Political Crossfire Forums

NAB · Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:07 pm Post subject:

homerjay_s wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

What truth? You haven't presented anything to dispute the controlled demolition theory, which is 100% supported by factual evidence.

The buildings collapses are consistent with a controlled demolition, the PNAC cabal had prior motive, the connections required to get into the building to set it up, and the influence over NORAD to initiate a virtual stand down of our national air defense in order to stage the planes hitting the towers without the standard protocol of intervention.

I dont have to dispove what didnt happen. you have to prove it did

Nice ploy but I can show the planes flying into the building. Have any pictures of them setting up the explosives ?

There's lots of video of the controlled demolition explosions in this documentary...you'd actually have to watch it though, not just post that the link is biased in favor of proving the conspiracy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Did you also know that the towers were built to withstand a direct hit from a plane?

Many planes you mean. Yeap! Heard it from the man himself. I cant find the link though.

There's plenty of evidence in this link, including, I think, the quote you're talking about from Fran DeMartini, the onsite construction manager of the towers, who said this:

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Also, per this link, the 767's that hit the tower would actually have a lower kinetic energy rating due to their lower cruising speed.

There's also no evidence to support the claim that the building was rated to withstand the impact of a 707 only at low speeds.

Looks like what Frank "believed" was wrong.

As to the claim of a 707 at low speeds, I concure that I don't have a link. Just my own real-world experience/common sense based on the time-frame within which the building was built and designed. It was designed in an era where terrorism wasn't taken into account, much less a purposeful attack with an airplane. The previous example of the B-25 happened in a fog at low speeds. The planes that hit the towers were travelling at very high rates of speed and were not lost in the fog. Accident vs. willful intent. See the difference? Most buildings aren't designed for the impact of airplanes, and the only reason it was taken into account for the WTC was due to the previous accident with the B-25. The only way a building could really have completely withstood what happened on 911 was if they were concrete-reinforced structure, with massive exterior walls with very small openings for the tenants. You can't lease an office building like that, nor would a developer ever build one. All of the current trends in building design aren't necessarily focusing on withstanding the impact of an purposeful aircraft attack, you just can't design to that level. The focus in the industry has been within the fire-rating improvements with special attention placed on egrees routes for high-rises. You would have seen some of that in the WTC Design Competitions with muliple buildings being linked together to increase the inhabitants exiting. Even the new designs would be severly damaged by an aircraft attack, although changes learned from 911 would probably prevent their collapse. You learn and try and prevent it in the future, that's all you can do sometimes.

Omega1 · Joined: 29 Apr 2006 Posts: 456

Quote: There's lots of video of the controlled demolition explosions in this documentary...you'd actually have to watch it though, not just post that the link is biased in favor of proving the conspiracy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Did you also know that the towers were built to withstand a direct hit from a plane?

This is debunked here.

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6937 Location: Denver, CO

The towers were designed to survive a single impact from a low, slow flying 707. It was not designed to surive the impact of a high speed 767 nor were the resulting fires ever calculated for. This is according to the man who actually did the calculations, Leslie Robertson.

Omega1 · Joined: 29 Apr 2006 Posts: 456

Quote: There's also no evidence to support the claim that the building was rated to withstand the impact of a 707 only at low speeds.

"The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."
--Leslie E. Robertson

Quote: That's bull s**t.

http://standdown.net/

False.

homerjay_s · Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 5569 Location: unknown

NAB wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

What truth? You haven't presented anything to dispute the controlled demolition theory, which is 100% supported by factual evidence.

The buildings collapses are consistent with a controlled demolition, the PNAC cabal had prior motive, the connections required to get into the building to set it up, and the influence over NORAD to initiate a virtual stand down of our national air defense in order to stage the planes hitting the towers without the standard protocol of intervention.

I dont have to dispove what didnt happen. you have to prove it did

Nice ploy but I can show the planes flying into the building. Have any pictures of them setting up the explosives ?

There's lots of video of the controlled demolition explosions in this documentary...you'd actually have to watch it though, not just post that the link is biased in favor of proving the conspiracy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Did you also know that the towers were built to withstand a direct hit from a plane?

Many planes you mean. Yeap! Heard it from the man himself. I cant find the link though.

There's plenty of evidence in this link, including, I think, the quote you're talking about from Fran DeMartini, the onsite construction manager of the towers, who said this:

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Also, per this link, the 767's that hit the tower would actually have a lower kinetic energy rating due to their lower cruising speed.

