Yet another Truther Tirade - any takers?

[twinstead]

those above are not true ... at least if it comes to WTC ... all other agreed

Can you provide any evidence that the towers were designed for a 500 MPH airliner? If I recall, they were designed for a much smaller airliner travelling at a much slower speed.

You need to do more than just say something isn't true. you need to back it up.

 

[DGM]

those above are not true ... at least if it comes to WTC ... all other agreed

Michal:
Welcome!

Just to let you know. Unless you can back up your claims with fact your waisting your time. By fact I don't mean some well debunked crap from some CT site. If that's all you got I guarantee you will get your arse handed to you on a platter (despite how slick you think your argument is).

Got facts?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

those above are not true ... at least if it comes to WTC ... all other agreed

They actually performed as designed if not better by the very fact that <90% of the occupants below the impact zones had sufficient time to evacuate. The towers may likely have survived the impact damages even if through performing a bit beyond their design specs for impact damage. Steel structures though are pretty much the same in one regard; remove the fire protection and you no longer have a tenable design that accounts for the fires. It's not really possible to design a fire protection system to withstand a physical impact trauma event like that, and the height of many skyscrapers makes any kind of firefighting efforts a nightmare and there aren't too many back up measures available if the integrated systems fail catastrophically.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I will help you.

In order to conduct the real study you need to:

1. find out what happened
2. find out what was the preliminary damage (study the genuine percentage of the damaged elements
3. carry out simulation
4. find out if the outcome is coherent with the final real state.

it is not professional to consider 50%, 60%, 30% or any other random percentage of damaged elements for the test.

The percentage of damaged elements is less important than determining the effects due to the loss of specific elements. The whole is more than the sum of the parts. A loss of 10% of the columns does not correspond to a 10% loss of capacity: it is much worse.

Furthermore, NIST actually did what an accurate version of what your list of items is asking for.

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by BigAl
(...)

It wasn't designed for a jet airliner flying at 500MPH.

(...)

The towers were also not designed to survive structural damage and unfought major fire. No modern steel building is.

those above are not true ... at least if it comes to WTC ... all other agreed

Absent a source in support of your assertion that we can consider, you are wrong.

Here's my source:

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)
​

You are batting zero as far as citable facts go.

 

[Michal]

Exactly how "worst case" do you think buildings are designed to resist? A bird? A small plane? A jet airliner lost in the fog? A jet fully-laden jet airliner impacting at almost 600mph? A space shuttle impacting at 20,000 mph? An asteroid?

I will try to make it as simple as I can because I understand you are not professionally related with the construction industry. Passenger jet crushing with the tower is a laic term and does not exist as a design criteria. This is just the same like saying that a aircraft carrier could catapult Volkswagen Beetle on 1000 feet distance (something you can meet on the science channels from time to time). This sentence is to envisage the phenomena to the public but does not exist as a design criteria.

When considering plane crushing with the tower, following criteria are considered:
1. Dynamic load
2. Loss of capacity related with damaged structure elements
3. Fire load and duration
4. other

 

[Michal]

Michal:
Welcome!

Just to let you know. Unless you can back up your claims with fact your waisting your time. By fact I don't mean some well debunked crap from some CT site. If that's all you got I guarantee you will get your arse handed to you on a platter (despite how slick you think your argument is).

Got facts?

for a good start - fully determined not to use vulgar wording

 

[DavidJames]

Hi Michal, welcome to the forum.

I look forward to more of your posts, especially should you get around to making a claim and supporting it with evidence.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[DGM]

I will try to make it as simple as I can because I understand you are not professionally related with the construction industry. Passenger jet crushing with the tower is a laic term and does not exist as a design criteria. This is just the same like saying that a aircraft carrier could catapult Volkswagen Beetle on 1000 feet distance (something you can meet on the science channels from time to time). This sentence is to envisage the phenomena to the public but does not exist as a design criteria.

When considering plane crushing with the tower, following criteria are considered:
1. Dynamic load
2. Loss of capacity related with damaged structure elements
3. Fire load and duration
4. other

Very nice non-answer.

 

[Michal]

The percentage of damaged elements is less important than determining the effects due to the loss of specific elements. The whole is more than the sum of the parts. A loss of 10% of the columns does not correspond to a 10% loss of capacity: it is much worse.

Furthermore, NIST actually did what an accurate version of what your list of items is asking for.

or they did not

2) Weakened the structure of the building.
For NIST's models to work, both computer and lab tests, they had to remove nearly all of the silica/ceramic fireproofing over a large area of the floor. Second (this is the damning part), they had to remove 50% of the trusses and cross-members to initiate a global collapse. They even state in their reports that they had to use extreme measures to duplicate the results (a so-called "worst-case scenario). The probable scenarios couldn't create the results.

 

[Newtons Bit]

or they did not

Could you provide some sort of factual basis that they did not perform a robust finite element analysis? The NIST reports have all sorts of documentation showing exactly how they performed said analysis and the conclusions generated. I'm referring to the actual pages and chapters.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I will try to make it as simple as I can because I understand you are not professionally related with the construction industry. Passenger jet crushing with the tower is a laic term and does not exist as a design criteria. This is just the same like saying that a aircraft carrier could catapult Volkswagen Beetle on 1000 feet distance (something you can meet on the science channels from time to time). This sentence is to envisage the phenomena to the public but does not exist as a design criteria.

When considering plane crushing with the tower, following criteria are considered:
1. Dynamic load
2. Loss of capacity related with damaged structure elements
3. Fire load and duration
4. other

No technology existed to perform said analysis in the 60's when the towers were designed.

 

[Michal]

I understand that what Alienenity brought here is not enough. Is that the case?

 

[DGM]

No technology existed to perform said analysis in the 60's when the towers were designed.

I liked #4 . Other.

 

[Michal]

No technology existed to perform said analysis in the 60's when the towers were designed.

of course it did exist ... there were no computers (available) though

 

[Horatius]

. Passenger jet crushing with the tower is a laic term and does not exist as a design criteria.

...and you're wrong again.....


http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

 

[Michal]

...and you're wrong again.....

[link]

I have now read the link. Let me stay with my words.

 

[Arus808]

Can you provide any evidence that the towers were designed for a 500 MPH airliner? If I recall, they were designed for a much smaller airliner travelling at a much slower speed.

You need to do more than just say something isn't true. you need to back it up.

Edit: and , they didn't account for that much fuel to be involved in the crash.
hence the speculation that the buildings could withstand an airplane crash, would have meant a plane flying without or very low fuel.

 

[Michal]

and , they didn't account for any fuel to be involved in the crash.
hence the speculation that the buildings could withstand an airplane crash, would have meant a plane flying without fuel.

I have heard this before ... what would mean a serious omission in the preliminaries ... just can not believe this was the case.

 

[Arus808]

I have heard this before ... what would mean a serious omission in the preliminaries ... just can not believe this was the case.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html