The WTC1 and WTC2 were designed to withstand multiple 707 impacts?

[Minadin]

In order to not pollute the original thread by delving into a specific sub-topic with a number of replies by non-conspiracists, I am starting a new thread.

In the thread "Twoofers Only:", Jhunter asks Conspiracy Theorists to list some of the things about which they believe Gravy is demonstrably wrong. The first reply included this:

The debunkers love to focus on the speculations and divert attention away from smoking gun facts.

For instance, they love to focus on how it's speculation if whether a 707 could do comparable damage to a 767 (although if you have a fundamental grasp of science you could figure this out with a kinetic energy formula. That and the fact that the building was designed to take SEVERAL 707s which is more than comparable to a single 767)
(bolding mine)

I've not heard this particular assertion before now, and I'm wondering where it originates. Does anyone know where this idea comes from?

Most of the information I've read is from Les Robertson and seems to indicate that the energy from the combustion of the fuel was not considered, and that the impact they considered was of a 707 lost in fog and traveling at near landing speed, rather than full throttle such as on Sept. 11, 2001. Figures below are from his article (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement) in the Bridge magazine:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1253245ae6cf5b1ee6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3692)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1253245ae6cf556e33.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3690)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1253245ae6d16eee80.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3693)

Which seems to confirm what I had initially thought. I don't see any references to multiple aircraft impacts there; I can't even fathom why you would try to design for it. A single airliner crash is rare and catastrophic enough as it is.

Does anyone know what StickMan is talking about?

[jhunter1163]

I'm just going from memory here, but I think someone said that the structure of the Towers was such that an aircraft striking it would be like poking a hole in a screen door.

I also recall that Robertson said they had no way in the mid-60s to model the damage caused by the fuel an aircraft would be carrying, so they basically ignored it for their calculations.

[Minadin]

I think he basically stated that in the article I linked above. "Poking a hole in a screen door" sounds like someting a conspiracy theorist would say, not an engineer. Reminds me of the "Rabbit Cage of Doom" experiment on You-Tube.

[Bell]

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Btw, the comment about the "mosquito netting on your screen door" was made by Frank Demartini.

[CptColumbo]

A couple of small question: Why would anyone in the 1960s design a building to withstand the impact of more than one jet? Would it have seemed like a likely scenario?

[Gravy]

Port Authority Construction and Project Manager Frank DeMartini (who was not involved in the towers' design) made the "multiple 707" statement during an interview. He was incorrect: there was no such design requirement, and I've not seen any engineer who has studied the towers' construction who agrees with him. Also, DeMartini didn't mention what he thought would happen as a result of the fires that would result from such collisions.

DeMartini died in the north tower on 9/11. He had radioed about the possibility that the express elevators could fall (some already had), and he later asked for any available structural inspectors to come up to inspect the 78th floor: part of its drywall covering had been knocked off and the columns exposed, and he was apparently oncerned about the structural integrity.

[uk_dave]

Also, 'multiple' is a somewhat flippant term to use, probably made to alleviate layperson concerns over the performance of the tower should one plane strike it, but in the expectation that the tower would never be hit by any aircraft and so the claim would never be tested.

I have asked 'truthers' in the past to provide their upper limit on 'multiple'...is it 4? 10? 20? But strangely all are unwilling to do so. 'Multiple' is good enough for them, though reality has a different idea.

[Brainster]

It is a travesty that the Troofers use DeMartini this way; he's one of the true heroes of 9-11, who saved more lives than the overhyped Willie Rod.

[StickMan2008]

It is a travesty that the Troofers use DeMartini this way; he's one of the true heroes of 9-11, who saved more lives than the overhyped Willie Rod.

On July 28, 1945, the Empire State Building was struck by a B-25 bomber on its way to Newark Airport

It left a hole 18 feet wide and 20 feet high.

But the building did not collapse.

It was for this reason, that the WTC Towers were built to sustain impacts from several jet airliners.


"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid. And the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing the screen netting, it really does nothing to the screen netting.”
Frank A. DeMartini
Manager, WTC Construction & Project Management
1/25/01

Died in the 9/11 attacks



Im pretty sure Frank is a tin foil head too right?

[uk_dave]

Here we go again....

How many is 'several'?

[StickMan2008]

Here we go again....

How many is 'several'?

It wouldn't matter.

The fact that it could sustain more than one makes the OS a joke.

LMAO @ that ridiculous chart of kinetic energy where the 707 barely registers.

[uk_dave]

It wouldn't matter.

The fact that it could sustain more than one makes the OS a joke.

LMAO @ that ridiculous chart of kinetic energy where the 707 barely registers.

No, it matters greatly, as does your avoidance of having to consider it.

Do you think the tower could have withstood the impact of five passenger aircraft?

[jhunter1163]

One of the posters here (I believe it was R. Mackey) calculated that the greater mass of the 767, traveling at much more than the 180 mph assigned to the 707, imparted a force to the towers that was 36 times greater than that of the putative 707. Given that, the surprise is that the buildings stood as long as they did.

Got any calculations to show why the building should have stood, Stick?

[tomwaits]

The towers did withstand the impact.....coupled with the intense fires, however, it soon collapsed.