There's also no evidence to support the claim that the building was rated to withstand the impact of a 707 only at low speeds.

Looks like what Frank "believed" was wrong.

Only if you're trying to fit what happened with the official story, rather than taking all the evidence at hand and making a reasonable summation.

NAB wrote: As to the claim of a 707 at low speeds, I concure that I don't have a link. Just my own real-world experience/common sense based on the time-frame within which the building was built and designed. It was designed in an era where terrorism wasn't taken into account, much less a purposeful attack with an airplane. The previous example of the B-25 happened in a fog at low speeds. The planes that hit the towers were travelling at very high rates of speed and were not lost in the fog. Accident vs. willful intent. See the difference?

Okay, well rather than going by your "real world experience" and "common sense" to get the facts, why not take the words of the guys that built the place who said that it was designed to withstand the impact of "a fully loaded 707"? By the way, going on my own real world experience and common sense, why would a construction company design a building to withstand the impact of a plane, but only at low speeds, as if to imply that someone would accidentally hit the building only after slowing down?

NAB wrote: Most buildings aren't designed for the impact of airplanes, and the only reason it was taken into account for the WTC was due to the previous accident with the B-25. The only way a building could really have completely withstood what happened on 911 was if they were concrete-reinforced structure, with massive exterior walls with very small openings for the tenants. You can't lease an office building like that, nor would a developer ever build one. All of the current trends in building design aren't necessarily focusing on withstanding the impact of an purposeful aircraft attack, you just can't design to that level. Really? Because according to the guy that built the towers, it was designed to withstand the impact of multiple planes.

"I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

That makes plenty of sense to me, doesn't it make sense to you?

NAB wrote: The focus in the industry has been within the fire-rating improvements with special attention placed on egrees routes for high-rises. You would have seen some of that in the WTC Design Competitions with muliple buildings being linked together to increase the inhabitants exiting. Even the new designs would be severly damaged by an aircraft attack, although changes learned from 911 would probably prevent their collapse. You learn and try and prevent it in the future, that's all you can do sometimes.

Seems like your grasping at straws here. The building was designed to withstand the attack as presented to us, in the words of the builders. There is not a reasonable explanation as to why the towers collapsed as they did simply by being struck by aircraft. Even if the structural integrity of of the buildings gave way, there is no way in hell the planes crashing into the towers would result in a complete collapse of the buildings at literally free fall speed. If you watch the loose change documentary, and others, you will see that the towers both fell at near free fall. The only way to achieve that is through a controlled demolition. There were also numerous reports of explosions in the basement levels of the towers, and there is also video footage of firefighters that were in the buildings describing the collapse as if the floors were "popping out...boom boom boom boom boom" There is also video footage from nearby buildings that shakes as if there was a large explosion just before the first building collapses.

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6937 Location: Denver, CO

Who are you going to believe? The construction manager who tells you what he believes, not knows? Or the structural engineer who actually designed the building and ran the calculations to make sure it would survive the impact? Thats the problem with conspiracy theorists. They hold on to one piece of data like it is a the ONLY piece of data even though people show that the data is conclusively wrong. Did the construction manager say what he said? Yes. Was he wrong? Yes. Was he bragging about the building he built? Yes. Common sense tells you the structural engineer who designed the building knows what the building can and can not withstand moreso than the construction manager. Yet somehow I think Homer is going to just keep on spouting how the construction manager is right despite all the evidence to the contrary. D'OH!!!!!

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6937 Location: Denver, CO

Look at your own quote Homer.

"I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

The construction manager isn't telling you what he knows for a fact. He is telling you what he believes would probably happen. He is entitled to his opinion, but he is still wrong according to the guy who DOES know the facts.

Claudia Schiffer · Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 3234

NAB wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: I see this thread has been conveniently moved in the ''hide the truth section of the forum''...must be a good sign i guess...

Think your participation might have something to do with it counter-Agent Schiffer? :wink:

And for what agency I'm i suppose to work for?

Claudia Schiffer · Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 3234

Patriot911 wrote: Who are you going to believe? The construction manager who tells you what he believes, not knows? Or the structural engineer who actually designed the building and ran the calculations to make sure it would survive the impact? Thats the problem with conspiracy theorists. They hold on to one piece of data like it is a the ONLY piece of data even though people show that the data is conclusively wrong. Did the construction manager say what he said? Yes. Was he wrong? Yes. Was he bragging about the building he built? Yes. Common sense tells you the structural engineer who designed the building knows what the building can and can not withstand moreso than the construction manager. Yet somehow I think Homer is going to just keep on spouting how the construction manager is right despite all the evidence to the contrary. D'OH!!!!!

yea! the construction manager didn't know what he was talking about. :roll:

Kt · Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 3806

William Amos wrote: Yeah I guess in some peoples world 2 over 100 story buildings falling next to another building wouldnt cause damage to it enough to cause it to fall.

