If A 707 Hit The World Trade Center?...

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That original thread only mentions the word STEEL one time.

How can they effect be guessed at without knowing the distribution of steel in a skyscraper.

And they talked about the plane possibly knocking the building over. The south tower only moved 15 inches due to the impact. It is like they don't get what the building's capabilities must be to handle the wind.

That's because 99% of the users on Airliners.net are plane entuthiasts, not engineers

We like to discuss new colours schemes, but we don't know the chemical composition of it because that is not relevant.

We like to discuss new airplane types, but we don't know the aeronautical engineering behind it because that is not relevant.

We like to discuss airline financials and new routes, but most of the time it's guessworks and talking out the backside, since we don't have access to the details (for quite obvious reasons).

I find this attitude about physics peculiar.

I bet you can find 10 year old kids that can shoot pool better than most PhD physicists.

Riding a bicycle it physics. Throwing a basketball through a hoop is physics. We should teach physics and math in grade school at the same time instead of separating math from reality. it is difficult to understand because the schools make it that way. That is the absurdity of this not being solved in NINE YEARS.

In 2008 I asked Richard Gage about the distributions of steel and concrete. He got a shocked look on his face and gave me a LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints. There are skyscrapers all over the world. I bet the distribution of support steel has to be pretty similar as long as the cross section remains constant.

psik

this 911 stuff is old, No way the government was behind it.

Originally posted by Tripleaaa
this 911 stuff is old, No way the government was behind it.

I'd suggest doing some real research and studying of 9/11 before making such unfounded comments.

reply to post by Yankee451


767 is somewhat bigger than 707, but this was not the problem.

Enginners calculated what would happen if buildings were sturck by airliner in fligth. Would they instantly
collapse? Would they topple over?

According to their calculations buildings would withstand the impact. And they were right. Towers did survive
the initial impacts which is far as went.

Its like operation was a sucess, but patient dies...,

What they forgot to consider was effects of damage on building systems and how would impact what came after

Aircraft impacts destroyed the stairways and even more important cut the elevators into the impact zones

Result of lining stairways and elevator shafts with sheetrock instead of concrete to save weight and money

Subsequent buildings use 2 - 2 1/2 ft of high strenght concrete to protect them

Damage to the stairways trapped thousands. Damage to elevators meant FF could not reach the impact floors
quickly - woul;d have to walk. Ever try climbing stairs in full firefighting gear? It is slow and exhausting

Only FF to reach an impact floor were a few in South tower - and only because Chief Palmer found a working
freight elevator to the 41st floor cutting distance in half.

Aircraft impacts also cut the plumbing supplying water to sprinklers and standpipes preventing water from
getting to fire. No Sprinklers - no means of controlling fire spread.

Impacts also dislodged much of the fireproofing from the steel work exposing it to heat from the fires

Dwelling on whether building would survive an impact from an aircraft is only half the story

If the vital systems needed for access to the fires and fire fighting do not survive it is moot

You will lose the fight and building will crumble......

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Yankee451

 

767 is somewhat bigger than 707, but this was not the problem.

Enginners calculated what would happen if buildings were sturck by airliner in fligth. Would they instantly
collapse? Would they topple over?

According to their calculations buildings would withstand the impact. And they were right. Towers did survive
the initial impacts which is far as went.

Its like operation was a sucess, but patient dies...,

What they forgot to consider was effects of damage on building systems and how would impact what came after

Aircraft impacts destroyed the stairways and even more important cut the elevators into the impact zones

Result of lining stairways and elevator shafts with sheetrock instead of concrete to save weight and money

Subsequent buildings use 2 - 2 1/2 ft of high strenght concrete to protect them

Damage to the stairways trapped thousands. Damage to elevators meant FF could not reach the impact floors
quickly - woul;d have to walk. Ever try climbing stairs in full firefighting gear? It is slow and exhausting

Only FF to reach an impact floor were a few in South tower - and only because Chief Palmer found a working
freight elevator to the 41st floor cutting distance in half.

Aircraft impacts also cut the plumbing supplying water to sprinklers and standpipes preventing water from
getting to fire. No Sprinklers - no means of controlling fire spread.

Impacts also dislodged much of the fireproofing from the steel work exposing it to heat from the fires

Dwelling on whether building would survive an impact from an aircraft is only half the story

If the vital systems needed for access to the fires and fire fighting do not survive it is moot

You will lose the fight and building will crumble......

People that want to come up with RATIONALIZATIONS for believing nonsense can do it.

The south tower came down 56 minutes after impact. It takes TIME to heat steel to the point of WEAKENING. How much time depends on the QUANTITY OF STEEL, how it is connected to conduct heat away and temperature of the source. So why aren't we told the quantity of steel on every level of the towers and why isn't everyone that claims to have any sense demanding the information? The 81st level of the south tower obviously had to have enough steel to support the weight of another 29 stories of building.

