no building on the planet was like them and still to this day.

The fact of 450 architect and engineers believe in a controlled demolition means nothing....if this is the case there are 1000's of them that believe what they saw that day was what happened (without demolition planted).

Plus keep in mind 2 things...
1. Architects in no way is a STRUCTURAL Engineer esp. on building like this.
2. Structural Engineers that could make an educated evaluation of what happed would be say a HAND FULL in North America that have any experience in this kind of structure.

Anyway that's my view on this new thread....go to older ones and read the vast amout of information to make up your own mind.

As always your Canadian friend,
Sven

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
No amount of reason, math, physics, physical evidence, eye witness testimony, thousands of man hours by actual experts investigating the collapses, etc will persuade those who are so unhinged from reality as to insist holograms were used, as but one example.

Please point me to where I can find this reason, math, physics and physical evidence you speak of. Thanks.

And if you say the word NIST, I will just have to laugh in your face because even they don't share their data. So, basically, you believe in a tale told to you by your keepers.

Originally posted by Kulturcidist
The American Society of Civil Engineers alone has 144.000 members.

Yes, and this member of ASCE right here typing is one of the ones who questions. You may want to go out and interview all 144,000 members before you make yourself look the fool by automatically assuming we all don't question the reports.

BTW, I'll ask again. Are ANY of you debunkers structural engineers or hold a PE license in any state?

You're talking to one right here.

But, I digress. I know I'm going to regret posting in this circle jerk thread.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Hmm. Let's quote Leslie Robertson, whom has everything to loose if it came out that his design was flawed. I'm not calling the man a liar but unbiassed he is not.

Originally posted by Griff
Yes, and this member of ASCE right here typing is one of the ones who questions. You may want to go out and interview all 144,000 members before you make yourself look the fool by automatically assuming we all don't question the reports.

So what are you trying to say, that there is a silent majority of academics that dispute the official version of events? Why are they keeping silent?

And on that note, are the majority of biologists closet Creationists as well?

The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of experts in this field, both domestic and international, endorse or do not dispute the official version and that speaks volumes.

If there really were the kind of bona fide discrepancies the Truthers keep claiming then you'd expect to see a much more balanced split within the academic community, not unlike the one that exists between quantum physicists as to which interpretation is more likely to be correct.

Instead we have a handful of questionable experts versus an army of more credible experts who are so unimpressed with the former's arguments that most have simply stopped paying attention and consider such debates a waste of time and resources.

Originally posted by Griff
BTW, I'll ask again. Are ANY of you debunkers structural engineers or hold a PE license in any state?

Must we be in order to properly understand basic scientific principles?

Originally posted by Griff
You're talking to one right here.

Then why not get together with other like-minded individuals in your field and present a case to the academic community at large?

reply to post by Griff

Thank you Griff, you are right! there is a few in this thread that have nothing to say that suports the Government Conspiracies on 911.

You and I know that Our Government has lied to us just about everything on 911 and has stone-wall every investigation that any out sider has tried to do.

How is it, that so many people believe in something that has NOT been investigated.

Heck there are members of Congress that are screaming for 911 to be investigated, It has never been done yet.

So far its been up to the truth movement to Try to find some answers, because our Government refuses to do it.

I want someone in this thread to PLEASE explaine to me, How an airplane hitting the world trade center made those buildings fall down faster than free fall in less than one hour after been hit.

I want one of the people, in this thread that really believes in the Government Conspiracie of 911 to PLEASE explain this with science.
I want to see your Research or sources.

Oh ya! I want the same person to explaine to me why there was a women standing in the impact whole were the plane went through the building at the WTC "waveing" to be rescued, and in the pictures and videos her clothes are not burnt.

Ya! those fires must have been hot, ya right!

Ok people! you all that believe in the Government Conspiracies of 911 bring on YOUR PROOF! your side of truth.... bring it on...

reply to post by Griff


It's been staring you in the face for more than six years. If you haven't stumbled across it yet, there is nothing I can help you with.

What's ironic is you skipped two pages of rational, reasoned responses based totally in the reality of what actually happened before you hit the "reply" button.

Originally posted by cashlink
I want someone in this thread to PLEASE explaine to me, How an airplane hitting the world trade center made those buildings fall down faster than free fall in less than one hour after been hit.

Don't take this the wrong way because I agree with you.

But, instead of proving the government story correct, they will point out that you said "faster than free fall". Which is actually incorrect if you watch and time the collapses. They were near free fall but not free fall and not faster than free fall. Just pointing out that this is what they will focus on instead of actually proving anything.

Just watch and see my prediction. Maybe I should get the Amazing Randi's million dollars since I just proved my psychic ability?

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
What's ironic is you skipped two pages of rational, reasoned responses based totally in the reality of what actually happened before you hit the "reply" button.

No, actually, I skipped two pages of circle jerk ego stroking. Big difference there.

OH YA! another thing to, We have shown you who OUR experts are.
You know thier names ...

NOW WHO ARE YOUR "EXPERTS!" Names please

Please give us the names of all your Academic experts

This is for the Government believers.