So if a tree falls in a conspiracy theorists forrests does it make a sound ? I mean other than whining.
Trees fall sideways, towers collapse upon themselves and release DUST and DEBRIS, which should not be enough to take down other buildings, but maybe f**k them up

Claudia Schiffer · Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 3234

homerjay_s wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

What truth? You haven't presented anything to dispute the controlled demolition theory, which is 100% supported by factual evidence.

The buildings collapses are consistent with a controlled demolition, the PNAC cabal had prior motive, the connections required to get into the building to set it up, and the influence over NORAD to initiate a virtual stand down of our national air defense in order to stage the planes hitting the towers without the standard protocol of intervention.

I dont have to dispove what didnt happen. you have to prove it did

Nice ploy but I can show the planes flying into the building. Have any pictures of them setting up the explosives ?

There's lots of video of the controlled demolition explosions in this documentary...you'd actually have to watch it though, not just post that the link is biased in favor of proving the conspiracy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Did you also know that the towers were built to withstand a direct hit from a plane?

Many planes you mean. Yeap! Heard it from the man himself. I cant find the link though.

There's plenty of evidence in this link, including, I think, the quote you're talking about from Fran DeMartini, the onsite construction manager of the towers, who said this:

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Also, per this link, the 767's that hit the tower would actually have a lower kinetic energy rating due to their lower cruising speed.

There's also no evidence to support the claim that the building was rated to withstand the impact of a 707 only at low speeds.

Yes! That'S the one! Thanks for the great link BTW.

I espeacialy like those comment.

Quote: There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind

Quote: One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

Quote: THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...

homerjay_s · Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 5569 Location: unknown

Patriot911 wrote: Look at your own quote Homer.

"I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

The construction manager isn't telling you what he knows for a fact. He is telling you what he believes would probably happen. He is entitled to his opinion, but he is still wrong according to the guy who DOES know the facts.

The "believe" and "probably" part was referencing that the building, in his opinion, could withstand MULTIPLE impacts of jetliners. The towers didn't get hit by multiple jetliners, did they? I was under the impression that they were each only hit once. Do you know something that I don't?

And since when didn't construction managers know the facts of how a building was designed?

I would also like to point out the fact that the quote from the building engineer came after the building came down and not prior to. Is it not possible that he felt responsible for the collapse of the building when it was supposedly designed to take much more, and wrote the book to cover his own ass? That certainly seems far more plausible to me than the construction manager being completely wrong in a quote from before 9/11.

homerjay_s · Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 5569 Location: unknown

Claudia Schiffer wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

What truth? You haven't presented anything to dispute the controlled demolition theory, which is 100% supported by factual evidence.

The buildings collapses are consistent with a controlled demolition, the PNAC cabal had prior motive, the connections required to get into the building to set it up, and the influence over NORAD to initiate a virtual stand down of our national air defense in order to stage the planes hitting the towers without the standard protocol of intervention.

I dont have to dispove what didnt happen. you have to prove it did

Nice ploy but I can show the planes flying into the building. Have any pictures of them setting up the explosives ?

There's lots of video of the controlled demolition explosions in this documentary...you'd actually have to watch it though, not just post that the link is biased in favor of proving the conspiracy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Did you also know that the towers were built to withstand a direct hit from a plane?

Many planes you mean. Yeap! Heard it from the man himself. I cant find the link though.

There's plenty of evidence in this link, including, I think, the quote you're talking about from Fran DeMartini, the onsite construction manager of the towers, who said this:

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Also, per this link, the 767's that hit the tower would actually have a lower kinetic energy rating due to their lower cruising speed.

There's also no evidence to support the claim that the building was rated to withstand the impact of a 707 only at low speeds.

Yes! That'S the one! Thanks for the great link BTW.

I espeacialy like those comment.

Quote: There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind

Quote: One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

Quote: THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...

There are a lot of good quote there. ;)

Don't you just love how these idiots responses are stated as fact, yet when you call them on it, everything they say crumbles like the towers?

