Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[ergo]

No, it's like designing a car to withstand crashing into a car and not designing it to crash into an airplane.

It withstood the airplane impact perfectly fine. It was not designed to take into account the fires that resulted. I'm fairly certain the architect stated this already.

"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," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

source

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

So it was designed to withstand the impact of a gliding fuel less 707, but nothing else? Also the airplane would hit when the building was powered down so no electrically induced fire would start.

Bottom line it was not well designed.

I can tell you 1 other thing that's not well designed: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

The Conspiracy Theories are like swiss cheese.

 

[excaza]

So it was designed to withstand the impact of a gliding fuel less 707, but nothing else?

False dichotomy.

Also the airplane would hit when the building was powered down so no electrically induced fire would start.

Um, ok? There's still an airplane.

Bottom line it was not well designed.

Considering how long it stood when encountering a situation that wasn't anticipated, it was very well designed. But regarding the fires, no, it wasn't well designed.

 

[excaza]

source

Obviously it wasn't designed well enough.

Or it was CD, that's what you want me to say, right?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Slow down there, skippy...you're going to have to find some documentation of your "theory" before you try to argue building designs around here.

So, in other words, show some evidence that buildings are "designed to collapse" into their own footprint.

The problem with public documentation for this is that the architects who design skyscrapers would have signed secrecy agreements, because this information has to be kept known only by a few experts in order to not alarm the public.

 

[excaza]

Yes, what is the "footprint argument"? Please do tell.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/search.php?searchid=743124

 

[Sabretooth]

So it was designed to withstand the impact of a gliding fuel less 707, but nothing else? Also the airplane would hit when the building was powered down so no electrically induced fire would start.

Bottom line it was not well designed.

That's not what he said.

Are you implying that buildings are designed, or should be designed, to take the impact of a fully loaded 767 at speeds over 450 MPH?

 

[excaza]

The problem with public documentation for this is that the architects who design skyscrapers would have signed secrecy agreements, because this information has to be kept known only by a few experts in order to not alarm the public.

What part of a blueprint would alarm the public? Have you actually tried contacting the architect?

 

[Java Man]

False dichotomy.

Really? Would there be a scenario in which the fueled airplane would not catch fire?

 

[ergo]

Obviously it wasn't designed well enough.

Or it was CD, that's what you want me to say, right?

Just pointing out that yet another of your statements

It was not designed to take into account the fires that resulted.

is incorrect.

 

[BigAl]

So it was designed to withstand the impact of a gliding fuel less 707, but nothing else? Also the airplane would hit when the building was powered down so no electrically induced fire would start.

Bottom line it was not well designed.

Also the airplane would hit when the building was powered down

Huh?

According to one of the principle design engineers, the towers survived the planes. It was the unfought fires that brought the towers down. They failed to factor in thousands of gallons of gas.

Henry Guthard, engineer and one of [WTC designer] Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site,
said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

http://snurl.com/j54gc (Report From Ground Zero page 188)​

And

Vincent Dunn, FDNY buidings expert describes what made the tower unique snd subject to unfought fires.

In Report From Ground Zero (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.

Source: http://snurl.com/j54ud [Page 310, Report From Ground Zero]

Who is Vincent Dunn?
http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Really? Would there be a scenario in which the fueled airplane would not catch fire?

If the plane dumped its fuel before impact. Question answered!

 

[Java Man]

What part of a blueprint would alarm the public? Have you actually tried contacting the architect?

With one of these maybe?

Minoru Yamasaki died in '86

 

[ergo]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/search.php?searchid=743124

Um, I don't see a "footprint argument" here. Are you sure you aren't confusing this with the Sasquatch debate?

 

[excaza]

With one of these maybe?

[qimg]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:L5tJpesialbmSM:http://wtf-is-with-my-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ouija-board.jpg&t=1[/qimg]

Minoru Yamasaki died in '86

And the blueprints were buried with him?

Don't be dense.

 

[Sabretooth]

The problem with public documentation for this is that the architects who design skyscrapers would have signed secrecy agreements, because this information has to be kept known only by a few experts in order to not alarm the public.

um...no.

I've had to study building construction and design as part of some of my firefighting studies. Never, nowhere, has any structure been built to collapse on itself for any reason.

If this were the case, you would never see a firefighter enter a burning structure.

 

[excaza]

Just pointing out that yet another of your statements

is incorrect.

Sorry, "the magnitude of the fires that resulted"

Better?

 

[Anders Lindman]

What part of a blueprint would alarm the public? Have you actually tried contacting the architect?

The cannot simply tell people: "Hey, did you know that the building you work/live in is designed to pancake into its own footprint in the case of a severe earthquake?"

 

[excaza]

Really? Would there be a scenario in which the fueled airplane would not catch fire?

That wasn't the false dichotomy. You asserted that the plane is either fully fueled or a glider.

 

[excaza]

The cannot simply tell people: "Hey, did you know that the building you work/live in is designed to pancake into its own footprint in the case of a severe earthquake?"

Why not? I don't think it's any more frightening than thinking your building is going to tip over.

You can find the WTC blueprints online.