Don't be fooled by ATS' professional debunkers

reply to post by Lillydale


As Ive told you, when I have access to my home computer, I will happily send you the links to the videos.

reply to post by Lillydale


And my point is, that from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, people have made claims about things they have designed (or have had designed) that have fallen short of their boasts. Unfortunately, that seems to be a really hard concept for people here to grasp.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale

 

And my point is, that from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, people have made claims about things they have designed (or have had designed) that have fallen short of their boasts. Unfortunately, that seems to be a really hard concept for people here to grasp.

I understand both that claim and that concept but that is not what the point was. It was stated that the twin towers were designed to withstand those impacts and this was stated by designers who would know. You are comparing it to what other historical items then?

Either these engineers knew something or you are saying they are no more qualified than the owner of a shipline to make such claims.

See the point? The twin towers were DESIGNED to withstand those impacts. This has been stated by engineers who design.

What is it you want to compare these engineer claims to again or were you all done with that?

reply to post by Lillydale

The twin towers were DESIGNED to withstand those impacts. This has been stated by engineers who design.

Okay, I will start a search to find other engineering failures. Just to satisfy people on here.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale

 

The twin towers were DESIGNED to withstand those impacts. This has been stated by engineers who design.

Okay, I will start a search to find other engineering failures. Just to satisfy people on here.

Will that be before or after you turn up those 500 foot sections that fell like a tree to land 500 feet away?

And before the cyber cafe closes...

Some engineering failures....

1999. NASA rocket scientists lose the $125 million Mars orbiter. This in itself would not be news, as this sort of thing can and does happen. What makes this tragic loss so spectacular is the fact that the orbiter was lost due to math errors for a critical operation: one engineering team did its calculations in English units, while another team used metric units.

Oh d**n.....well, they are rocket scientists though...

2007. Interstate 35W bridge collapse, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Both bridge decks of a single-span interstate highway bridge across the Mississippi River suddenly collapse, killing 13. Numerous wild-ass guesses flew from all directions, while a political blamefest ensued. The culprit? The under-designed steel gusset plates used to join structural members to one another. Apparently, the designers used 1/2" thick plates instead of using 1" thick plates.

Whoops....

1986. Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster, Chernobyl, Ukraine. Another reactor meltdown, except the genie really gets out of the bottle on this one. Unlike Three Mile Island, the reactor here exploded, killing three workers and releasing radioactive contamination that swept across eastern and central Europe. Thousands of square miles of land remains contaminated, and over 300,000 people were forced to move from some of those areas.

Yep, the engineers were testing a system to help prevent what eventually happened...oops....

In those three, engineers "did the math" and still screwed it up. But, im sure there is absolutely NO chance that the WTC engineers could have made mistakes....

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


I never said engineers do not make mistakes. Bridges fall down, things happen. YOU are the one that started claiming that the fact that the twin towers were engineered to withstand an airplane was the same as the Titanic boasts and some other crap that was not at all relevant. I am sorry that it frustrates you that I ask you to just make sense. Is it like the Titanic or do you need to dig a little deeper to find an example that might fit a little better? The above answers and it only took two days to get there. -applause- I am really concerned with these sections that fell like trees 500 feet away since you are trying to use the same doubletalk to back out of that claim as well. It just physically makes no sense whatsoever and you have already begun to step away from the original statement. Going to walk away altogether?

Originally posted by Lillydale
Will that be before or after you turn up those 500 foot sections that fell like a tree to land 500 feet away?

Yeah, I'm still one of the people waiting to see this, Swampfox. I've spent years watching the collapses and discussing them so I look forward to being shown something I have never seen before.

reply to post by bsbray11


The initial impact probably removed some columns and significantly weakened many others. Deformed, and probably unbraced over two or more floors, these columns would also have been subjected to additional load from damaged floors and debris. The spreading fire would have continued to weaken the structure, most likely leading to a collapse under vertical load.

As for the core of the building if i were going to destroy the building the core was not important.You keep bringing this up as if its important.The building perimeter structure was the key element in the performance of
the building. In addition to taking vertical gravity loads, it also resisted all horizontal loads by framing action between the close-centered columns
and the spandrel beams, such that the perimeter structure acted as a pierced tube in resisting loads. Vertical structure inside the building
supported gravity loads only.

To simplify things for you because of the building design you can take down the building by destroying the outer columns however destroy the inner structure and the building would not have collapsed.To be honest I'm shocked the building lasted as long as it did.