[Arus808]

On July 28, 1945, the Empire State Building was struck by a B-25 bomber on its way to Newark Airport

It left a hole 18 feet wide and 20 feet high.

But the building did not collapse.

If you can't see why you are comparing apples to oranges here, you surely haven't learned anything in the past 6 years.

ESB = concrete facade, concrete core
WTC - steel framed construction; majority GLASS window exterior, STEEL core.

Gee, I wonder why the ESB didn't collapse.

what have firefighters have expressed in the years of fighting fires concerning steel structures?

go look it up

[Dave Rogers]

On July 28, 1945, the Empire State Building was struck by a B-25 bomber on its way to Newark Airport

It left a hole 18 feet wide and 20 feet high.

But the building did not collapse.

It was for this reason, that the WTC Towers were built to sustain impacts from several jet airliners.

That's your assertion, not proven fact, and it's a breathtaking non sequitur.


"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid. And the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing the screen netting, it really does nothing to the screen netting.”
Frank A. DeMartini
Manager, WTC Construction & Project Management
1/25/01


My bolding.

First of all, DeMartini's first sentence contradicts your statement; he's clearly using the singular.

Secondly, he says nothing about the speed of the 707. KE = 1/2mv^2, as I hope you know, so if it was designed to cope with a 180mph impact then a 400+mph impact would be roughly equivalent to five 707's hitting it in the same place.

Thirdly, the multiple impact statement is a project manager's opinion. Sometimes I wish I lived in a world where every piece of engineering performed as well as the project manager liked to think it did.

Put aside the usual conspiracy theorist's false dichotomy that DeMartini was either correct or lying. He stated an opinion. Events showed that opinion to be erroneous.

Dave

[DGM]

It wouldn't matter.

The fact that it could sustain more than one makes the OS a joke.

LMAO @ that ridiculous chart of kinetic energy where the 707 barely registers.
How could the 'unsinkable' Titanic sink?

[chillzero]

Stickman - the building did withstand the impact of the jet crash.

[Tolls]

How could the 'unsinkable' Titanic sink?

It was an inside job...controlled sinking.

[uruk]

I'm just going from memory here, but I think someone said that the structure of the Towers was such that an aircraft striking it would be like poking a hole in a screen door.

I also recall that Robertson said they had no way in the mid-60s to model the damage caused by the fuel an aircraft would be carrying, so they basically ignored it for their calculations.

I remember seeing that video where that person used that analogy. I thought that it was a poor analogy.

The screen on a screen door is not a support structure. The frame of the door is. The spandrel columns were part of the support structure on the towers.

[Zlaya]

Here we go again....

How many is 'several'?

Here we go again, 'What is the definition of word "IS"'?

[DGM]

Here we go again, 'What is the definition of word "IS"'?
Remember the Titanic?

[StickMan2008]

Stickman - the building did withstand the impact of the jet crash.

It was also designed to withstand the impact and the encompassing jet fuel fire.

How could the 'unsinkable' Titanic sink?

Was the Titanic specifically made to sustain the hit of an iceberg at a specific speed? Was it made specifically to sustain the hit of an iceberg period?

[StickMan2008]

My bolding.

First of all, DeMartini's first sentence contradicts your statement; he's clearly using the singular.

Secondly, he says nothing about the speed of the 707. KE = 1/2mv^2, as I hope you know, so if it was designed to cope with a 180mph impact then a 400+mph impact would be roughly equivalent to five 707's hitting it in the same place.

Thirdly, the multiple impact statement is a project manager's opinion. Sometimes I wish I lived in a world where every piece of engineering performed as well as the project manager liked to think it did.

Put aside the usual conspiracy theorist's false dichotomy that DeMartini was either correct or lying. He stated an opinion. Events showed that opinion to be erroneous.

Dave

An opinion?

So you think they just built the towers and said, IMO it could withstand a jet

WTF, dude it had to be the other way around. They had to intentionally/consciously build it sustain such an event.

180 MPH? WTF type of number is that? They built it to take a 707 at cruising speed which is just a fraction less kinetic energy than what hit the Twin Towers with much more jet fuel.

[StickMan2008]

I remember seeing that video where that person used that analogy. I thought that it was a poor analogy.

The screen on a screen door is not a support structure. The frame of the door is. The spandrel columns were part of the support structure on the towers.

Wow talk about a spin doctor.

He was saying what the pencil did to the SCREEN NETTING

He was not talking about what it did to the entire door or infastructure of the building.

It was analagous because he was referring to the grid system where the projectile of the pencil is similar to the projectile of the plane puncturing the grid system of steel.


And their assessment was correct because the plane is not attributed for the damage.


In the eyes of the public when they try to debunk 9/11 they try to say "well obviously the planes..." completely ignorant that no report concludes that collapse was because of the planes.

[TriskettheKid]

An opinion?

So you think they just built the towers and said, IMO it could withstand a jet

WTF, dude it had to be the other way around. They had to intentionally/consciously build it sustain such an event.

180 MPH? WTF type of number is that? They built it to take a 707 at cruising speed which is just a fraction less kinetic energy than what hit the Twin Towers with much more jet fuel.

No, they didn't.