The fact of the matter is that you could crash a plane into a number of buildings and the resulting explosion and fire would not cause a complete disintegration and freefall collapse within less than an hour.

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6937 Location: Denver, CO

homerjay_s wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Look at your own quote Homer.

"I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

The construction manager isn't telling you what he knows for a fact. He is telling you what he believes would probably happen. He is entitled to his opinion, but he is still wrong according to the guy who DOES know the facts.

The "believe" and "probably" part was referencing that the building, in his opinion, could withstand MULTIPLE impacts of jetliners. The towers didn't get hit by multiple jetliners, did they? I was under the impression that they were each only hit once. Do you know something that I don't?

And since when didn't construction managers know the facts of how a building was designed?

I would also like to point out the fact that the quote from the building engineer came after the building came down and not prior to. Is it not possible that he felt responsible for the collapse of the building when it was supposedly designed to take much more, and wrote the book to cover his own ass? That certainly seems far more plausible to me than the construction manager being completely wrong in a quote from before 9/11.

Nobody is questioning that the building was designed to survive the impact of a plane. You trying to make it sound like it should have been able to survive multiple planes is the issue.

The towers DID survive the impact of both planes. The impacts of those planes was far greater than anticipated in the calculations by Leslie Robertson. What WASN'T anticipated was the effects of the fires.

As for your claims Robertson is covering his ass, WTF are you talking about?!? The calculations are documented. The building withstood an impact that was far greater than what it was designed for. The 767 is heavier and was flying much faster than the theoretical 707 in the calculations. The theoretical 707 was assumed to be flying low and slow as it tried to find the airport, not full speed as the planes flying into the towers were traveling.

Nobody has even suggested culpability by Robertson or that he fudged figures. He is still one of the most respected structural engineers on the planet.

Also, you claim that I am claiming the construction manager was completely wrong. That is a false claim. I've pointed out the falacies of the quote you gave, but it isn't the whole quote as usual. Conspiracy theorists love only giving the part of the quote that proves their theory and not the whole quote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRoONuSQgGE&eurl=

He stated quite clearly that the building was designed to take A hit from a fully loaded 707. Perfectly correct. He then goes on to give his own opinion. He is entitled to his opinion, and without the effects of the fires, he is probably correct.

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6937 Location: Denver, CO

homerjay_s wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

What truth? You haven't presented anything to dispute the controlled demolition theory, which is 100% supported by factual evidence.

The buildings collapses are consistent with a controlled demolition, the PNAC cabal had prior motive, the connections required to get into the building to set it up, and the influence over NORAD to initiate a virtual stand down of our national air defense in order to stage the planes hitting the towers without the standard protocol of intervention.

I dont have to dispove what didnt happen. you have to prove it did

Nice ploy but I can show the planes flying into the building. Have any pictures of them setting up the explosives ?

There's lots of video of the controlled demolition explosions in this documentary...you'd actually have to watch it though, not just post that the link is biased in favor of proving the conspiracy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Did you also know that the towers were built to withstand a direct hit from a plane?

Many planes you mean. Yeap! Heard it from the man himself. I cant find the link though.

There's plenty of evidence in this link, including, I think, the quote you're talking about from Fran DeMartini, the onsite construction manager of the towers, who said this:

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Also, per this link, the 767's that hit the tower would actually have a lower kinetic energy rating due to their lower cruising speed.

There's also no evidence to support the claim that the building was rated to withstand the impact of a 707 only at low speeds.

Yes! That'S the one! Thanks for the great link BTW.

I espeacialy like those comment.

Quote: There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind

Quote: One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

Quote: THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...

There are a lot of good quote there. ;)

Don't you just love how these idiots responses are stated as fact, yet when you call them on it, everything they say crumbles like the towers?

The fact of the matter is that you could crash a plane into a number of buildings and the resulting explosion and fire would not cause a complete disintegration and freefall collapse within less than an hour.

I love it when CTs make absurd claims like this before someone has a chance to respond. Shows your desperation to try and recover some small shred of dignity.

Here is where your total lack of understanding of physics comes back to bite you. Lets say your claims are right and the building is designed to accept 5 times the static loads and 3 times the dynamic loads. What loads are those? They would have to be astronomically huge to be greater than the impact force of 100,000 tons of material slamming into the building. This goes FAR beyond static loads. Dynamic loads? Thats things like wind in a hurricane which is a horizontal force instead of a vertical force, but even still, which do you think is a greater force? Wind or 100,000 tons of material slamming into the building?