My suggestion continue to believe the government set this up flew the plane in the building.To be honest i don't believe the whole story that a couple of people with box cutters and training from a flight school could have pulled it off.But please stop trying to say explosives were used to bring the building down this is one of the reasons the truther movement will never go any where they want to keep delving into the realm of the impossible.


[edit on 12/14/09 by dragonridr]

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by bsbray11

 

The initial impact probably removed some columns and significantly weakened many others. Deformed, and probably unbraced over two or more floors, these columns would also have been subjected to additional load from damaged floors and debris. The spreading fire would have continued to weaken the structure, most likely leading to a collapse under vertical load.

I'm well aware of this theory. FEMA counted less than 15% of the perimeter columns (13% and 11% but I don't remember which tower was which) were severed in either building. NIST modeled the maximum core damage that could have taken place and that was also equivalent to less than 15% of the core structure, and that's after both engines take out whole core columns iirc.

I'm not convinced fire could start the chain reaction that resulted in what we saw.

As for the core of the building if i were going to destroy the building the core was not important.You keep bringing this up as if its important.The building perimeter structure was the key element in the performance of
the building. In addition to taking vertical gravity loads, it also resisted all horizontal loads by framing action between the close-centered columns
and the spandrel beams, such that the perimeter structure acted as a pierced tube in resisting loads. Vertical structure inside the building
supported gravity loads only.

The core structure took most of the gravity loads and they were braced to take wind loads, but the trusses were meant to act as a damper. But you're saying the core is insignificant because without the perimeter columns (and trusses) it would blow over. Well, without the core structure, the perimeter columns, if the bolts fail, will collapse.

"To simplify things for you because of the building design you can take down the building by destroying the outer columns however destroy the inner structure and the building would not have collapsed."

If what you are saying is true, the initial impacts/explosions ripped out a nice piece of the exterior portion from each building. Why didn't the buildings start to collapse at the damaged area at least immediately if the outer section was so vital to supporting the structure?

Both those building were doing just fine for approximately one hour each, until additional explosive components were activated which obliterated them from the top down and brought them to the ground in an unbelievably uniform manner.

The core was the most vital part to supporting those structures. Once the core and the floors were blown out, the exterior had nowhere to go but down because it was not capable of supporting itself on its own. The exterior was dependent on the core and the floors for support.

Bout time this thread ended up in the 911 site

reply to post by Lillydale

I never said engineers do not make mistakes. Bridges fall down, things happen. YOU are the one that started claiming that the fact that the twin towers were engineered to withstand an airplane was the same as the Titanic boasts and some other crap that was not at all relevant.

Engineers do not make mistakes? According to most of the posters on this thread, the WTC engineers were perfect in their design and their calculations.

When I point out that they obviously made some errors in their work and give other examples where engineering mistakes were made in history...its not relevant?

Oh yes I forgot, everyone jumped on the "Titanic Tree" and did not see the forest in front of them.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Engineers do not make mistakes? According to most of the posters on this thread, the WTC engineers were perfect in their design and their calculations.

When I point out that they obviously made some errors in their work and give other examples where engineering mistakes were made in history...its not relevant?

Oh yes I forgot, everyone jumped on the "Titanic Tree" and did not see the forest in front of them.

No...............................

You missed the point and I know you are not this blurry for real. It was stated what the designers of the buildings could claim and you said it was the same as the Titanic and even ranted about it for some pages. It is not the same as the Titanic in any way shape or form. I thought it would be nice if you tried to stick with the distraction you had picked to hide under.

You should know that all I really care about is the magic physics that took place that day that allowed anything 500 feet tall or not to pivot down like a tree and land 500 feet away but you go ahead and whine about engineers for a few more pages since it takes you days to get around to making any sense with half of what you say.

Where are those sections that fell like trees and landed 500 feet away again? I just want to know how that is even possible let alone that it actually happened.

I never said engineers did not make mistakes. You claimed that the same could be said about the Titanic as the twin towers and that was just not even a little bit true.

Try to be honest just for a page, won't you?

reply to post by dragonridr


dragon,

You are doing so well. However, there is some 'debunking' to include, after reading your remark:

To be honest i don't believe the whole story that a couple of people with box cutters and training from a flight school could have pulled it off.

You have sufficient expertise in building engineering, it seems, to hold your own.

I have enough understanding of airplanes, the airline industry, and the possiblities in the real world to know just how this was successfully carried off.

