you know what's astonishing?

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

I'm sure when pieces of glass and steel are falling from 800 feet in the sky, they sounds like explosions...

I do think that this article answers most of the engineering questions well:

http://www.absconsulting.com/news/latimes.pdf

"It's quite a famous structural system," said Fenves. "It's very well-designed."
Steel buildings in general are known for their strength. Even less well-designed steel
buildings survived the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco and the 1933 Long Beach
quake, Youssef said.

When they were built in 1970, the World Trade Center towers were the world's
tallest buildings. But the strength designed to withstand wind was no match for the
fireball of an exploding plane. "We didn't have any terrorism in mind when the
buildings originally went up," Hooper said.

While engineers are exploring ways to "bomb-proof" buildings to protect occupants
from flying glass and crumbling walls, it is considered too costly and not socially
desirable to attempt to protect buildings from the type of attack that occurred
Tuesday.

"We'd be living in bunkers," Youssef said. "We cannot turn the country into
bunkers."

Funny I though it had been established that the buildings where designed specifically to withstand a plane impact.

This info is even on Miros debunking site. The agument has always been that the plane was larger and carryed more fuel

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^I never agreed that was established, and find that claim preposterous. There are many factors, such as where the 757 strikes the structure and how much jet fuel the 757 is carrying.


"It's like hitting someone at the back of the knee," said
Nabih Youssef, a structural engineer who heads the Tall
Building Council in Los Angeles and is an expert on the
design and strength of skyscrapers. "With enough
weight above you, you take the entire building down."

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

that is totally false the "back of the knee" statement. That would imply that the planes hit the building in a "weak spot." The building was made strong with steel from the bottom all the way to the top.

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Guess that's your way of saying the article I posted is bullsh*t?

Here it is again in case you missed it: http://www.absconsulting.com/news/latimes.pdf

Even though structural steel used in buildings is coated
with a fireproof material, extreme amounts of heat
cause the steel to soften and lose its strength. The
weight of the floors above then causes them to crash.
"The technical term is progressive collapse--the slang
term is pancaking," said Ron Klemencic, president of
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire, the Seattle firm
that engineered the World Trade Center. "What
basically happens is that one floor falls on top of the
floor below it, and with one floor falling on top of
another there's no way to stop it."


You have to make a decision guys at some point, whether or not the Seattle firm that engineered the World Trade Center is also in on your conspiracy.

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

I already proved that pancaking is impossible. The floors didn't offer any resistance because it fell at free fall speeds. Each floor should have offered some sort of resistance.

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^Which is the same as saying that engineers of the world trade center are also conspirators.

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

no it is saying we need a new investigation.

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

I already proved that pancaking is impossible. The floors didn't offer any resistance because it fell at free fall speeds. Each floor should have offered some sort of resistance.

pssh...whatever. You dodn't prove anything. The whole "free fall speeds" thing has been shown highly dubious years ago.

Here's a question for you: if the tower was falling at free fall speeds( i.e., accelerating at the speed of gravity), then why is all of the loose debris from the tower falling at a VISIBLY FASTER SPEED THAN THE REST OF THE BUILDING?? LOOSE DEBRIS CAN'T BE FALLING FASTER THAN THE REST OF THE TOWER ITSELF IF THE TOWER IS IN "FREE FALL" SPEED.

See for yourself, even a grade schooler could clearly see it:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoOp40E6UZg[/youtube]

Also, a lot of conspiracy theorists like to argue that the building came down in 9-10 seconds, a speed consistent with the "free fall" theory. GUESS WHAT - IT TOOK LONGER THAN THAT TO FALL.

See here for a video that provides an imperfect, unscientific estimate of the fall that is already clearly higher than the 9 seconds that people like to quote - you can literally watch and count it:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4[/youtube]

For a more scientific approach, see here where an analysis of seismic readings of the falls for each building supports an estimate of 15 seconds for the North tower.

Also, here is an estimate done by Dr. Frank Greening, a PhD scientist who tried to model the transfer momentum of one floor hitting the others - he estimates about 12-13 seconds.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Look, no one can actually give you THE exact number because it's impossible; everything is an estimate at the end of the day - even if some estimates are more precise than others. And I'm not saying that the NIST reports are great and don't have a lot of flaws themselves. But it is naive and just asinine to claim that "free fall" speed is PROVEN, because it's NOT PROVEN AT ALL.

[PROG]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

why you guys want to complicate things i don't understand...


WTC 7 had no plane hit. there was a small fire. they decided to pull..? that doesn't seem odd? and it just happened that it was all prepped to be demolished. it doesn't work like that.

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^A controlled demolition...really? Highly improbable imo. Besides, if it was demolished intentionally, why? What would be the point, and how would they have gotten away with it given that it occurred 20 minutes after the other buildings fell? Just seems highly unlikely.



Popular Mechanics Article:

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

[Shpira]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Guess that's your way of saying the article I posted is bullsh*t?

Here it is again in case you missed it: http://www.absconsulting.com/news/latimes.pdf

Even though structural steel used in buildings is coated
with a fireproof material, extreme amounts of heat
cause the steel to soften and lose its strength. The
weight of the floors above then causes them to crash.
"The technical term is progressive collapse--the slang
term is pancaking," said Ron Klemencic, president of
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire, the Seattle firm
that engineered the World Trade Center. "What
basically happens is that one floor falls on top of the
floor below it, and with one floor falling on top of
another there's no way to stop it."


You have to make a decision guys at some point, whether or not the Seattle firm that engineered the World Trade Center is also in on your conspiracy.

If that were the case the steel columns would still be sticking up in the middle of the building.

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^So what is your proposed reason as to why they did fall?

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Guys I love this debate. I think each side has given good reason as to why we should have a new investigation. Obviously we each stand wherever we stand but a new one should be done considering it looks like we are pretty much 50-50.


Now Miro what you need to understand is that the building was blown up, so the WTC 1 and WTC 2 had to travel a greater distance since it was blown outward. It travelled further because it didn't take a straight line down more of an out and down. Also Miro it was travelling through pulverized concrete and steel so it wasn't totally equal to dropping a cue ball off the top in free air.

Also to prove that it was controlled demolition how did huge 60,000lbs beams end up 400 ft away unless it was blown out? First off how did it come apart from the other beams for starters and then go 400ft sideways?




Building 7 was blown up. You know how I know for sure? Because the owner of the building said so. What more do you need?

Florida I know you are looking for the "why" would they blow up 7 but you need a new investigation to get that. All we are saying is that it was controlled demolition. The owner said it, an expert in controlled demolition said it, the firemen said it. A new investigation would answer your why.

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Building 7 was blown up. You know how I know for sure? Because the owner of the building said so. What more do you need?

Florida I know you are looking for the "why" would they blow up 7 but you need a new investigation to get that. All we are saying is that it was controlled demolition. The owner said it, an expert in controlled demolition said it, the firemen said it. A new investigation would answer your why.

Where/when did the owner say that? Can you provide some kind of real source for that information, otherwise what's the point of stating such a claim, right?

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

I thought everybody already knew this. I thought it was common knowledge.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100[/youtube]