The other piece you fail to understand is that these loads are spread across the entire structure of the building. Every pound is shared in a very small way across every support in the entire building. When you start destroying the structure of the building by.... oh, I don't know..... slamming a 767 into them at 500 miles and hour, you are going to put additional strain on every support member of the building. When you add on that the impact of the top part of the towers on the upper floors before that weight can be redistributed, it is inconceivable that those upper floors could withstand the impact. The same story gets repeated on every floor as the tower collapses.

homerjay_s · Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 5569 Location: unknown

Patriot911 wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Look at your own quote Homer.

"I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

The construction manager isn't telling you what he knows for a fact. He is telling you what he believes would probably happen. He is entitled to his opinion, but he is still wrong according to the guy who DOES know the facts.

The "believe" and "probably" part was referencing that the building, in his opinion, could withstand MULTIPLE impacts of jetliners. The towers didn't get hit by multiple jetliners, did they? I was under the impression that they were each only hit once. Do you know something that I don't?

And since when didn't construction managers know the facts of how a building was designed?

I would also like to point out the fact that the quote from the building engineer came after the building came down and not prior to. Is it not possible that he felt responsible for the collapse of the building when it was supposedly designed to take much more, and wrote the book to cover his own ass? That certainly seems far more plausible to me than the construction manager being completely wrong in a quote from before 9/11.

Nobody is questioning that the building was designed to survive the impact of a plane. You trying to make it sound like it should have been able to survive multiple planes is the issue.

The towers DID survive the impact of both planes. The impacts of those planes was far greater than anticipated in the calculations by Leslie Robertson. What WASN'T anticipated was the effects of the fires.

As for your claims Robertson is covering his ass, WTF are you talking about?!? The calculations are documented. The building withstood an impact that was far greater than what it was designed for. The 767 is heavier and was flying much faster than the theoretical 707 in the calculations. The theoretical 707 was assumed to be flying low and slow as it tried to find the airport, not full speed as the planes flying into the towers were traveling.

Nobody has even suggested culpability by Robertson or that he fudged figures. He is still one of the most respected structural engineers on the planet.

Also, you claim that I am claiming the construction manager was completely wrong. That is a false claim. I've pointed out the falacies of the quote you gave, but it isn't the whole quote as usual. Conspiracy theorists love only giving the part of the quote that proves their theory and not the whole quote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRoONuSQgGE&eurl=

He stated quite clearly that the building was designed to take A hit from a fully loaded 707. Perfectly correct. He then goes on to give his own opinion. He is entitled to his opinion, and without the effects of the fires, he is probably correct.

You mean the effects of the base level explosions to take out the columns, right?

We know fires don't cause buildings to disintegrate and collapse within 40 minutes. Specifically not class A sky scrapers.

What were the falacies in my quote again? The only thing you pointed out was that the construction manager was stating his opinion as to what the buildings could have taken.

And I am not off base in supposing that Roberston's book, a reaction to what happened to the building he designed, was an attempt at explaining why his design didn't do what it was supposed to. If he doesn't take into account the fact that chemical explosions were used at the base to take out all the support columns, as evidenced by the molten pieces of metal that were pulled out of the rubble as long as 6 weeks after the attacks, he's just trying to fit his book with what he thinks happened.

By the way, how do you explain that molten metal away? The only thing that could have caused it was a chemical explosion.

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6937 Location: Denver, CO

homerjay_s wrote: You mean the effects of the base level explosions to take out the columns, right?

Nobody has been able come up with any evidence whatsoever of "base level explosions". Keep up the lying though! ;-)

homerjay_s wrote: We know fires don't cause buildings to disintegrate and collapse within 40 minutes. Specifically not class A sky scrapers.
You are correct. However, add on top of that the fact that the sky scrapers were also hit by 767s flying at full speed and the same fires were started across several floors at once unlike a normal fire and you are suddenly talking about an entirely different situation. One where it isn't implausible for the building to collapse in 40+ minutes.

homerjay_s wrote: What were the falacies in my quote again? The only thing you pointed out was that the construction manager was stating his opinion as to what the buildings could have taken.
You tried to use this to prove the buildings were overengineered. This was false according to the structural engineer. If you wanted to prove the buildings were overengineered, you shouldn't have used some guys opinion. You should have used facts. I know this is a new concept for you, but try it some time.

homerjay_s wrote: And I am not off base in supposing that Roberston's book, a reaction to what happened to the building he designed, was an attempt at explaining why his design didn't do what it was supposed to. If he doesn't take into account the fact that chemical explosions were used at the base to take out all the support columns, as evidenced by the molten pieces of metal that were pulled out of the rubble as long as 6 weeks after the attacks, he's just trying to fit his book with what he thinks happened.
First off, Robertson didn't write a book, but he was interviewed several times and has issued a couple articles. It is obvious you haven't researched this at all and are pulling facts from your nether regions as you go along.