When the plane hit the south tower the building deflected 15 inches and oscillated for 4 minutes.

And yet when the building began its collapse 52 minutes later the bottom of the top portion that broke loose moved horizontally 20 feet when the top tilted and rotated. We are supposed to believe fire and gravity could do that? Tell me another one.

So where are the physicists and other EXPERTS discussing the center of mass and center of rotation and moment of inertia of that top portion of the south tower?

You obviously pick and choose what "engineering" you want to listen to and fail to think about what is involved in actually analyzing the problem.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century. Physicists will need centuries to live this down. But then they need most people to not understand Newtonian physics to not see their absurdity. And then we have politicians talking about SCIENCE EDUCATION.

ROFL

psik

The better question would be who did it, rather than what happened.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The 81st level of the south tower obviously had to have enough steel to support the weight of another 29 stories of building.

The 81st floor was not the foundation for all the floors above it.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The 81st level of the south tower obviously had to have enough steel to support the weight of another 29 stories of building.

The 81st floor was not the foundation for all the floors above it.

What are you saying held up the top 29 stories for 28 years then?

I didn't say FLOOR I said LEVEL.

By that I mean a 12 foot high volume including all of the steel in the core and the perimeter columns.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

What are you saying held up the top 29 stories for 28 years then?

I didn't say FLOOR I said LEVEL.

By that I mean a 12 foot high volume including all of the steel in the core and the perimeter columns.

The same thing that held up all the other "levels" - the foundation.

Originally posted by Cassius666
The better question would be who did it, rather than what happened.

If someone can't figure out what happened why should anyone think they have the brains to figure out who did it?

That might even provide clues to who did it. What is that CSI program all about?

Maybe they should investigate it instead of the NIST.

psik

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

What are you saying held up the top 29 stories for 28 years then?

I didn't say FLOOR I said LEVEL.

By that I mean a 12 foot high volume including all of the steel in the core and the perimeter columns.

The same thing that held up all the other "levels" - the foundation.

ROFLMAO

Get ten paint cans and stack them on top of each other. Sure the bottom can is on the floor. But the second can is on top of the 1st can. The 3rd can is on top of the second can. So every can must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the cans above.

Because of the square-cube law things get more complicated with 1360 foot buildings. The designers had to figure out how to distribute the steel.

It is truly hilarious that the nation that put men on the Moon is not telling the world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of buildings designed before 1969. And computers have gotten so much better since then.

So tell us what the foundation has to do with the amount of steel on every level.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Get ten paint cans and stack them on top of each other. Sure the bottom can is on the floor. But the second can is on top of the 1st can. The 3rd can is on top of the second can. So every can must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the cans above.

Ah, the Richard Gage world of engineering. Maybe some cardboard boxes?

Tell you what, try and stack up ten paint cans without a floor.

Every can must be so constructed so as to allow the load of the weight above it to pass through it to the ultimate resting place, the floor.

Originally posted by BombDefined
Fires were also taken into consideration when they designed the tower to with withstand a planes impact. (I can't remember the exact quote so I can't find the source for this, sorry)

You can find the quote in my post earlier in this thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Get ten paint cans and stack them on top of each other. Sure the bottom can is on the floor. But the second can is on top of the 1st can. The 3rd can is on top of the second can. So every can must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the cans above.

Ah, the Richard Gage world of engineering. Maybe some cardboard boxes?

Tell you what, try and stack up ten paint cans without a floor.

Every can must be so constructed so as to allow the load of the weight above it to pass through it to the ultimate resting place, the floor.

So you come from the rhetorical school of physics.

The force does not pass through without putting COMPRESSIVE FORCE on the can. The can must be strong enough to withstand the compressive force. That is why the columns get thicker toward the bottom of the building. The amount of compressive force has increased due to the larger number of levels above.

Aren't WORD GAMES just so much fun along with the psychological association games with Richard Gage and his cardboard?

But notice that AE911Truth does not talk about the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers either.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

But notice that AE911Truth does not talk about the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers either.

I disagree. I beg you to notice that NO ONE, with the exception of you, talks about these mythical, magical distributions. NO ONE. Why? Well, the first reason is quite obvious - its irrelevant, the other reason is that if it truly is so important you should be able to figure it out for yourself. And thirdly, if there is some magic distribution scenario wherein 9/11 is possible and one wherein it is not, then you should be able to tell us. So what distribution scenario allows the 9/11 collapse of the WTC towers? You must have this calculated by now.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I disagree. I beg you to notice that NO ONE, with the exception of you, talks about these mythical, magical distributions. NO ONE.