This is straight from the lead structural engineer, Leslie Robertson:

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.

Source:
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB

ETA:
It was also designed to withstand the impact and the encompassing jet fuel fire.

False. Again, this comes from Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer of the WTC:

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

Source:
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB

Would you care to stop lying now, Stick?

[DGM]

It was also designed to withstand the impact and the encompassing jet fuel fire.
Could you quote were that was said?

[StickMan2008]

One of the posters here (I believe it was R. Mackey) calculated that the greater mass of the 767, traveling at much more than the 180 mph assigned to the 707, imparted a force to the towers that was 36 times greater than that of the putative 707. Given that, the surprise is that the buildings stood as long as they did.

Got any calculations to show why the building should have stood, Stick?

Where in the world did you get the idea that it was only designed to take a hit at 180 MPH??????

[TriskettheKid]

Stick, read post 26.

The answer you seek is there.

[DGM]

Where in the world did you get the idea that it was only designed to take a hit at 180 MPH??????
'Lost in the fog'=Slow

[StickMan2008]

Could you quote were that was said?


February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It

In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the Twin Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “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.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993] The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=john_skilling_1





The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson, carried out a second study later in 1964, of how the towers would handle the impact of a 707 (see Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001). However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 ]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.jsp?item=a090301robertson
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

[TriskettheKid]

Again, Stick, I'd like a response to post 26, where your question is answered.

[Molinaro]

They built it to take a 707 at cruising speed which is just a fraction less kinetic energy than what hit the Twin Towers with much more jet fuel.

Get off your freaking butt and do the calculations and list them here to support what you are saying.

And also provide a link to show that they were designed to withstand the resulting fire as well as the impact.

Everyone else has provided links to quotes and to calculations that show that you are wrong.

Wake the heck up and stop just stating nonsense and expecting anyone to believe it.

[Vincent Vega]

It was also designed to withstand the impact and the encompassing jet fuel fire.

Proof? How exactly does that translate struturally. If a number of perimeter columns were removed and core columns damaged the load would be effectively distributed to other columns. THIS HAPPENED.

The fire would be contained by the sprinkler system and the steel effectively protected by the fireproofing. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.

Was the Titanic specifically made to sustain the hit of an iceberg at a specific speed? Was it made specifically to sustain the hit of an iceberg period?

The Titanic was designed to sustain a hull breach and have a number of water tight compartments flooded without the ship sinking. The impact with the iceberg flooded more water tight compartments than the ship was designed to stay afloat with.

[alexg]

From that interview Skilling seems to think the building would survive a high speed impact and the resulting fire. Roberston tells a different story. Skilling's referenced white paper seems to have been lost as no one has yet produced a copy that I know of. I wonder if Skilling was figuring on the destruction of the fire suppression system or the removed fireproffing? The best laid plans . .

In any event the surviving lead engineer is on record saying he was figuring a 707 on approach (ie slow) and lost in fog and did not think they were counting on a full fuel load. Quite different from what actually hapened.

In any event the idea that they designed this structure, or knew this structure, to be high speed, heavy 767 proof is far from demonstrated!

[StickMan2008]

Get off your freaking butt and do the calculations and list them here to support what you are saying.

And also provide a link to show that they were designed to withstand the resulting fire as well as the impact.

Everyone else has provided links to quotes and to calculations that show that you are wrong.

Wake the heck up and stop just stating nonsense and expecting anyone to believe it.

Here's a quick science lesson

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.


The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.


So what can be said about the actual impacts?

The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?

The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall.

[TriskettheKid]

I have a feeling that Stick has me on ignore.

Can someone please repost post #26 so that he may read it?

[VespaGuy]

Wait, is this the same stickman who was arguing in another thread about the fires not being big enough?

Truthers either argue about the fire and ignore the structural damage, or argue about the structural damage but ignore the fires. Stickman has done both.

Stickman... The towers DID survive the impact of the boeings. Do you realize that? You have so far spent this thread trying to proove that the towers shouldn't have collapsed due to the impact, and guess what.. they DIDN'T. They remained standing until the structure failed from a combination of structural damage and fire.

Why is that so hard for truthers to accept?

[StickMan2008]

No, they didn't.

This is straight from the lead structural engineer, Leslie Robertson:



Source:
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB

ETA:


False. Again, this comes from Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer of the WTC:



Source:
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB

Would you care to stop lying now, Stick?


I have a feeling you just ignore information that doesn't suit your limited scope of beliefs.

I think John Skilling and Frank D. Martini would disagree with how weak you guys think they built these buildings.


"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

"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."





"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."


How ironic

[StickMan2008]

Wait, is this the same stickman who was arguing in another thread about the fires not being big enough?

Truthers either argue about the fire and ignore the structural damage, or argue about the structural damage but ignore the fires. Stickman has done both.

Stickman... The towers DID survive the impact of the boeings. Do you realize that? You have so far spent this thread trying to proove that the towers shouldn't have collapsed due to the impact, and guess what.. they DIDN'T. They remained standing until the structure failed from a combination of structural damage and fire.

Why is that so hard for truthers to accept?

Because so many raging douche bags say the damage from the planes is one of the reasons why the buildings collapsed

Again Im new to this site so I may be mixing what I've seen over the last couple of years with this site which I've only been on for a week

[TriskettheKid]

Who are you trying to kid?

