Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?"The answer is yes."-sister jonesReally? You're not?
You plainly state above that the redistribution of the loads caused by the damage was according to the designers plans.
Do you not comprehend what you actually write?
What you fail to realize is the following point I repeatedly keep trying to get you to understand.
When an engineer designs a structure, the load redistribution is calculated on the basis that the structure undamaged and functioning properly. They base their calculations on dead and live loads in conjunction with the structural support system being undamaged.
They do NOT, repeat, NOT calculate load redistribution based on every single possible scenario in which damage may occur.
I suggest you go ask a local structural engineer about this as you are obviously basing your claims with a lack of knowledge. When someone says they "over-designed" a structure, they are referring to the entire structure being undamaged. It doesn't mean you can remove structural components until the load of the remaining components is increased by 2000%.
Question...Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?
The answer is yes. They had doubts about the fires, but assured all that plane impacts were taken into consideration.
WTF, Do you not understand about what I am asking you?
What in the NIST report is so convincing to you, that you believe the 3 buildings would fall in the short collapse times that they did? Simple fucking question? At least I think it is...
wrong! the designers made calculations based on a mathematical theory, they never did real time testing on scale models or computer modeling to test the theory's validity
in other words it was a guesstimation
please point out where in the nist report it states that three collapses were expected when no one could have known that until after they collapsed..Still waiting for anyone who can answer or point to the specifics in the NIST theory that positively concludes 3 collapses in one day is to be expected...
I notice the usual clown remarking but like always has nothing of relevance to contribute...
You people are such staunch believers, I would have thought the key points and data would have been posted right away...What's the hold up?
wtc7 was hit by debris from the tower collapse and burned because of it.The reason I believe the NIST report is simply because it isn't perfect. It can be attacked for inconsistancies and holes in it can be found. This is EXACTLY what a sensible person would expect from an investigation after the fact when the investigating body has NO KNOWLEDGE beforehand what happened. They have to forensically investigate and they don't have all the answers. That is how things happen in the real world. Now, if they would have explained in detail everything that happened, down to minor details, had an answer for everything, then and only then would there be reason to be suspicious.
How is it possible for NIST to attach itself to a theory that was drawn up in only 2 days after the attacks, that included never before in history collapses in 15-20 seconds of 1/4 mile high steel buildings, and another 47 story tall one that wasn't hit by a plane?
This was supposed to be so complex and took years to make final reports on....
How come they still don't provide any proof that the theory is sound?
dodge !"Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?"The answer is yes."-sister jonesQuestion...Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?
The answer is yes. They had doubts about the fires, but assured all that plane impacts were taken into consideration.
WTF, Do you not understand about what I am asking you?
What in the NIST report is so convincing to you, that you believe the 3 buildings would fall in the short collapse times that they did? Simple fucking question? At least I think it is...
wrong! the designers made calculations based on a mathematical theory, they never did real time testing on scale models or computer modeling to test the theory's validity
in other words it was a guesstimation
You mean like the NIST guesstimations, that when put to further analysis fail?
STFU loser like always you have nothing.
What in the NIST report is so convincing to you, that you believe the 3 buildings would fall in the short collapse times that they did?
there you go as always lying ...please point out where in the nist report it states that three collapses were expected when no one could have known that until after they collapsed..Still waiting for anyone who can answer or point to the specifics in the NIST theory that positively concludes 3 collapses in one day is to be expected...
I notice the usual clown remarking but like always has nothing of relevance to contribute...
You people are such staunch believers, I would have thought the key points and data would have been posted right away...What's the hold up?
Why? You have made a point of not reading anything, and confusing yourself many times. Even thinking the Bazant theory was a "steaming pile" unless I proved to you other wise!
Go play in traffic loser, your in over your head as always...
wtc7 was hit by debris from the tower collapse and burned because of it.The reason I believe the NIST report is simply because it isn't perfect. It can be attacked for inconsistancies and holes in it can be found. This is EXACTLY what a sensible person would expect from an investigation after the fact when the investigating body has NO KNOWLEDGE beforehand what happened. They have to forensically investigate and they don't have all the answers. That is how things happen in the real world. Now, if they would have explained in detail everything that happened, down to minor details, had an answer for everything, then and only then would there be reason to be suspicious.
