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

Originally posted by jeichelberg
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...

Since there was no way for them to test their claims, how can we be certain that the claim was true?

Remember how the Titanic was supposed to be unsinkable?

reply to post by waypastvne


Do you understand the journal is peer reviewed? Do you understand the issue of whether or not the chief editor quit or resigned or whatever has no bearing on the fact the journal published the article and at the time it was published the journal was peer reviewed? Come on...you can say it...the article was published in a peer reviewed journal...

reply to post by jeichelberg




I could have written a Wikipedia entry? One that would not immediately be called into question by the countless thousands of people who monitor submissions to Wiki??

When you visit any Wiki page, you can click the tab that says "History". Like, on that Bentham article, here:

en.wikipedia.org...

There is also a "Discussion" page:

Discussion


That is how Wiki works....just hand-waving away what I brought to the discussion seems a bit weak.....

Originally posted by Varemia
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.

I still agree with the op, they both couldn't have fallen in the exact same manner.
The twin towers had sprinkler systems the E.S.B. did not (at the time). If anything,
the top part should have bent or slid off the bottom part or listed or something other
than fall straight down with the rest of the building. I think someone was trying to minimize
collateral damage to other buildings in the area.

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by waypastvne

 

Do you understand the journal is peer reviewed? Do you understand the issue of whether or not the chief editor quit or resigned or whatever has no bearing on the fact the journal published the article and at the time it was published the journal was peer reviewed? Come on...you can say it...the article was published in a peer reviewed journal...

Peer-reviewed is an empty term unless you specify exactly who reviewed it. If it was reviewed only by those who are conspiracy minded, then naturally they will agree with Jones' findings and not call for independent verification of his results.

Many other respectable journals have many, many people critiquing a work and forcing it to go back a number of times before being published.

Hell, in one of my classes, we just read an article which had something along the lines of 20 responses which critiqued the points made.

How many independent analysis' have there been of Jones' work? I recall that one member already posted one which couldn't replicate Jones' results. How do you explain that?

The arrows represent the kinetic energy at impact. The B25 was nothing in comparison to the B767.

reply to post by Varemia


The claims made by the architects and engineers were made...and you are right...The makers and designers of the Titanic made the claim the ship was unsinkable...Unsinkable, however, does not equate to withstanding damage...

reply to post by Mr. D


Questions to you:

If anything,
the top part should have bent or slid off the bottom part...

What forces would have caused the top part to be moved laterally? (to the side).

Also, what is the major force at work, affecting everything on this planet? And, which direction is that force?

reply to post by Mr. D


You should really get to know the facts before you begin arguing points:

Link

Both the NIST calculations and interviews with survivors and firefighters indicated that the aircraft impacts severed the water pipes that carried the water to the sprinkler systems. The sprinklers were not operating on the principal fire floors.

However, there were ample sources of the water in the stairwells. The water pipes ran vertically within the stairwells. Moreover, there would have been copious water from the broken restroom supply lines and from the water tanks that supplied the initial water for the sprinklers. Thus, it is not surprising that evacuating occupants encountered a lot of water.

Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building. On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded.

Here's another link:
www.pbs.org...

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Mr. D

 

Questions to you:

If anything,
the top part should have bent or slid off the bottom part...

What forces would have caused the top part to be moved laterally? (to the side).

Also, what is the major force at work, affecting everything on this planet? And, which direction is that force?

The fire or thermite reaction inside the building theoretically would have melted the beams closest to the impact causing that side to buckle first. Wind and structural weakness due to impact should have made one side weaker than the other causing the tower to collapse or list to the damage side first instead falling straight down.

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by Varemia

 

The claims made by the architects and engineers were made...and you are right...The makers and designers of the Titanic made the claim the ship was unsinkable...Unsinkable, however, does not equate to withstanding damage...

Since even NIST says they couldn't find the information on how the designers calculated the numbers for an impact and fire, the point is kind of moot.

If the numbers cannot be brought forth, then it is an empty claim. Plus, how could they possibly simulate the million ways that fire and impacts could occur?

Originally posted by waypastvne
The arrows represent the kinetic energy at impact. The B25 was nothing in comparison to the B767.

Yeah, the NIST says the plane had to cause the south tower to deflect a WHOLE 15 INCHES.

WOW!!!! That is SO impressive.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


It didn't hit a solid block, mind you. It mostly broke the steel connections and forced its way through the tower.

You act as if all the energy of the plane was being imparted into the entire tower.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by waypastvne

 

Do you understand the journal is peer reviewed? Do you understand the issue of whether or not the chief editor quit or resigned or whatever has no bearing on the fact the journal published the article and at the time it was published the journal was peer reviewed? Come on...you can say it...the article was published in a peer reviewed journal...

Peer-reviewed is an empty term unless you specify exactly who reviewed it. If it was reviewed only by those who are conspiracy minded, then naturally they will agree with Jones' findings and not call for independent verification of his results.

Many other respectable journals have many, many people critiquing a work and forcing it to go back a number of times before being published.

Hell, in one of my classes, we just read an article which had something along the lines of 20 responses which critiqued the points made.

How many independent analysis' have there been of Jones' work? I recall that one member already posted one which couldn't replicate Jones' results. How do you explain that?

And all I am stating is there is no verifying information concerning the doubts about the process at play within this peer reviewed journal...you point to some article at Wikipedia and say because questions about the journal are written there, then the journal in which the article appeared should be summarily dismissed...that is hokum...

I am unaware of how many independent analyses have been performed concerning Jones' work...and if that were what was necessary, then the same argumentation would be necessary to apply to demonstrable replication of the towers falling in the same fashion as when struck by a planes...scale models could be reproduced and an attempt at replication could be made...instead, we get nothing...

I am no expert in any of this...I just have questions like everyone else...from now on, I will stick with reading, as I find most of the other people too biased and closed minded...IMHO...

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by Varemia

 

The claims made by the architects and engineers were made...and you are right...The makers and designers of the Titanic made the claim the ship was unsinkable...Unsinkable, however, does not equate to withstanding damage...

Since even NIST says they couldn't find the information on how the designers calculated the numbers for an impact and fire, the point is kind of moot.

If the numbers cannot be brought forth, then it is an empty claim. Plus, how could they possibly simulate the million ways that fire and impacts could occur?

The one thing I find most intriguing about this reply is your claim the NIST could not find the information on how the designers calculated the numbers for an impact and fire...ONE: That should be a matter of public record. TWO: They know the materials, dimensions, methods, etc., of the buildings in question...engineers can do the rest of the calculations...I am not an engineer, but these types of buildings do not go up without meeting specific requirements...

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by waypastvne
The arrows represent the kinetic energy at impact. The B25 was nothing in comparison to the B767.

Yeah, the NIST says the plane had to cause the south tower to deflect a WHOLE 15 INCHES.

WOW!!!! That is SO impressive.

psik

If the outer walls had not failed it would have moved a bit further than 15". How many cubic feet of air did it have to displace to move 15" ? How much energy did it take to displace that air ? I thought you were supposed to be a whizz at physics.

How far should it of moved using Truther Physics ?

reply to post by jeichelberg


It's from the link in my previous post:

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contractors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

It's fairly simple stuff here. Not a lot to comprehend.

Originally posted by jeichelberg
.scale models could be reproduced and an attempt at replication could be made...instead, we get nothing...

You really should google Square Cube Law

reply to post by waypastvne


Why...

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by waypastvne

 

Why...

It will explain EXACTLY why scale modelled don't work.