Leslie Robertson was the lead structural engineer for the Twin Towers. Don't you get that?

HE WAS THE LEAD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. Not Skilling.

And the LEAD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER for the Twin Towers just told you what they were and what they were not designed to withstand.

Why must you turn this board into a house of lies?

[VespaGuy]

[QUOTE=StickMan2008;3220218]

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

Well there you go stick... all you need to do is find the "top expert" in that type of work, and we've found our guilty party. Who should we arrest?

.(..and do you happen to have a link to the source of those quotes?)

[phunk]

180 MPH? WTF type of number is that?

The speed of a plane on approach to one of the 3 surrounding airports, the most likely situation for a crash.

[T.A.M.]

damage from the planes WAS one (ONE) of a number of factors.

The plane damage severed columns. The plane damage likely destroyed many floor trusses. The plane damage removed fireproofing.

Why do you have a problem with this?

TAM:)

[alexg]

I have a feeling you just ignore information that doesn't suit your limited scope of beliefs.

I think John Skilling and Frank D. Martini would disagree with how weak you guys think they built these buildings.


"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

"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."





"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."


How ironic

Did they figure on the destruction of the sprinkler system or on the removal of the fireproofing? That we do not know because whatever papers they produced at that time are lost and Skilling is deceased. All we haveto go on is Leslie Robertson and he tells a very different story. Doees anyone really think they could have modeled the actual scenario back in 64? WSuppose they did THINK it would survive. Would this be the first time someone got something like this wrong?

[Unfit4Command]

Because so many raging douche bags say the damage from the planes is one of the reasons why the buildings collapsed

Again Im new to this site so I may be mixing what I've seen over the last couple of years with this site which I've only been on for a week

Well, technically this is true. The plane impacts dislodged fire protective insulation from thousands of square feet of floor area, making the buildings much more susceptible to fires. The removal of many support columns certainly didn't help the situation.

Also, this argument can go both ways. By saying "The buildings were built to survive airliner impacts!" People are assuming that the airliner impacts were the only things effecting the structural integrity of the Twin Towers, which obviously wasn't the case.

[T.A.M.]

How ironic

Good thing Irony does not equal guilt, or the truthers, based on their comments, would all be in prison right now.

TAM:)

[alexg]

Who are you trying to kid?

Leslie Robertson was the lead structural engineer for the Twin Towers. Don't you get that?

HE WAS THE LEAD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. Not Skilling.

And the LEAD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER for the Twin Towers just told you what they were and what they were not designed to withstand.

Why must you turn this board into a house of lies?

To be fair wasn't Skilling the co-lead engineer? I'm just asking. That's what I had heard.

[VespaGuy]

Because so many raging douche bags say the damage from the planes is one of the reasons why the buildings collapsed

Again Im new to this site so I may be mixing what I've seen over the last couple of years with this site which I've only been on for a week

[sigh]... it IS one of the reasons the buildings collapsed. But so is the resulting fire. It's a combination of these things.

The plane impact alone may not have caused the tower to ultimately collapse.

A raging fire alone may not have caused the tower to ultimately collapse.

Do you understand this?

[DGM]

Stick:
Why would they plan for a 707 going 600 MPH under 1500 ft.?

ETA Could you link where Skilling himself mentions this speed?

[StickMan2008]

[QUOTE=StickMan2008;3220218]

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

Well there you go stick... all you need to do is find the "top expert" in that type of work, and we've found our guilty party. Who should we arrest?

.(..and do you happen to have a link to the source of those quotes?)

You have to admit no matter what side you stand, that quote is pretty ironic

[StickMan2008]

Did they figure on the destruction of the sprinkler system or on the removal of the fireproofing? That we do not know because whatever papers they produced at that time are lost and Skilling is deceased. All we haveto go on is Leslie Robertson and he tells a very different story. Doees anyone really think they could have modeled the actual scenario back in 64? WSuppose they did THINK it would survive. Would this be the first time someone got something like this wrong?

Leslie Robertson vs two men who couldn't have possibly been coerced

[StickMan2008]

[sigh]... it IS one of the reasons the buildings collapsed. But so is the resulting fire. It's a combination of these things.

The plane impact alone may not have caused the tower to ultimately collapse.

A raging fire alone may not have caused the tower to ultimately collapse.

Do you understand this?


Link?

Where did NIST say that the impact of the plane plane crash was one of the pivotal reasons why the building collapsed?

They blamed the resulting jet fuel and fires.


According to them I just need an 11 by 11 foot pool of jet fuel and light it up and voila

[VespaGuy]

[QUOTE=VespaGuy;3220233]

You have to admit no matter what side you stand, that quote is pretty ironic

Before I'd admit anything, I'll ask again for a source of that quote. No use discussing something if I can't see the original context or if it's even real.

So, how about a source for that quote, stick?

And maybe supply a list of top experts who may have been able to pull it off. The quote doesn't even say multiple experts, it just says EXPERT. Maybe you could come up with the top ten experts in the field and we can start narrowing down the guilty party.