How is it possible for NIST to attach itself to a theory that was drawn up in only 2 days after the attacks, that included never before in history collapses in 15-20 seconds of 1/4 mile high steel buildings, and another 47 story tall one that wasn't hit by a plane?
This was supposed to be so complex and took years to make final reports on....
How come they still don't provide any proof that the theory is sound?
your intentional misstatement(" 47 story tall one that wasn't hit by a plane?"-sister jones)
falsely infers that something others the planes initiated all three collapses.
you have no evidence to prove this .
I love it when you rationalize.wtc7 was hit by debris from the tower collapse and burned because of it.How is it possible for NIST to attach itself to a theory that was drawn up in only 2 days after the attacks, that included never before in history collapses in 15-20 seconds of 1/4 mile high steel buildings, and another 47 story tall one that wasn't hit by a plane?
This was supposed to be so complex and took years to make final reports on....
How come they still don't provide any proof that the theory is sound?
your intentional misstatement(" 47 story tall one that wasn't hit by a plane?"-sister jones)
falsely infers that something others the planes initiated all three collapses.
you have no evidence to prove this .
Many other buildings were hit with tower debris, and burned as well yet no collapses, no FF. NIST has not shown substantiated proof to back up their collapse theory, and you haven't provided any reasons either.
Your belief in a theory you know nothing about speaks volumes...Still think the Bazant theory is a "steaming pile"? Loser?
I love it when you rationalize.wtc7 was hit by debris from the tower collapse and burned because of it.
your intentional misstatement(" 47 story tall one that wasn't hit by a plane?"-sister jones)
falsely infers that something others the planes initiated all three collapses.
you have no evidence to prove this .
Many other buildings were hit with tower debris, and burned as well yet no collapses, no FF. NIST has not shown substantiated proof to back up their collapse theory, and you haven't provided any reasons either.
Your belief in a theory you know nothing about speaks volumes...Still think the Bazant theory is a "steaming pile"? Loser?
as to the other lie you keep telling, I never said it was steaming pile.
what I did say was you need to prove the Bazant theory is a steaming pile.
you gain nothing by repeating that false interpretation.
wherever credibility or reputational damage you imagine it's done to me is just that imaginary.
btw: the Bazant hypothesis. is just that .
where are the test results to prove the hypothesis is fact not a steaming pile.
oh that's right! you have none.
The reason I believe the NIST report is simply because it isn't perfect. It can be attacked for inconsistancies and holes in it can be found. This is EXACTLY what a sensible person would expect from an investigation after the fact when the investigating body has NO KNOWLEDGE beforehand what happened. They have to forensically investigate and they don't have all the answers. That is how things happen in the real world. Now, if they would have explained in detail everything that happened, down to minor details, had an answer for everything, then and only then would there be reason to be suspicious.
How is it possible for NIST to attach itself to a theory that was drawn up in only 2 days after the attacks, that included never before in history collapses in 15-20 seconds of 1/4 mile high steel buildings, and another 47 story tall one that wasn't hit by a plane?
This was supposed to be so complex and took years to make final reports on....
How come they still don't provide any proof that the theory is sound?
Are you trying to say that engineers calculate for every possible permutation of a damage scenario and make sure that the building will stay structurally intact?!
Really? You're not?
The impact damage took out minimal components, and the building redistributed the loads according to the designers plans.
You plainly state above that the redistribution of the loads caused by the damage was according to the designers plans.
Do you not comprehend what you actually write?
What you fail to realize is the following point I repeatedly keep trying to get you to understand.
When an engineer designs a structure, the load redistribution is calculated on the basis that the structure undamaged and functioning properly. They base their calculations on dead and live loads in conjunction with the structural support system being undamaged.
They do NOT, repeat, NOT calculate load redistribution based on every single possible scenario in which damage may occur.
I suggest you go ask a local structural engineer about this as you are obviously basing your claims with a lack of knowledge. When someone says they "over-designed" a structure, they are referring to the entire structure being undamaged. It doesn't mean you can remove structural components until the load of the remaining components is increased by 2000%.
Question...Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?
The answer is yes. They had doubts about the fires, but assured all that plane impacts were taken into consideration.
WTF, Do you not understand about what I am asking you?