Please stop, for a moment, to consider what a determined individual, bent on inflicting injury to another human being, can accomplish with a box cutter. A razor-sharp blade, likely heavy-duty, at least one inch long, possibly longer. If the victim is attacked from behind. While seated. With a seatbelt attached, in a confined space. By an attacker who is standing. And who has gained an advantage of surprise. And is likely trained in close-in hand-to-hand.

Then, also recognize that the ones who were tasked with actually flying the airplanes had more than just "training from a flight school". Actually, of course they had that, how else do you suppose they learned, and earned licenses?

But even more, they had other experience. Flying experience.

Full flight airplane simulators, just like the ones here in the U.S. that are used to train and check pilots are also available in other countries. Even in certain Middle Eastern countries. Where a handful of Saudi or Egyptian "brethern" with fistfulls of cash would no doubt be accepted, and eagerly welcomed, for familiarization on the simulators that very, very faithfully recreate the experience of the real airplane.

Modern simulators are SO realistic that, with the very advanced versions (Level D 'landing certified' capabilities) it isn't even necessary to fly the real thing at all. A pilot can be trained on the sim, get his rating from the check ride in the sim, and be considered 'qualified' without ever touching a the real thing.

But, that doesn't relate to this story...for the purposes of simply navigating and steering to accomplish their goals? It is very basic, and has been shown, demonstrated, by several re-creations that even inexperienced people with little knowledge of the airplanes can do a passable job.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Please stop, for a moment, to consider what a determined individual, bent on inflicting injury to another human being, can accomplish with a box cutter. A razor-sharp blade, likely heavy-duty, at least one inch long, possibly longer. If the victim is attacked from behind. While seated. With a seatbelt attached, in a confined space. By an attacker who is standing. And who has gained an advantage of surprise. And is likely trained in close-in hand-to-hand.

I can see one pilot getting surprised like this, but what about the other pilot? To not even be able to squack to hijack code?

Also, how did they kill the pilots while sitting strapped in and then remove their bodies from the flight seat without knocking the controls out of "auto pilot"?.

Also, wasn't it reported by either Betty Ong or someone else that the pilots were herded to the rear of the plane?


[edit on 14-12-2009 by Nutter]

Without getting too macabre, I've always found it pretty odd that people are so unable to believe that determined young men with blades could hijack a plane.

First they kill someone. With the element of surprise it wouldn't be at all difficult. Make sure enough people see it. Everyone will be too scared to move, even to think. Storm the cockpit, tell the pilots you have a bomb - tell everybody you have a bomb, and that they must remain calm if they want to live.

People hadn't seen 9/11 then. They would have assumed these men were conventional - if extremely dangerous - hijackers. Sit tight, pray, and hope they don't do anything crazy would be the natural reaction.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


I notice you've STILL avoided showing an example of a column leaning over 500 ft from the towers.

reply to post by Lillydale


Have to think of WTC as a SYSTEMS PROBLEM instead of only one factor
in the collapse

The aircraft impacts were the initiating event

The aircraft impacts:

Knocked huge holes in outer perimeter columns which were vital
elements of the building structure.

Damaged the floor trusses which not only supported the floors, but
provided lateral support tieing the building structure together

Damaged many of the central core columns which supported the
gravity loads

Aircraft impact also set massive fires to multiple floors (at least 6) from
fuel load

Aircraft impact destroyed the fire supression systems, both passive and
active systems

The passive systems was the spray on fire proofing - tests later showed
the fire proofing was very fragile and easily dislodged, The shock of the
impact and debris cloud dislodged the fire proofing in the area and
exposed the steel columns and trusses to the heat

The active systems were the sprinklers - aircraft impact destoyed the sprinklers and standpipes. Without sprinklers was no way to control
the fires started.

Even more important was the destruction of the elevators and stairwells
by the impact - trapping thousands of victims, The destruction of the
elevators meant that the FDNY had no way of accessing the impact
area to conduct operations short of WALKING UP 90 floors in full gear
and carrying equipment and tools. It was estimated that would take
1 1/2 hours for crews to reach the impact zone - problem was the stairways were full of people evacuating the buildings. Even if stairs were
empty woyuld have been almost impossible to reach the impact floor in
time.

With no fire fighting operations possible the fires had free rein to spread and attack the building structure - eventually heating the steel and causing
it to deform and weaken.

Originally posted by thedman

With no fire fighting operations possible the fires had free rein to spread and attack the building structure - eventually heating the steel and causing
it to deform and weaken.

I am sorry you put all that effort in just to land at this sucker of a line. What temperature did the steel get up to again? How do you know what temperature the steel got up to? Please remember building 7 when trying to answer.