Do we agree the towers were designed to withstand jetliner crash?

DGM- It means the top expert did not believe they would? It must be a pretty paranoid world for you if you have no trust in experts simply because the titanic sank
 
Non Believer said:
I assume you mean he did not consider who would be piloting the plane going 600 MPH. Please explain the relevance to that in terms of his study?
Click to expand...

Study, both Skilling and Robertson, 180 mph impact, low on fuel. They sill expected a lot of dead from the fire that would enter the building from broke windows.

At 600 mph the impacts would be over 11 times bigger. No design was done for impacts of 600 mph with respect to the structure survival.

No, the designed was for 180 mph. Why do you ignore physics?

Skilling did not do a design study for 600 mph. Skilling never said 600 mph.

The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers.
Click to expand...
You are resting your inside job on likely? A statement made by a reporter? lol
 
Can you explain how the study actually has any bearing on the fact the buildings fell?

At a minimum it would indicate the science being used at the time was faulty to a degree that thousands perished because of it. Seemingly an overhaul of architectural expertise would be in order, but none seems forthcoming
 
ehcks said:
I believe... the towers had to be built out of especially strong concrete and steel just to be the size they were. If the same planes had crashed into smaller, and most likely weaker buildings, they wouldn't have collapsed so much as toppled over.

The towers were large and strong enough to absorb the initial impact, and were only taken out later when fires weakened the remaining supports. If they had hit, say, the CN Tower, it probably would have been chopped in half.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Save for more or less massive concrete, there is no structure that can absorb that kind of impact. The towers were designed to more or less allow most of the plane to pass through the structure, without seriously compromising the main support. In other words, they were designed to take non-fatal damage from an impact (save for those unfortunate enough to be in the impact area).

This worked to a degree, as already mentioned: The towers did indeed not collapse as a direct result of the impacts, and people directly over and under the impact zones generally survived the impact. What did eventually bring the towers down was the fact that the planes hitting them were heavier, faster, and had a far bigger fuel load than the calculations had included.

The Titanic was also designed to be, not unsinkable (that was hype), but able to survive anything her designers had espected her to be exposed to. Unfortunately they did not foresee what actually happened.

Hans
 
Non Believer said:
DGM- It means the top expert did not believe they would? It must be a pretty paranoid world for you if you have no trust in experts simply because the titanic sank
Click to expand...
I have all kinds of faith in experts. I'm not paranoid at all. I also know that people are not perfect and what someone believes and what is reality is sometimes two separate things.

So, how does this prove what you believe happened? You are aware people can be wrong?
 
Non Believer said:
Can you explain how the study actually has any bearing on the fact the buildings fell?

At a minimum it would indicate the science being used at the time was faulty to a degree that thousands perished because of it. Seemingly an overhaul of architectural expertise would be in order, but none seems forthcoming
Click to expand...
Wrong. plenty has changed since the sixties when the buildings were designed. Wouldn't you agree?

(that was lame even for you)
 
You know, Conspiracy Theorists, you don't really need to believe that 911 was an inside job to put blame on the US Government. The US Government already has killed billions of human beings in all kinds of stupid wars. The numbers are staggering enough that we don't need to turn this terrorist attack into a Hollywood idea where the Government commits an act of terrorism against itself to justify a war. The US never needed to stab itself to justify a war anyway. It takes a LOT less from any country for the US to justify a war against them. So you can drop this whole Conspiracy charade. It's insulting to the thousands of dead people who on top of the tragedy, have to deal with a bunch of lunatics and losers trying to tell them who they should blame for the attack when it's pretty evident that it was a terrorist attack.
 
Non Believer said:
DGM- It means the top expert did not believe they would? It must be a pretty paranoid world for you if you have no trust in experts simply because the titanic sank
Click to expand...

There is no expert who said the WTC would remain standing with impacts greater than 180 mph. A design statement made by Robertson, confirmed by a study after 911.


At best if a 600 mph study was done, it was based only on the towers not falling over, like in a high wind.

