• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

sheeplesnshills said:
A fully fueled plane was a not an improbable event. Any airliner taking off from Newark, JFK or La Guardia is only a short distance from Manhattan.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that a fully fueled plane WAS an improbable event. However, it was not impossible.

Hindsight is always 20-20 but considering the impact and not fire and the affect on the fire escapes was an oversight. Perhaps it was considered but like the Lifeboats on the Titanic they would have taken up too much revenue earning space.
Click to expand...
Economics are always a consideration in the design process.

When I was a fire protection engineer, we were frequently reminded: "You don't recommend spending $2 to protect $1 worth of property". Same thing would apply to the building design. Why spend tons of extra money to protect against a highly improbable event?
 
sheeplesnshills said:
A fully fueled plane was a not an improbable event. Any airliner taking off from Newark, JFK or La Guardia is only a short distance from Manhattan.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes it would be quite improbable.


Hindsight is always 20-20 but considering the impact and not fire and the affect on the fire escapes was an oversight. Perhaps it was considered but like the Lifeboats on the Titanic they would have taken up too much revenue earning space.
Click to expand...

Building codes determine what was considered and for good reason, they don't consider the highly unlikely......airplane crashes, meteors, klingon death rays, etc
 
LSSBB said:
Zeuzz, in the interests of rational discussion, please list for me some examples of "genuine totally rational unanswered questions", I am having some trouble identifying them. There is an issue that PaloAlto brought up and I am still researching verification of his answer. There are also some technical questions being resolved on the proper identification of Tnemec and LeClede primer paint.That is all that I can recall at this point.
Click to expand...

How can NIST's final report on the collapse of WTC 7 be considered conclusive without any physical evidence to support its two unprecedented collapse phenomena?
 
RedIbis said:
How can NIST's final report on the collapse of WTC 7 be considered conclusive without any physical evidence to support its two unprecedented collapse phenomena?
Click to expand...
RedIbis, what are the "two unprecedented collapse phenomena" you are referring to? In any case, I directed the question at Zeuzzz and would like to give him the chance to respond.
 
Last edited:
S&S,

sheeplesnshills said:
A fully fueled plane was a not an improbable event. Any airliner taking off from Newark, JFK or La Guardia is only a short distance from Manhattan.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think that it is fairly easily provable that it is a highly improbable event: the fact that it has so rarely happened.

The only times that I am aware of a fully fueled large commercial jet crashing on take-off has been engine failure taking out aileron or elevator control, such as (IIRC) the DC-10 taking off out of O'Hare, or the Concorde that blew a tire on runway debris, and started spewing fuel from damage.

It is very, very rare that someone is lost in the fog on takeoff. Large jets employ IFR, and if you don't meet the minimums at the airport, you don't take off. The other benefit is that, if you're at the airport, you know exactly where you are.

If you take off from JFK or Newark into fog (happens frequently) and your nav gear should crap out, the very first thing that you'll do is to climb & head east or southeast over the ocean. Altitude is your friend, until you can sort out the problem.

At the end of a flight, everything changes. It is rare, but certainly not unheard of, for an experienced professional (anyone driving a 707, 747 in 1970s, or 767 today) to get lost in the air, but it does happen. Sometimes with tragic results (KAL 007). But IFR navigation beacons have been in place for a long time to address that issue.

It is very easy, tho, for a large geographical area (e.g., the Northeastern seaboard) to get socked in quickly with fog. Everywhere from New Jersey to Boston, for example.

Then, if you're running low on fuel & you can't make it to a faraway airport in the clear, you're going to have to descend thru zero visibility. A pilot is supposed to know where he is and where he's going. But a malfunction in nav gear is possible. (It's rarely one thing, but rather 2 or 5 things coming together that leads to disaster.)

sheeplesnshills said:
Hindsight is always 20-20 but considering the impact and not fire and the affect on the fire escapes was an oversight. Perhaps it was considered but like the Lifeboats on the Titanic they would have taken up too much revenue earning space.
Click to expand...

It's been said here repeatedly (several times by me), the "analyses" that were done in the 70's "proving that the buildings would withstand a jet impact" (whether at 200 knots or 600 knots) weren't worth the paper they were printed on.

They had neither the computers nor the software to perform even the static analysis, never mind the thermodynamic one related to fires.

I posted some notes on the story here.

An urban myth.


Tom
 
Last edited:
The towers were designed to withstand an impact from a 707 lost in the fog. The myth tripe comes from failure to read what Robertson said, and what he meant.


