Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

[ergo]

Sorry, "the magnitude of the fires that resulted"

Better?

Not really.

"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."

And, as we know, the fires weren't that horrendous. These were not infernos.

 

[ergo]

But excaza, can you just, in a nutshell, tell us what the footprint argument is? Thanks.

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by excaza
It was not designed to take into account the fires that resulted.

is incorrect.

You are wrong again. Read:

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 and 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

 

[Sabretooth]

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?"

And instead would let thousands of people die should there be a major earthquake?

Brilliant.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

And, as we know, the fires weren't that horrendous. These were not infernos.

As far as we know Ergo, you weren't there to see the fires as a witness. So to say that the fires, "weren't that horrendous. These were not infernos." proves that you're lying.

 

[BigAl]

But excaza, can you just, in a nutshell, tell us what the footprint argument is? Thanks.

Irrelevant.

 

[Anders Lindman]

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.

Only a few architects design high skyscrapers like that and know about all the safety reasons involved. It's not something taught in universities. They have to sign special secrecy agreements before learning about things like that. I admit that this is just my guess, and I don't know much about the construction of buildings myself, but anyway.

 

[excaza]

And, as we know, the fires weren't that horrendous. These were not infernos.

Horrendous is a wonderfully accurate scientific term. What's the energy threshold for a "horrendous" fire? 100,000 Btu?

 

[Anders Lindman]

And instead would let thousands of people die should there be a major earthquake?

Brilliant.

That's why this is something they don't tell the public about.

 

[ergo]

You are wrong again. Read:

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.

How does this counter John Skilling's claim?

You are aware that there was concrete encasement of at least some of the structural steel? The rest of it NIST has been been very evasive about.

 

[T.A.M.]

They didn't? They toppled over and fell the length of central park or what?



Now that's not what he said. He never said the buildings were designed to withstand earthquakes. Actually he never even mentions withstanding an earthquake. He says he believes that they were designed to fall on their footprint in the case the DID NOT withstand an earthquake. Read it again:

"I believe the WTC towers were designed to collapse like they did into their own footprints in the case of a severe earthquake for safety reasons."

Annoying hyperbole aside, duh, the surface area of gz was much, much larger then the combined surface area covered by the two towers...so nope, not into its own foot print, not by a long shot.

 

[Java Man]

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

Ok huhhh, a couple of points.

If the pilot knew he was going to hit a tower so far ahead of time to be able to empty the fuel tanks on time. Wouldn't it just been easier to evade New York altogether? A jetliner like that can dump between 1.5 and 2 tonnes per minute. Take a moment to calculate how much time it would take to empty the tanks. Not to mention FAA restrictions about altitude.

Secondly:

"and if the tank was relatively empty, remnants of fuel could turn into an extremely explosive vapor." (http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/Aircraft_Wire/fuel_tank_dangers.htm)

"27 November 1989 - Avianca Airlines Flight 203
Avianca 203 was a Boeing 727 that took off from Bogotá, Colombia, bound for Cali. Just five minutes into flight, a bomb on the floor of the starboard side of the passenger cabin at seat 15F detonated. The blast ignited vapors in an empty fuel tank causing a massive explosion that ripped the plane apart. The crash killed all 107 aboard (101 passengers, 6 crew) as well as 3 people on the ground. The Medellín drug cartel claimed responsibility for the attack as an attempt to kill presidential candidate Cesare Gaviria. Gaviria was not aboard but the group's chief assassin was later convicted for the bombing." (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0283.shtml)

Are you going to send people with soap and a brush into the tanks in mid flight?

 

[ergo]

Irrelevant.

The footprint argument is irrelevant? Excaza doesn't seem to think so.

 

[excaza]

Only a few architects design high skyscrapers like that and know about all the safety reasons involved.

There also isn't a huge demand for skyscrapers.

I admit that this is just my guess, and I don't know much about the construction of buildings myself, but anyway.

So you don't know that what you're saying is true, but you're still saying it's true?

 

[excaza]

The footprint argument is irrelevant? Excaza doesn't seem to think so.

Yes I do

 

[Anders Lindman]

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.

If the building tips over, then at least some people in the building may survive. If it is designed to pancake into its own footprint, then everybody in it will be squashed. On the other hand, if the building is prevented from tipping over, it will save lives in other places where otherwise there would have been a skyscraper falling over them like a domino.

 

[BigAl]

And, as we know, the fires weren't that horrendous. These were not infernos.

Big or little, they were big enough to cause the collapse according to these folks.

Henry Guthard, engineer and one of [WTC esigner] 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

 

[T.A.M.]

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.

Where is that head banging smilie....for the love all that is holy.

Leave it to the 911 ani to bri them out again.

TAM

 

[Java Man]

Annoying hyperbole aside, duh, the surface area of gz was much, much larger then the combined surface area covered by the two towers...so nope, not into its own foot print, not by a long shot.

Well obviously there was a mound of debris. But the point is had there been a whole deep enough to fit the WTC the debris would have fallen pretty much squarely into it. Obviously things poured sideways, but it's a long shot from having the building fall sideways like a domino. It is clear it did fall on its footprint even if it poured to the sides when it no longer fit.

 

[excaza]

nvm