[alexg]

Leslie Robertson vs two men who couldn't have possibly been coerced

Robertson has changed his tune

You ignored my question. I acknowledge that Skilling said he believed the building would survive a high speed jet impact and the resulting fires. But what were his assumptions? How did he model this? Did he even do the modeling himself? This we do not know. The paper work is lost. He may well have been counting of the fire suppression and fireproofing to work. He may have been counting on a lesser fuel load. And add to all of this he may simply have been wrong. Who thinks they could really have modeled this properly in 64?

You suggest Robertson is hiding something but maybe Skilling was being overly optimistic to reassure tenents!

Anyway, where does Robertson change his tune?

[Unfit4Command]

Link?

Where did NIST say that the impact of the plane plane crash was one of the pivotal reasons why the building collapsed?

They blamed the resulting jet fuel and fires.


According to them I just need an 11 by 11 foot pool of jet fuel and light it up and voila

"Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Read the actual reports for more information, the faq is also a useful tool.

[VespaGuy]

Link?

Where did NIST say that the impact of the plane plane crash was one of the pivotal reasons why the building collapsed?

They blamed the resulting jet fuel and fires.

Seriously?


According to them I just need an 11 by 11 foot pool of jet fuel and light it up and voila

Now I know you have seen the photos that were shown by others on a different thread where the huge fires are clearly visible, even during the bright morning sun. I stood by without posting as I watched you unsuccessfully try to diminish the magnitude of the fires by harping on the word engulf, while ignoring the scale when you compare the fire size to the buildings.

Now you are claiming something about an 11' by 11' pool of jet fuel? How completely dishonest, yet entirely expected, of you.

[fezzic]

I think John Skilling and Frank D. Martini would disagree with how weak you guys think they built these buildings.


"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

"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."





"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."


How ironic

Perhaps a link to the source (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227) might be helpful. Perhaps a reference to WHEN that was written February 27, 1993.

So he was not referring to 9/11 but to the bomb detonated at the WTC years before. He certainly wasn't referring to the events of 9/11 or the building response or its collapse since that wouldn't happen for for another 8 or 9 years.

BTW, I doubt that anybody would contest a statement that anybody with relevant experience and skill could bring down a building with explosives. What is disputed wrt 9/11 is that anybody actually did do that.

[alexg]

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

From the NIST FAQ:

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contractors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

[StickMan2008]

Perhaps a link to the source (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227) might be helpful. Perhaps a reference to WHEN that was written February 27, 1993.

So he was not referring to 9/11 but to the bomb detonated at the WTC years before. He certainly wasn't referring to the events of 9/11 or the building response or its collapse since that wouldn't happen for for another 8 or 9 years.

BTW, I doubt that anybody would contest a statement that anybody with relevant experience and skill could bring down a building with explosives. What is disputed wrt 9/11 is that anybody actually did do that.

The fact that it was written back in 1993 is why it's IRONIC

If it was in 2001 that would be highly CONTROVERSIAL.

[VespaGuy]

Link?

Where did NIST say that the impact of the plane plane crash was one of the pivotal reasons why the building collapsed?

They blamed the resulting jet fuel and fires.


According to them I just need an 11 by 11 foot pool of jet fuel and light it up and voila


See the post above mine. You've been provided with a link.

You can stop attacking the "building fell from impact alone" and "building fell from fire alone" strawmen now. Nobody here belieives either of those.

[alexg]

And on the role of the damaged colums and core:

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

[StickMan2008]

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

From the NIST FAQ:

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contractors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.


The same NIST that can't even document every one of their assertions?

IRONY!

[VespaGuy]

Link?

Where did NIST say that the impact of the plane plane crash was one of the pivotal reasons why the building collapsed?

They blamed the resulting jet fuel and fires.


According to them I just need an 11 by 11 foot pool of jet fuel and light it up and voila

The statements above have been proven wrong. Seperate yourself from the typical truther and stop lying.

[Vincent Vega]

Because so many raging douche bags say the damage from the planes is one of the reasons why the buildings collapsed

Again Im new to this site so I may be mixing what I've seen over the last couple of years with this site which I've only been on for a week

IT WAS. IT WAS. IT WAS.

The fire alone most likely would not have caused the buildings to collapse.

The aircraft impacts alone (say if the tanks were bone dry) would not have caused the buildings to collapse.

[StickMan2008]

And on the role of the damaged colums and core:

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST's own studies "found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482F (250 C)

[bonavada]

Link?
Where did NIST say that the impact of the plane plane crash was one of the pivotal reasons why the building collapsed?
They blamed the resulting jet fuel and fires.
According to them I just need an 11 by 11 foot pool of jet fuel and light it up and voila


HERE (NIST Executive Summary) (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf)

(ETA Page 4 E.3 Summary of findings)


In each tower a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse


BV

[DGM]

NIST's own studies "found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482F (250 C)
Stop changing subjects. Your in about 4 or 5 threads and doing poorly in all of them. Try to deal with one thing at a time.

[ryanebelhar]

the only question I have is why does no one on Earth know what the word 'irony' means? :mad:

[uruk]

Wow talk about a spin doctor.

He was saying what the pencil did to the SCREEN NETTING

He was not talking about what it did to the entire door or infastructure of the building.

