"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by jeichelberg

 

that's a common misconception. given enough debris being dropped on your house in a short enough time span, it WILL collapse.

You gotta be joking, right??? You take as much debris as you care to...weighing as much as you care to, and I do not give two shakes...my house will not collapse in the time it took for WTC 1 and 2...that is the point...

reply to post by ProudBird


The source article written appears in a peer review manual (The Open Chemical Physics Journal)...I do not know what else would qualify if this does not...

Originally posted by jeichelberg

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by jeichelberg

 

that's a common misconception. given enough debris being dropped on your house in a short enough time span, it WILL collapse.

You gotta be joking, right??? You take as much debris as you care to...weighing as much as you care to, and I do not give two shakes...my house will not collapse in the time it took for WTC 1 and 2...that is the point...

reply to post by jeichelberg


So you think I could dump four tons of rubble on your roof without damaging it, apparently.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by waypastvne


Certainly a lot of damage...but still recognizable...and actually off topic, as I was talking about a house...

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Certainly not...I never said that...I said it would not collapse in the same amount of time as WTC1 and WTC 2...

reply to post by jeichelberg


What's the difference if it collapses in a second or an hour?


edit: PS: to shadow herder, quit trolling and get on topic.

reply to post by jeichelberg


"Open Chemical Physics Journal" is on the same page as "Bentham", which is up near the right corner.

I looked up Bentham on Wiki:

en.wikipedia.org...

Controversy

Bentham Open journals claim to employ peer review;[4] however, some reports have cast doubt on this.[5] [6]. Furthermore, the publisher got a reputation of spamming scientists with invitations to become a member of the editorial board of one of their scholarly journals.

Don't know if this has been posted yet or not, I didn't read through 41 pages of posts
however this is my take. Skyscraper construction and engineering evolved since their conception and have been engineered to withstand tremendous forces. Even the Empire State building built in1931 withstood a bomber that crashed into it!

1945 plane crash
Main article: B-25 Empire State Building crash

At 9:40 a.m.on Saturday, July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber, piloted in thick fog by Lieutenant Colonel William Franklin Smith, Jr.,[37] crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building, between the 79th and 80th floors, where the offices of the National Catholic Welfare Council were located. One engine shot through the side opposite the impact and flew as far as the next block where it landed on the roof of a nearby building, starting a fire that destroyed a penthouse. The other engine and part of the landing gear plummeted down an elevator shaft. The resulting fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. 14 people were killed in the incident.[38][39] Elevator operator Betty Lou Oliver survived a plunge of 75 stories inside an elevator, which still stands as the Guinness World Record for the longest survived elevator fall recorded.[40] Despite the damage and loss of life, the building was open for business on many floors on the following Monday. The crash helped spur the passage of the long-pending Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, as well as the insertion of retroactive provisions into the law, allowing people to sue the government for the accident.[41]

A year later, another aircraft had a close encounter with the skyscraper. It narrowly missed striking the building.[42]

en.wikipedia.org...

They sure don't make things like they used to.....or do they and someone had the towers Destroyed? I for one do not think those jets could have takes out the twin towers, someone somewhere ordered those towers destroyed from within.

reply to post by Mr. D


The construction of the Empire State Building is far superior in terms of sheer strength. The towers were built to have maximum leasing space with the lightest materials possible.

Also, the bomber which hit the Empire State Building was going much slower and is far smaller than the airliners.

To give you an idea, the Empire State Building had an Indiana limestone facade similar to the pentagon, with a very sturdy concrete construction laced with steel beams.

The towers were almost entirely steel trusses connected to a central spine-like core, which had layers of sheetrock and thin concrete surrounding it. The outer walls were steel panels with aluminum paint.

Naturally, the effect of a plane impact will differ.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Please read carefully...the difference may be apparent if you do so thinking without that mask on...you may get my point...do some thinking...instead of practicing trolling...

reply to post by Mr. D

1997 observation deck shooting
Main article: 1997 Empire State Building shooting

On February 24, 1997, a Palestinian gunman shot seven people on the observation deck, killing one, then fatally wounded himself.

The ESB also had an Islamic Terrorist Attack I knew nothing about. I must have been out of the country when this happened

reply to post by Varemia


Even so, when they were built, the towers were built to withstand the impact of a 727...and any resultant fires...what are the differences between a 727 and 767...actually, not all that much...20,000 lbs roughly...unloaded...

reply to post by ProudBird


Whether or not you believe it or not, does not change the fact, it is a peer reviewed journal...everybody, everywhere, has a bone to pick with somebody...appeals to popularity should not fly here, do they?

reply to post by ProudBird


And for all I know, you could have written that in wikipedia...

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by ProudBird

 

And for all I know, you could have written that in wikipedia...

No it's well documented, just Google Bentham Jones Paper. The chief editor of Bentham quit because Jones published his Paint Chip Paper without her knowledge. The Paint Chip Paper has pretty much ruined the journal they are now a joke.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Mr. D

 

The construction of the Empire State Building is far superior in terms of sheer strength. The towers were built to have maximum leasing space with the lightest materials possible.

Also, the bomber which hit the Empire State Building was going much slower and is far smaller than the airliners.

To give you an idea, the Empire State Building had an Indiana limestone facade similar to the pentagon, with a very sturdy concrete construction laced with steel beams.

The towers were almost entirely steel trusses connected to a central spine-like core, which had layers of sheetrock and thin concrete surrounding it. The outer walls were steel panels with aluminum paint.

Naturally, the effect of a plane impact will differ.

Both the E.S.B and the Twin Towers main support are made of Iron, both the bomber and Jets were made of Aluminum.

Iron chemical compounds, which include ferrous and ferric compounds, have many uses. Iron oxide mixed with aluminium powder can be ignited to create a thermite reaction, used in welding and purifying ores. It forms binary compounds with the halogens and the chalcogens. Among its organometallic compounds, ferrocene was the first sandwich compound discovered.

en.wikipedia.org...

Question is what is the connection with thermite? Why would the Twin Towers "supposedly"
collapse when the E.S.B did not? I could maybe believe the story if the planes had impacted
into the bottom floors however the the way the fell was too clean without any lean, wobble
or swaying. They fell like when buildings are wired with shaped charges and made to collapse
upon themselves.

reply to post by Mr. D


B-25 wingspan: 67' 7"

767 wingspan: 156' 1"

That's about 2.5 times larger.

B-25 fuel capacity: 670 U.S. gal

767 fuel capacity: 23980 U.S. gal

www.b25.net...
boeing.com...

Now try and tell me their effect should have been the same.