No, Steven Jones has a two hour thing that he did in Australia that is split into 8 parts on YouTube. In number 5 he talks about the steel getting thinner near the top of the building.

In the NIST report they talk about the distribution of weight of the tower needing to be known to analyze the impact. Then they don't do it.

NCSTAR 1-2A Baseline == distribution of mass

The wind loads were calculated on the basis of 2.5 percent total damping. This value includes the intrinsic damping of the structural systems plus the supplemental damping provided by the dampers.

The differential static and dynamic shears between successive levels were calculated and distributed using two different methods:

• The static wind load to be applied to each floor was determined from the shear diagram.
• The dynamic wind load to be applied to each floor was based on the distribution of mass over the tower height, the fundamental mode shape, and the dynamic component of the lateral wind-induced sway at the roof.

www.fire.nist.gov...

The wind is a shear force just like and airliner would be therefore it must be part of the analysis of the design of the building. So it is really so psychologically interesting that this is disappeared so much. Physics is incapable of giving a damn about psychology.

I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report years ago and searched it for "distribution of mass" and "distribution of weight". I found all of those references in relation to the building.

Now are you going to try telling me that the NIST does not know what it is talking about?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Now are you going to try telling me that the NIST does not know what it is talking about?

A. Distribution of MASS over tower height

B. Wind load

C. Its not the NIST that does not know what its talking about.

reply to post by Yankee451


I swore I would never again allow myself to be drawn into this mindless topic swilling as in the like all the other 9/11 crap in the deep bowl "CONSPIRACY" Sorry, I am an emotional being and hate seeing people so easily led by the nose, where ever you got your "data" (Did I clean THAT S*** up) When the WTC Towers were being designed, by your calendar in the "1960's" the biggest thing they had to worry about was a Boing 707, which in case you were asleep in time (or if not yet born, consider yourself forgiven, for now, but wake up!) the 707 was based on the Boing airframe, the remarkable, B-52, biggest mother in the sky, dry no less... And what would happen if it hit the WTC Towers. What was to happen was commerce and that commercial aircraft would need to be designed to carry as much fuel as possible per load of cargo, and in this case cargo did not mean bombs but us, people, the huddle masses crap. If someone out there still buys this 9/11 fiction I beg you: Do some simple research on the effects of so much kinetic energy and 3,000f jet fuel hitting a flimsy (it was the cheapest way to build then) steel guarders hung on which was , basically paper. It was inevitable.

Yes I would have been shocked though very pleased if the towers had survived, but it was not possible. Think I'm wrong? I know there are conspiracies and there are those who use fear to manipulate others into "OH! ITs got to an American conspiracy! Grow up some just hate us, and the longer you think it's any thing other? Do give me the decency if your near me warn me, you who are so "blinded by so many riche's" and that makes you, and sheep like you a natural target. But I guess if I am stupid enough to be near you when you are, with out any thought killed, thats my own damn fault.

Originally posted by arbiture
reply to post by Yankee451

 

I swore I would never again allow myself to be drawn into this mindless topic swilling as in the like all the other 9/11 crap in the deep bowl "CONSPIRACY"

Golly, you make a guy just want to sit down and chat.

Sorry, I am an emotional being and hate seeing people so easily led by the nose, where ever you got your "data" (Did I clean THAT S*** up)

What are you talking about? I posted a conversation from a ten year old forum.

When the WTC Towers were being designed, by your calendar in the "1960's" the biggest thing they had to worry about was a Boing 707, which in case you were asleep in time (or if not yet born, consider yourself forgiven, for now, but wake up!)

Irony.

the 707 was based on the Boing airframe, the remarkable, B-52, biggest mother in the sky, dry no less... And what would happen if it hit the WTC Towers. What was to happen was commerce and that commercial aircraft would need to be designed to carry as much fuel as possible per load of cargo, and in this case cargo did not mean bombs but us, people, the huddle masses crap. If someone out there still buys this 9/11 fiction I beg you: Do some simple research on the effects of so much kinetic energy and 3,000f jet fuel hitting a flimsy (it was the cheapest way to build then) steel guarders hung on which was , basically paper. It was inevitable.

Man, you're just like a poster child for the brainwashed masses. KE trumps all, jet fuel, flimsy steel, blah, blah...

Yes I would have been shocked though very pleased if the towers had survived, but it was not possible. Think I'm wrong?

Why yes.

I know there are conspiracies and there are those who use fear to manipulate others into "OH! ITs got to an American conspiracy! Grow up some just hate us, and the longer you think it's any thing other? Do give me the decency if your near me warn me, you who are so "blinded by so many riche's" and that makes you, and sheep like you a natural target. But I guess if I am stupid enough to be near you when you are, with out any thought killed, thats my own damn fault.

You're breaking up, you're breaking up....