It was analagous because he was referring to the grid system where the projectile of the pencil is similar to the projectile of the plane puncturing the grid system of steel.


And their assessment was correct because the plane is not attributed for the damage.


In the eyes of the public when they try to debunk 9/11 they try to say "well obviously the planes..." completely ignorant that no report concludes that collapse was because of the planes.

So you don't think that having a decent portion of your support structure knocked out would not put more strain on the remaining support structures? Especially seeing as thier integrity is being compromised by heat? Talk about spin.

[alexg]

NIST's own studies "found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482F (250 C)

Originally Posted by StickMan2008 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3220285#post3220285)
Link?
Where did NIST say that the impact of the plane plane crash was one of the pivotal reasons why the building collapsed?
They blamed the resulting jet fuel and fires.
According to them I just need an 11 by 11 foot pool of jet fuel and light it up and voila

Core columns were SEVERED bu the impact, as of course were wall columns. All of this contibuted to the collapse. You asked where NIST said that impact damage contributed to the collapse, we answered. At no point did we say anything about core column temps as I recall. What was your point in bringing that up?

[Unfit4Command]

NIST's own studies "found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482F (250 C)

This claim has been addressed numerous times. Here is (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/09/waterboy-wonder-ryan-debunked.html) an example from the "Screw Loose Change Blog." It's simply a part of the NIST report being taken out of context. I suggest reading the Report, at least NIST NCSTAR-1 (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf) for yourself. You can also order the report from free from NIST inquries (http://forums.randi.org/inquiries@nist.gov).

[Corsair 115]

On July 28, 1945, the Empire State Building was struck by a B-25 bomber on its way to Newark Airport

It left a hole 18 feet wide and 20 feet high.

But the building did not collapse.

It was for this reason, that the WTC Towers were built to sustain impacts from several jet airliners.Homework assignment for StickMan2008:

1) Find and list the specifications for the Mitchell B-25 and the Boeing 767. Be sure to include length, wingspan, the empty and maximum takeoff weights, and the cruising and maximum airspeeds.

2) Find and list the estimated weight and speed of the aircraft in each of the collision incidents you mentioned.

3) Calculate the difference in kinetic energy in each incident using the figures given in #2.

[beachnut]

On July 28, 1945, the Empire State Building was struck by a B-25 bomber on its way to Newark Airport

It left a hole 18 feet wide and 20 feet high.

But the building did not collapse.

It was for this reason, that the WTC Towers were built to sustain impacts from several jet airliners.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid. And the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing the screen netting, it really does nothing to the screen netting.”
Frank A. DeMartini
Manager, WTC Construction & Project Management
1/25/01

Died in the 9/11 attacks

Im pretty sure Frank is a tin foil head too right?
This is why you are a poor researcher on 9/11 and I suspect you are not an engineer!

FACT - The building was designed for a slow speed lost in the fog 180 mph impact, low fuel! /FACT

Sorry, you lost this debate! Sad, you could have great potential but you messed this up after 6 years? Why are you unable to get this simple thing correct! Why do you listen to 9/11 truth when they only tell lies and make up stuff about 9/11?

Frank was correct, the WTC could probably sustain many impacts from the design critera aircraft impact! Slow speed, low fuel, lost in the fog. There are many reasons why this is the major hazard for an ACCIDENT! Most people understand 9/11 was done on purpose, not sure why you ignore the facts and make up lies like the rest of 9/11 but your post is a big lie and wrong.

Your post is a like a tin foil hat truther. If Frank thought the building would sustain a high speed impact he is just as wrong as you are.

So we have V SQUARED! That is why impacts on 9/11 were 7 to 10 times greater than the design impact of 184.6 pounds of TNT. (ie. slow speed, low fuel!, darn)

Yep a 707, low speed, low fuel, lost in the fog impact is only a 184.6 pounds of TNT energy event!

Guess what, the impact on 9/11 were 1311 pounds of TNT and 2066 pounds of TNT events! 7 to 11 times BIGGER! One has to understand energy and velocity squared! But then you have no clue after 6 years on anything 9/11. So I expect this to go right over your head and you may never be capable of understanding 9/11. So, many people are challenged to learn past their personal biases. That could be you.

So, if a 707 impact at 600 mph, fully loaded impacted the WTC, you would have 2620 pounds of TNT energy event, and the towers would fall even quicker! Sorry, but any engineer could work this up for you, why not ask an expert; In FACT, most the lay people of the world can figure this out, what is the problem with 9/11 truth. How can one movement have so many morons? The stupid impact idea of a 600 mph fully loaded 707 would be 14 times bigger energy event, and it would be terrible! Even in 1960 engineers could see the WTC could not sustain as a system an impact from a 707 going 600 mph.

I wish one truther could explain how a 707 would be doing 600 mph! The only way is if it is done on purpose, because the top speed of a 707 at 700 feet in the NYC area would be below 200 KIAS, and at top due to an idiot, would be 250 KIAS, and both would be illegal to fly at 700 feet in NYC; so it would not be an accident by a competent pilot! Next, why is a slow speed, lost in the fog, low fuel the choice!? Because, if you had a lot of fuel you would not be lost in the fog in NYC, you would fly to the clear area in Las Wages and land!!!!!!! You do not understand 9/11 or flying, or engineering. Poor lad.