What in the NIST report is so convincing to you, that you believe the 3 buildings would fall in the short collapse times that they did? Simple fucking question? At least I think it is...
Questions for you.
What was the speed of the plane they used in the calculation?
Is there a force difference between a 707 and a 767 impacting the towers?
Was fire considered IN CONJUNCTION with the plane impacts?
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it was plane impacts AND fire that caused the initiation of the collapse?
The reason I believe the NIST report is simply because it isn't perfect. It can be attacked for inconsistancies and holes in it can be found. This is EXACTLY what a sensible person would expect from an investigation after the fact when the investigating body has NO KNOWLEDGE beforehand what happened. They have to forensically investigate and they don't have all the answers. That is how things happen in the real world. Now, if they would have explained in detail everything that happened, down to minor details, had an answer for everything, then and only then would there be reason to be suspicious.
How is it possible for NIST to attach itself to a theory that was drawn up in only 2 days after the attacks, that included never before in history collapses in 15-20 seconds of 1/4 mile high steel buildings, and another 47 story tall one that wasn't hit by a plane?
This was supposed to be so complex and took years to make final reports on....
How come they still don't provide any proof that the theory is sound?
I don't know. But that is my point. If the government was trying to hide something then they'd have dotted all their "i"s and crossed all their "t"s. They didn't know ahead of time and they did their usual shitty government job.
There is no conspiracy.
How is it possible for NIST to attach itself to a theory that was drawn up in only 2 days after the attacks, that included never before in history collapses in 15-20 seconds of 1/4 mile high steel buildings, and another 47 story tall one that wasn't hit by a plane?
This was supposed to be so complex and took years to make final reports on....
How come they still don't provide any proof that the theory is sound?
I don't know. But that is my point. If the government was trying to hide something then they'd have dotted all their "i"s and crossed all their "t"s. They didn't know ahead of time and they did their usual shitty government job.
There is no conspiracy.
Yes there is. It is the official conspiracy theory that does not make sense, can not be proved in many ways, including scientifically, or physically.
When you say "government" it implies many people as being involved, when this may not have been needed to be the case at all.
Sorry. I could only watch 15 minutes. All that stuff doesn't prove anything or show complicity.
There's only a few things you need to find out who did this and why.
1. Read the page too: Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq? - CBS News
2. Go find the Iraqi oil contracts prior to 2001. Every country was represented except 1. The U.S.A.
3. Commerce Department's Dick Cheney's Oil Map.
1a. Show with spoken words of a witness at the meeting, that removing Saddam Hussein was a top priority of the Bush, W. Administration.
2a. Shows the reason why Removing Hussein was a top priority. Destroying Iraq would cancel any existing oil contracts.
3a. Show how the Iraqi oil fields were eventually divided up through contracts to US and US allies.
It's this simple without all the clutter.
Please tell me how, with all your engineering knowledge, an engineer designs a structure in such a way that if a portion of said structure suffers damage, that the remaining components are designed to handle the redistribution of that load.
That's impossible!
Are you trying to say that engineers calculate for every possible permutation of a damage scenario and make sure that the building will stay structurally intact?!
Impossible? Um...OK...
Buildings are designed to redistribute loads; this was even more so in the WTC towers: NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.
WTC Disaster Study
Seriously your fucking incredulity is sickening. I don't have the time to do your fucking work for you, especially on a topic you seem so boastful in knowing so much about.
You've been in these discussions before so quit acting stupid and lazy. Look the shit up yourself. I would think that something you are such a staunch defender of, would be readily available for you reference. Unfucking believable, you people...
Right. I'M lazy.
Last time I checked, when someone refers to another party making a statement or claim, they usually provide a reference.
Quite being a jackass and debate properly. You made a claim, I asked for a reference.
No. My quote was in direct response to your assertion that the engineers and designers PLANNED or DESIGNED for the building to redistribute loads from damaged components.
Engineers and designers cannot design for or predict load redistribution when said load redistribution is a random event because it would perpetuate on and on.
Example.