You need to think like an engineer. Stop quote-mining.
 
beachnut- So now apparently reporters were in on the 9/11 truth conspiracy before 9/11. Do you really think Skilling would have allowed a story to stand that misquoted him on something as important as this. Further where was Robertson in correcting the story? Sorry but your claim that the reporter liee about Skillings quote shows the depth of conspiratorial analysis you are willing to go to have the facts match your story
 
DGM- Wrong back at you. If things had changed where were the experts discussing how the towers might be more vulnerable than we thought when they were built? If your claim is that the science had changed, show something to support your argument. Otherwiser it is merely hersay. It is just as likely that science had confirmed their integrity as not. Lets not conflate the fact that science and technology may have changed to build stronger structures with the idea that science had shown the technology of the time to be unreliable in terms of evaluating risk to the structure
 
Non Believer said:
Can you explain how the study actually has any bearing on the fact the buildings fell?

At a minimum it would indicate the science being used at the time was faulty to a degree that thousands perished because of it. Seemingly an overhaul of architectural expertise would be in order, but none seems forthcoming
Click to expand...

The key point, to me, is that the buildings were designed to withstand A, they were also designed to withstand B. (A = a plane crash, not of this size. B = the fires.) However, they were not designed to withstand A + B +C(The removal of fireproofing by the plane impact). No, I didn't go to school for math so I am sure I butchered it.

The planes were designed to withstand an impact by a smaller, less laden plane. They were also designed to withstand fire, due to fireproofing. The combination of a much larger, fully fueled plane severing through, then removing the fireproofing, in addition to the actual fires started by the jet fuel.

I don't think anyone could have planned for that.
 
So it remains unclear how many here believe the Skilling quote was a lie. Was all of it a lie or just the part about 600 MPH? The story also says that there were separate studies. Is this a lie? What facts do you have to confirm the details of the other study?
 
Non Believer said:
DGM- Wrong back at you. If things had changed where were the experts discussing how the towers might be more vulnerable than we thought when they were built? If your claim is that the science had changed, show something to support your argument. Otherwiser it is merely hersay. It is just as likely that science had confirmed their integrity as not. Lets not conflate the fact that science and technology may have changed to build stronger structures with the idea that science had shown the technology of the time to be unreliable in terms of evaluating risk to the structure
Click to expand...
There are plenty of articles discussing the vulnerabilities in the towers design. The NIST study is one. The CTBUH also has many discussions on this.

How many buildings are there in the world that share that same design? I'm only aware of one other (it's much shorter)
 
Last edited:
Non Believer said:
Because if one side of an argument refuses to acknowledge seemingly given facts it is most likely either an indicator of the degree of their pathological bias, or a polemic strategy. If such standards are accepted then both sides just refuse to acknowledge any truths at all, and simply constantly point to some other point which they 'believe' supersedes the relevance of the given fact
Click to expand...

Very eloquently worded. What does it mean?

Hans
 
Non Believer said:
So it remains unclear how many here believe the Skilling quote was a lie. Was all of it a lie or just the part about 600 MPH? The story also says that there were separate studies. Is this a lie? What facts do you have to confirm the details of the other study?
Click to expand...
Couldn't it be simply wrong? Why does it have to be a lie? Why does it matter, the building still fell.
 
Last edited:
Non Believer said:
So it remains unclear how many here believe the Skilling quote was a lie. Was all of it a lie or just the part about 600 MPH? The story also says that there were separate studies. Is this a lie? What facts do you have to confirm the details of the other study?
Click to expand...

Our beliefs are irrelevant. The buildings were not designed with the circumstances that actually occurred on 9/11/2001 factored in, so the entire argument is pointless.
 
Argument from incredulity, discounted.

Wow that is a piece of work. The top expert on the WTC says after a terroist bombing of the buildings in 93 that they did a study. Logic would seem to dictate that this would have been important back then and that if he was lying, mistaken, or misquoted that someone would have said something. But sure I am incredulous

I love this actually because it simply shows the degree of your bias that you cannot simply admit Skilling said this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom