...when a skyscraper's structure is irreversibly compromised, it's designed to fail in a predictable and (somewhat) controlled manner.
And where exactly is that claim corroborated by professional, credentialed architectural and/or engineering professionals — particularly with reference to the WTC structures?
The following 3 users would like to thank Texaner for this useful post:
The point is not to convince you of anything, it doesn't matter to me what you believe, it was just a discussion, and I was expressing an opinion.
And I was pointing out the flaws in your "opinion".
Quote:
You seem to become upset when your arguments are challenged, but its difficult not to when they're regarding tin cans, shooting people, and flicking matches at piles of paper.
And where exactly is that claim corroborated by professional, credentialed architectural and/or engineering professionals — particularly with reference to the WTC structures?
For the record, here's what a website backed by several hundred professional, credentialed architects and engineers does say (quoted directly from the website):
As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e. 1. Slow onset with large visible deformations 2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires) 3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel 4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”
__________________ "Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant
The following 3 users would like to thank Texaner for this useful post:
For the record, here's what a website backed by several hundred professional, credentialed architects and engineers does say (quoted directly from the website):
Hmmmmm. Well, since it's on the record and the fact that that website sure does look pretty professional, sign me up! I can't believe those ****ers did that!
Don't let the ".gov" put you off - I know a few people who work there and they're not a bunch of paid government stooges.
I don't find on either of those pages anything suggesting that "when a skyscraper's structure is irreversibly compromised, it's designed to fail in a predictable and (somewhat) controlled manner."
And in fact, whereas the "entree" states "The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel," the folks at "AE911Truth" obviously disagree.
In any case, try applying to a lit candle the logic suggesting that fire-weakened steel near the top of a structure somehow automatically weakens all underlying steel (i.e. below the fire) to the point of spontaneous collapse. Just as candles don't succumb to such sudden collapses, nor have the several high-rise buildings on record that have burned both hotter and longer than the WTC towers.
If it can truly be corroborated by qualified and credentialed sources that the WTC towers were "designed to fail in a predictable and (somewhat) controlled manner," that would go a long way toward countering the position of the "AE911Truth" folks.
But in fact, engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have gone on record, since the attack, saying that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. ...that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires... "There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there." (source)
__________________ "Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant
The following 3 users would like to thank Texaner for this useful post:
The explanation I've heard about the Twin Towers is that because of their shear height, its main support structure was their outer-shell. The collision and the heat of the fire caused the outer shell to separated from the main structure, causing it to collapse like a banana peel or an egg.
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
I have flipped and have flopped on this subject but in the end I just don't have enough info to come to a concrete conclusion. By enough info I mean stuff that goes behind closed doors that none of us have access to.
The Pentagon hit I find more strange than the two buildings collapsing. Why no proper video of that hit has ever been released?
I think maybe they do successfully debunk some of the points made by the 911truth people, and it has some shots of the outside of the building apparently buckling in the heat, after seeing which, I could start to wonder if perhaps the fire could bring it all crashing down.
But then I think of the 80 floors or so below the impact, which were untouched by the fire, and yet gave way at freefall speed, under the same weight it had been supporting for years without issue.
In any case, try applying to a lit candle the logic suggesting that fire-weakened steel near the top of a structure somehow automatically weakens all underlying steel (i.e. below the fire) to the point of spontaneous collapse.
But no-one suggests that. They say the shock and weight of all the stories above falling onto the ones below caused them to collapse.
Quote:
Just as candles don't succumb to such sudden collapses, nor have the several high-rise buildings on record that have burned both hotter and longer than the WTC towers.
Which buildings with the same "Tube in tube: design as the WTC towers and were also subjected to fires sans fireproofing ?
Quote:
If it can truly be corroborated by qualified and credentialed sources that the WTC towers were "designed to fail in a predictable and (somewhat) controlled manner," that would go a long way toward countering the position of the "AE911Truth" folks.
Actually it (clearly) wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. The failure mode of the WTC towers has already been quite adequately explained and matched with the known evidence. Whether it was an inherent aspect of the design, or just how it ended up working, is at most an issue of semantics.
under the same weight it had been supporting for years without issue.
The same weight, plus the added shock of all those floors dropping onto them.
Take a glass and sit a brick on it. Note that the glass holds the brick up fine. Now lift the brick up a foot or two and drop it on the glass. Note that the glass breaks.
Quote:
Exactly . There are so-called experts on both sides telling opposite stories.
The best course of action is usually to apply Occam's Razor
I'm sorry naysayers and wacko conspiracy theorists. 9-11 was not a conspiracy. This thread is just like Fox News back home, talk about anything enough and you can shape it into a debate.
Arghh, please can we please not distort the facts. The World Trade Center buildings were vastly different than most other steel skyscrapers. If you look at the design, it is clearly obvious what allowed those planes to bring down the buildings. Unlike almost all tall buildings of its type, it was built, largely relying on the support of the sides, with additional support struts to help with the weight of each floor. The center was left mostly open to allow for more office space. Again, this was a unique design for such large buildings. A traditional design probably would have preserved the buildings entirely or at the very least, for a much longer time.
Yes, the architects did model the effect of the jets hitting the buildings, but I've heard the chief architect say that these models failed to take into account the effect of jet fuel sprayed throughout the building and the models were designed with spefications of 1970's jets in mind. (PBS-Why the Towers Fell).
Ok, I can buy a real look at how little was done by those in positions of power to prevent these attacks and how ineptly they acted after the event, but I think the other lines of conspiracy thinking within this thread deserve about as much time as "is Elvis alive and singing with Michael Jackson on a tropical island?"
The following 2 users would like to thank Arizona Ben for this useful post:
well, i have heard and watched the movies regarding the conspiracy theories and i'm sure that something more went on then what we think we know and what was in the media. that being said i don't think we'll ever know what happened. i don't think it was a good excuse for any sort of retaliation against anyone, personally, but being a nyc-er all my life and during this event and in the months to follow i will say that i have never experienced such a horrifying and sad and scary time. there is nothing to describe the air, the atmosphere and the smell that covered ny in the time that followed and the silence that came afterwards was like nothing i've ever heard (). and knowing people who worked there, volunteered there and lost loved ones there makes me really sensitive whenever the subject is brought up or crosses my mind.
whatever happened lives were lost, lives were changed and the repercussions were global and as horrific as the event itself was.
The following 3 users would like to thank amaraya for this useful post:
That event was just so surreal. It felt like a science fiction or a godzilla movie. I don't know of anyone whose life was not affected or rearranged by it. It totally blew the veneer of the reality we were living in.
As much as I would love to go back to life as it was, I'm afraid there is no going back to the way it was.
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
Not lost, but be kept manageable enough for money to be continually pumped into it. You don't think they really need to spend billions to stop a few guys working out of tents? Similarly, the "Drug War" comes to mind.
Said it before and I will happliy quote it again:
"Fighting for peace is like ing for virginity"
The following 2 users would like to thank Natasha for this useful post:
. There are so-called experts on both sides telling opposite stories.
). and knowing people who worked there, volunteered there and lost loved ones there makes me really sensitive whenever the subject is brought up or crosses my mind. 
Linear Mode