The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. ​
​
Click to expand...
, Robertson did design the WTC for an aircraft impact. Some had to quote mine Robertson to imply you can't design for impacts, when he did. He was implying, Robertson was saying we can't design for a 747 fully loaded flying 600 mph, the impact alone would knock out 32 core columns, and the fuel would be over 600 tons of TNT in heat energy, starting to be a significant source of heat, albeit short 3 to 5 times the heat energy of the office contents set on fire. (darn, it all comes down to simple math)
​
http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bri...ecurity/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter.aspx

You don't need a computer to know the buildings would resist the impact of an aircraft. The strength of the steel, and the building were known. This was verified by a study after 911 saying the WTC towers would resist a 200 mph impact. Who is pushing computer are needed? Nonsense. I have to program the computer do what is needed, no program, no basic algorithm, no reality based answer. What we get sometimes with computers is catastrophic failures, major structural failure, maybe The Crash of Air France Flight 447; it is wrong to say they can not figure out the WTC would not collapse due a 180 mph impact, or topple over from a 600 mph impact. You don't need computers.

It is the algorithms, the structural engineering criteria that goes to program the computers that are important.

A 747 from fully loaded to low on fuel would only be 2 to 3 times the impact energy of the design impact Robertson set for the 707 for the WTC; a design impact verified after 911 to be valid. THE impacts on 911 were 7 to 11 times the impact design. Not good!

WTC towers, buildings designed structurally to resist an airline impact of 180 mph, a 707, lost in the fog, low on fuel. The most probable accident a plane would have. If someone disagrees, they are calling the person responsible for the structural engineering of the WTC a liar. Plus Robertson's design point was verified by an independent study after 911. You don't need a computer to figure this out, but you can use a computer to figure this out.

What does this have to do with idiots from AE who made a failed video? A video made with people who can't solve 911 let alone WTC 7.

For the lone ranger, I am only part time now, I have to take care of 3 grandsons, cook, drive, etc... I am only part time for the MIB right now, not 24/7, more like 0.24/7. BTW, lone ranger, if you took typing class in 1969, you would type fast, so fast a 24/7 job becomes a .24/7 job.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Typical lies.


How many coincidences have to be explained away? buzzzzzzzzzzz
Click to expand...

Typical non answer. How much evidence that you are wrong has to be hand waved away?

Address the points in the link! Are you afraid?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
How can NIST's final report on the collapse of WTC 7 be considered conclusive without any physical evidence to support its two unprecedented collapse phenomena?
Click to expand...

There is, as you are well aware, a considerable body of physical evidence to support the existence of the phenomena responsible for the collapse of WTC7. Your repeated demand for a specific subset of evidence that you know cannot possibly be obtained is what excludes you, personally, from Zeuzzz's category (c); you are deliberately trying to frame questions that cannot be answered, so as to avoid the possibility of ever being satisfied with the answer.

Dave
 
DGM said:
It may be a short distance but, none of the runways line up in that direction. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a departure pattern that take a airliner directly over Manhattan.
Click to expand...

And no one ever planned to land an Airbus in the Hudson either! A loss of power or hydraulics could give a pilot no choice about where they were coming down. That 747 that crashed in Amsterdam didn't aim at the apartment block it hit.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
I'd argue that a fully fueled plane WAS an improbable event. However, it was not impossible.

Economics are always a consideration in the design process.

When I was a fire protection engineer, we were frequently reminded: "You don't recommend spending $2 to protect $1 worth of property". Same thing would apply to the building design. Why spend tons of extra money to protect against a highly improbable event?
Click to expand...

Separated stairwells would have protected people not property. And as it turns out High towers being hit by fully fueled planes had a much higher probability than anyone thought.......:(
 
Animal said:
Free hint for all the clueless troofers.......the military run exercises / war games almost daily.
Click to expand...

Another hint: oilempire.us is no more objective than say....aryan-nations.com or godhatesfags.com.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
How can NIST's final report on the collapse of WTC 7 be considered conclusive without any physical evidence to support its two unprecedented collapse phenomena?
Click to expand...
Precedence is irrelevant in this case. There are a large number of unusual circumstances surrounding the WTC collapses, enough to make a future similar incident nigh-impossible.

How can someone claim Larry Silverstein "made out like a bandit", without any evidence to support their claim?
 
Gregory Melton Boyd
Trained and worked as a machinist for 10 years. Worked for a ground water company prior to getting my M.S. then worked for a government contractor doing R&D work for 7 years. For the last 8 years I have been working for Fairfax County Public Schools supervising the contracting for infrastructure replacements (generators, light poles, electrical systems, etc.).

Almond J. Hays
Consultant in environmental and chemical engineer for 40+ years; am writing a book on socialism in America. Every suspicion is confirmed.

Ahmad Solomon
40 years experience in oilfield engineering, operations and R&D
Inventor
Good knowledge of fuels and combustion
Good knowledge of drilling rig structures & foundations to sustain the rigs.

Amit Singh
Patent attorney having an electrical engineering background. Familiar with electrical power generation, communications systems, and signal processing.

Adam Klein
Project Engineer for high end residential, commercial, industrial, and anchorage work

Alan C. Gray
I am a mechanical engineer with 28 years of engineering experience. I have approximately 20 years of experience in the nuclear power industry. I was involved with the development of the corrective actions department for Cooper Nuclear Station. I had extensive training in root cause investigations. I was involved in numerous investigations to determine failure mechanisms and contributing factors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom