 |
|
|
|
 |
pkcRAISTLIN
arbiter's chief minion

Registered: Jul 2002
Location:
|
|
|
ahhh, the last safehouse for the stupid and willfully ignorant.
let's recap shall we PDD?
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
also, the towers may have been built to withstand an aeroplane, however they did not take into consideration all the fuel big planes might be carrying. |
a well-thought out response here, i especially like the evidence cretinrot has brought to bear to contradict my statement.
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Now that is the most fucking dumb thing you must have ever typed. What did they think was fueling the planes then? chocolate pudding?
Of course the fuel was taken into consideration.
STFU already you moron. |
so, in responde to cretinrot's stellar position, pkc provides expert evidence directly supporting his case and in contradiction to cretinrot's willfully ignorant ASSUMPTION.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member. The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building—paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained. |
and here is cretinrot's retaliation, full of excellent research to undermine previous expert testimony regarding the collapse of the towers, with full diagrams, intelligent criticism and ulterior explanations opposed to pkc's argument.
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
The shit that spills out PKC's mouth is just plain foul. I rather not see his pathetic attempts at making a point or refuting an argument anymore. |
academic brilliance at its very best.
___________________
|
|
Apr-02-2007 04:30
|
|
|
 |
 |
pkcRAISTLIN
arbiter's chief minion

Registered: Jul 2002
Location:
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
The engineers did take it into consideration, you are quoting yourself saying that they did not and you are absolutely wrong.
WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It
In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993] |
see, this is all i was asking for. some evidence and argument for your position.
and no, im not "absolutely wrong"
| quote: |
The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71.
The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson, carried out a second study later in 1964, of how the towers would handle the impact of a 707...However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” |
link
therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that skilling made a mistake in his analysis. calculations like these are not an exact science, there are too many variables that cannot be known until an experiment is carried out.
___________________
|
|
Apr-03-2007 02:02
|
|
|
 |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:38.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|