They run calculations for a random scenario. The remove 14% of the perimeter columns on the east face of floor 80 and then strengthen the rest of the structure to accommodate the load redistribution that occurs from those perimeter columns being removed. What happens if the perimeter columns were removed for 2 floors? 3 floors? What if 20% of the perimeter columns were failed/removed for 3 floors? More calculations and the strengthening of the remaining components. What if an additional two core columns were thrown into the mix? Lets add fire that weakens the components on floor 80 by 30%? Now what? Redesign the remaining components?
Do you see a pattern here?
In essence, your statement that "the buildings redistributed the loads according to the designers plans is BS.
Tell you what. To prove my point, go ask any engineer to 100% guarantee that any structure they designed will NEVER, EVER collapse do to any circumstance because they looked at every possible damage scenario possible and designed for it.
They did withstand the impact did they not? Did they remain standing after the planes hit them? For how long? Or are you claiming that when someone refers to an impact event lasts for a period of time?
The towers withstood the impact, but were damaged. They collapsed because of DAMAGE from the impacts and the resultant fire.
Let's say someone was driving their car. They get hit by another car. They survive the impact but are trapped inside because the doors won't open. The car catches fire and the person trapped inside dies. Did the person die from the actual impact or from the fire?
WTF? The towers withstood plane impacts, and the initial fireball consumed much of the fuel, within 15-20 minutes-per NIST.
I'm not disputing plane damage, or that there were fires...What the problem is that NIST does not explain how these massive buildings could possibly come down in such short times, They do not explain how these structures below the plane impacts, succumbed in under 15-20 seconds.
They don't explain the how the undamaged structure did not, halt the collapse fronts, or what removed the resistance to allow such rapid descents.
This happened to 3 buildings in one day, with NIST providing only assumptions with nothing to base them on.
That is the main problem. Now if you think you can provide an explanation that NIST failed to provide..have at it.
First question to begin the explanation.
How long did it take for each of the three buildings to fully collapse from start to end? I'm asking you this, not because I'm lazy, but because people have different ideas as to the collapse time.
NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. Are you saying that NIST admission and statement is "complete and utter BS?"
No. My quote was in direct response to your assertion that the engineers and designers PLANNED or DESIGNED for the building to redistribute loads from damaged components.
Engineers and designers cannot design for or predict load redistribution when said load redistribution is a random event because it would perpetuate on and on.
Example.
They run calculations for a random scenario. The remove 14% of the perimeter columns on the east face of floor 80 and then strengthen the rest of the structure to accommodate the load redistribution that occurs from those perimeter columns being removed. What happens if the perimeter columns were removed for 2 floors? 3 floors? What if 20% of the perimeter columns were failed/removed for 3 floors? More calculations and the strengthening of the remaining components. What if an additional two core columns were thrown into the mix? Lets add fire that weakens the components on floor 80 by 30%? Now what? Redesign the remaining components?
Do you see a pattern here?
In essence, your statement that "the buildings redistributed the loads according to the designers plans is BS.
Tell you what. To prove my point, go ask any engineer to 100% guarantee that any structure they designed will NEVER, EVER collapse do to any circumstance because they looked at every possible damage scenario possible and designed for it.
Where do I ever claim to possess "all your engineering knowledge"? that you refer to?
Nist even claims that the buildings withstood the plane impacts well. The original designers have claimed they would remain standing as well.
They did withstand the impact did they not? Did they remain standing after the planes hit them? For how long? Or are you claiming that when someone refers to an impact event lasts for a period of time?
The towers withstood the impact, but were damaged. They collapsed because of DAMAGE from the impacts and the resultant fire.
Let's say someone was driving their car. They get hit by another car. They survive the impact but are trapped inside because the doors won't open. The car catches fire and the person trapped inside dies. Did the person die from the actual impact or from the fire?
WTF? The towers withstood plane impacts, and the initial fireball consumed much of the fuel, within 15-20 minutes-per NIST.
I'm not disputing plane damage, or that there were fires...What the problem is that NIST does not explain how these massive buildings could possibly come down in such short times, They do not explain how these structures below the plane impacts, succumbed in under 15-20 seconds.
They don't explain the how the undamaged structure did not, halt the collapse fronts, or what removed the resistance to allow such rapid descents.
This happened to 3 buildings in one day, with NIST providing only assumptions with nothing to base them on.
That is the main problem. Now if you think you can provide an explanation that NIST failed to provide..have at it.