Did you mention the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building, July 1945? GEE, the enrgy of the impact was a whopping 18.6 pounds of TNT energy! 9/11 impacts were 72 to 112 times BIGGER! Oops. Sad you failed to mention this is a good reason the Empire State building did not fall! Actually, Pathetic.

You are repeating hearsay, and not facts. Gee, why can I find first hand facts, and you only have hearsay and lies?

[FactCheck]

This is really very simple to debunk. Frank Demartini said the building could withstand multiple 707's. Not the fires created after. It was the fires that collapsed the building people. All this about multiple 707's is a distraction - as if it means something. Frank Demartini could be 100% right and that wouldn't change the NIST report one letter.

[AZCat]

Did they figure on the destruction of the sprinkler system or on the removal of the fireproofing?

IIRC the towers were not constructed with a sprinkler system - it was added later. Not that it matters, because Robertson states (and I agree) that they had not the capacity for evaluating the effects of such a fire on the structure.

[beachnut]

Leslie Robertson vs two men who couldn't have possibly been coerced
You can not find a direct quote, or written work from Skilling about 600 mph! Sorry. All you have is hearsay and lies from 9/11 truth; 6 years and still no facts! A perfect record of woo. (but I have written and direct quotes for a slow speed, low fuel, lost in the fog impact! – I WIN!) You lost. Sorry, try harder next time.

[ktesibios]

NIST's own studies "found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482F (250 C)

Old stuff. Old, old, old stuff.

Please read this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2792096&postcount=68). All the cites you need to check where the core column steel samples were located in the building and what temperatures the fire dynamics and fire-structure interface models predicted those columns on those floors would reach. Didja know, it turns out that the two core column samples that could be identified as having been in the fire floors actually support the FD and FSI predictions? Then you can go on to examine what temperatures those models predicted for some of the [i]other[i] columns and the floor trusses.

Of course, to check those citations you'll need to download and read NCSTAR1-3 and NCSTAR1-5, which means stepping outside the paranoid conspiracy theory industry reservation. Don't worry, it's safe for everything except irrationally held beliefs.

Also, read this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2793871&postcount=83), this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2796538&postcount=99) and this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2796573&postcount=100). in fact, it would be worth your time to read the whole thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87740) and get caught up on what's already been discussed at length here.

[alexg]

IIRC the towers were not constructed with a sprinkler system - it was added later. Not that it matters, because Robertson states (and I agree) that they had not the capacity for evaluating the effects of such a fire on the structure.

No sprinklers in the WTC? That is rather hard to fathom. I'm pretty sure they had them but the pipes were severed by the planes. But I could be wrong.

[AZCat]

No sprinklers in the WTC? That is rather hard to fathom. I'm pretty sure they had them but the pipes were severed by the planes. But I could be wrong.

I'm at home so I don't have access to the journal articles that I think address this, but a search found the following paragraph on the wikipedia site for the WTC towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center):

On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire which spread over nearly half of the 11th floor. The fire spread to other floors through openings in the floor slabs which were used to carry phone wires. The fires on other floors were extinguished almost immediately, and the main fire was put out in a few hours. Fireproofing protected the steel from melting and there was no structural damage to the tower. This event led to the installation of a sprinkler system in both towers. Firefighters claim that had the sprinklers been installed when the tower was built, the fire probably would not have spread as much as it did. Other than the damage caused by the fire, a few floors below suffered water damage from the extinguishing of the fires above. (emphasis mine)

There were standpipes installed during building construction, but these were just for the hoses used by firecrews. It was not unusual for sprinkler systems to be added to highrises during the 1970's - there's a good article somewhere about the movement in Chicago to promote upgrading fire protection systems in buildings there.

[alexg]

I'm at home so I don't have access to the journal articles that I think address this, but a search found the following paragraph on the wikipedia site for the WTC towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center):

(emphasis mine)

There were standpipes installed during building construction, but these were just for the hoses used by firecrews. It was not unusual for sprinkler systems to be added to highrises during the 1970's - there's a good article somewhere about the movement in Chicago to promote upgrading fire protection systems in buildings there.

Ah. Of course. So they wouldn't have included them in whatever studies they did before or shortly after construction. Somehow it slipped my mind that this was the time period we were discussing. I was thinking of the situation on 9/11 which had nothing to do with that supposed white paper.

I suppose it's still possible Skilling may have included the added sprinkler systems in his opinion that the buildings would have survived the fires in that 90's interview.

[AZCat]

Ah. Of course. So they wouldn't have included them in whatever studies they did before or shortly after construction. Somehow it slipped my mind that this was the time period we were discussing. I was thinking of the situation on 9/11 which had nothing to do with that supposed white paper.

I suppose it's still possible Skilling may have included the added sprinkler systems in his opinion that the buildings would have survived the fires in that 90's interview.

Sure, Skilling might have done that. I think the outcome of the attacks would have been significantly different had the fire risers not been compromised by the impacts. They would have (IMO) kept the temperatures lower in the spaces even if they did not quench the fires themselves and this might have prevented the structure from weakening as much as it did.