Second, Robertson's calculations are on record. It is part of the documentation of the building and is not in question. These calculations were gone over in detail after 9/11 and everyone agreed that the calculations were correct and valid. Like I said, Robertson's design DID survive a much more severe impact. TWICE.

Also, seismic evidence has come to light that shows no explosives were set off before the collapse. So much for your "blowing the base" theory.

Here is another little kink in your base theory. Ever hear of the miracle in stairwell B? Twelve fire fighters, an office worker and a police officer were trapped in the stairwell of the North tower between the second and fifth floors in two separate groups. If they blew the base, how is it these people survived? How is it they didn't hear the explosion? How is it they didn't hear explosives as the floors collapsed and instead heard the floors hitting each other?

Quote: You could actually hear the floors hitting one another – boom, boom, boom – and I thought to myself 'oh s**t, this is it, we didn't make it.' Fire-fighter Sal D'Agostino

homerjay_s wrote: By the way, how do you explain that molten metal away? The only thing that could have caused it was a chemical explosion.
Explosions don't melt metal. They cut metal through the shock wave they generate. Maybe you should get your facts straight one more time. :roll:

Claudia Schiffer · Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 3234

homerjay_s wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: homerjay_s wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: homerjay_s wrote: William Amos wrote: Boy do I lovethe conspiracists scampering around with excuses and accusations when the truth comes out.

Please state more of your "Theories" it only gives more rope to hang with.

What truth? You haven't presented anything to dispute the controlled demolition theory, which is 100% supported by factual evidence.

The buildings collapses are consistent with a controlled demolition, the PNAC cabal had prior motive, the connections required to get into the building to set it up, and the influence over NORAD to initiate a virtual stand down of our national air defense in order to stage the planes hitting the towers without the standard protocol of intervention.

I dont have to dispove what didnt happen. you have to prove it did

Nice ploy but I can show the planes flying into the building. Have any pictures of them setting up the explosives ?

There's lots of video of the controlled demolition explosions in this documentary...you'd actually have to watch it though, not just post that the link is biased in favor of proving the conspiracy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Did you also know that the towers were built to withstand a direct hit from a plane?

Many planes you mean. Yeap! Heard it from the man himself. I cant find the link though.

There's plenty of evidence in this link, including, I think, the quote you're talking about from Fran DeMartini, the onsite construction manager of the towers, who said this:

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Also, per this link, the 767's that hit the tower would actually have a lower kinetic energy rating due to their lower cruising speed.

There's also no evidence to support the claim that the building was rated to withstand the impact of a 707 only at low speeds.

Yes! That'S the one! Thanks for the great link BTW.

I espeacialy like those comment.

Quote: There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind

Quote: One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

Quote: THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...

There are a lot of good quote there. ;)

Don't you just love how these idiots responses are stated as fact, yet when you call them on it, everything they say crumbles like the towers?

The fact of the matter is that you could crash a plane into a number of buildings and the resulting explosion and fire would not cause a complete disintegration and freefall collapse within less than an hour.

:lol: :lol: Don't be too hard on them, they are most-likely military at work, cause you know what they say. Information is the most lethal weapon these days...Ever heard of WMM(weapons of mass manipulation)? Well you better believe it. That's the lessons of Vietnam, and they learned it very well.

In the end, they can not win this thing(whatever it is) without controlling the information, that's why we, the conspiracy nuts. :wink:, are being attack/discredited around here....

I once heard that there are as many soldiers assign to information work related than there are soldiers on the battle field(or regular soldiers I'm not sure), and it was reliable info. needless to say, i was :shock: .

And yes, the towers coming down nearly at free fall speed is just impossible without explosives...the pancake theory is a joke. :lol:

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6937 Location: Denver, CO

No pancake theory? Yeah, especially when the firefighters in the building heard each floor collapse as the building came down on top of them. :roll:

Claudia Schiffer · Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 3234

Patriot911 wrote: No pancake theory? Yeah, especially when the firefighters in the building heard each floor collapse as the building came down on top of them. :roll:

No they heard boom, boom,boom,boom....