How does one place another user on ignore around here? The 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.
pkcRAISTLIN
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 ing 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 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.
_Ocean_Drive_
You might be aware of this or not, but on 4th March 2001, the Lone Gunmen series (spin-off from the X-Files) aired an episode about a plane smashing into the World Trade Center in NYC. Apparently Chris Carter (director) got this idea from the CIA.
The first scene depicts Byers talking to his dad, an ex-government employee.
Makes VERY interesting viewing:
culorut
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.
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]
pkcRAISTLIN
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.”
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.
Marc Summers
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
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]
The Titanic was UNSINKABLE! :stongue:
colonelcrisp
quote:
Yet at 5:20 p.m., in a space of 6.5 seconds, or practically at a free-fall rate, WTC 7 collapsed perfectly into its footprint. It should have been big news, if only because it would have been the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due exclusively to fire. But for some reason, reporters gave it a wide berth.
let me have a couple days to scan in half of my steel design code book and youll have numerous examples of steel framed structure collapse due to fire....
thats why concrete and wood are far better for fire safety in buildings......
shaolin_Z
quote:
Originally posted by Marc Summers
The Titanic was UNSINKABLE! :stongue:
That's so incredibly relevant.
shaolin_Z
quote:
Originally posted by colonelcrisp
let me have a couple days to scan in half of my steel design code book and youll have numerous examples of steel framed structure collapse due to fire....
thats why concrete and wood are far better for fire safety in buildings......
grab a bag of chips while you're at it :p
Marc Summers
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
That's so incredibly relevant.
Yes, yes it is. Just because an engineer says it can withstand a hit from a 727 doesn't mean it's true.
shaolin_Z
quote:
Originally posted by Marc Summers
Yes, yes it is. Just because an engineer says it can withstand a hit from a 727 doesn't mean it's true.
LOL, ok.
colonelcrisp
you do realize that the building was designed back in the 60's well before the advent of matrix analysis for structures let alone tools like SAP2000 which allows for more complex analysis of frames and how they react to non standard loadings.... engineering is a science based on practical experience, new frontiers are pushed every day and when someone designs something that is labled as "biggest" or " tallest" or "Fastest" no one actually knows how it will behave as it hasnt been done before. this was the case with WTC. the designing engineers can speculate how it would behave but they cant say with 100% certainty that it will behave in a certain way. It is statistically impossible to predict the precise reaction of a structure of that complexity and size to the impact of a jet. its just not possible.