[StickMan2008]

You can not find a direct quote, or written work from Skilling about 600 mph! Sorry. All you have is hearsay and lies from 9/11 truth; 6 years and still no facts! A perfect record of woo. (but I have written and direct quotes for a slow speed, low fuel, lost in the fog impact! – I WIN!) You lost. Sorry, try harder next time.

So FBI/CIA whisle blowers don't count as facts?

[uk_dave]

Have we established what 'multiple' actually means yet?

I mean, there must be supporting documentation showing that the design was tested for a single plane crash, or two planes.... three.... four.... five..... maybe more, until it failed (assuming that even our resident 'truthers' don't believe the towers could have withstood an infinite number of aircraft strikes...though nothing would surprise me).

Right?

So, how many is 'multiple'?

[Arus808]

So FBI/CIA whisle blowers don't count asfacts?

and you demonstrate that you do not understand the term whistleblower. please provide evidence of of these fbi/cia "whistle blowers" that back up their claims

[ref]

Frank A. DeMartini is a true hero of 9/11. He helped so many people.

He sadly died on 9/11 at the age of 49. His statement, that the twin towers were designed to withstand an impact of a 707 is confirmed by Leslie E. Robertson, who says the towers were designed to withstand an impact of a slow moving airliner lost in a fog. And the towers did withstand the impacts.

DeMartini goes on to state, he believes that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners. Emphasis on the words believes and probably. Frank A. Demartini was hired by the structural engineering firm Leslie E. Robertson Associates to help with the repairs of the 1993 terrorist bombing at the World Trade Center. He stayed on, becoming the construction manager, the man to see when you wanted to move a wall or rearrange the plumbing. He was not involved in the original WTC building project in the 60’es - 70’es.

Case closed.

[Dave Rogers]

So you think they just built the towers and said, IMO it could withstand a jet

WTF, dude it had to be the other way around. They had to intentionally/consciously build it sustain such an event.

180 MPH? WTF type of number is that? They built it to take a 707 at cruising speed which is just a fraction less kinetic energy than what hit the Twin Towers with much more jet fuel.

Taking these one at a time:

(1) Yes, that's exactly what the record shows. The ability to withstand a jetliner impact was not a design requirement of the original building, it was inferred from Robertson's calculations carried out after the design was finalised. Since the basis of this conclusion was three pages of manual calculations - remember that computer power in the 1960's was rather less than what's available now - it's quite possible those calculations may have been oversimplified. NIST used state-of-the-art modelling to produce a model of an airliner impact that most conspiracy theorists dismiss as over-simplified and implausible, yet those same conspiracy theorists assume that three pages of arithmetic produced an irrefutable conclusion. Can you really support that line of reasoning?

(2) Your assertion. Without evidence, you're guessing.

(3) Wrong, the records show that Robertson's calculation was for a 707 at landing speed. Airliners have altimeters, and descending that low, in fog, at cruising speed, would be insane. The scenario was an airliner looking for a place to land, which they don't so at cruising speed.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."

You have to admit no matter what side you stand, that quote is pretty ironic

What conspiracy theorists always seem to miss is the absence of the words "that don't go BANG!" from after the word "explosives".

Dave

[westprog]

Because so many raging douche bags say the damage from the planes is one of the reasons why the buildings collapsed


There may be a value to arguing that the impacts alone, or the fires alone, would be enough to bring down the buildings. It seems a very theoretical approach when clearly the actual situation involved both impacts and fire.

The real debate is between the people who think that the impacts combined with the fire would be sufficient to cause a collapse, and those who don't. If there is a small group of people whose main interest is in some subset of what happened, and what it might have caused, I haven't encountered them.

[westprog]

What was your point in bringing that up?

It's the Mountains Of Evidence argument. There's just so much evidence that it's impossible to argue one single point to its conclusion.

[westprog]

What conspiracy theorists always seem to miss is the absence of the words "that don't go BANG!" from after the word "explosives".

Dave

Apart from being ironic, the quote falls into the realm of the bleeding obvious. If he'd said "No, no matter how much explosives were used, the building could not be brought down" that might be saying something we didn't already know.

[chillzero]

It was also designed to withstand the impact and the encompassing jet fuel fire.

I see a few others have asked, but you have yet to respond, so I'll ask again:
Source?

Was the Titanic specifically made to sustain the hit of an iceberg at a specific speed? Was it made specifically to sustain the hit of an iceberg period?

It's an invalid comparison, as the Titanic was being driven outside of the intended operating parameters for that scenario. Had the ship been at the correct speed, the damage would have been less, fewer compartments would have been compromised, and yes, it would most likely have survived. As it was, it survived long enough to get some people off safely.

Well, actually... maybe it's a closer comparison than I initially thought - the design was for smaller planes, at a much lower speed, and - like the Titanic - the towers did an amazing job of staying up long enough to get some people out safely.

However, this thread is about the towers, and not the Titanic.

[beachnut]

So FBI/CIA whisle blowers don't count as facts?
You have no direct quote of 600 mph, or any direct written work to support your lie. No there are no FBI/CIA whistle blowers who have any facts on 9/11. Oops, you have nothing.

No the WTC was not designed to take a terrorist aircraft impact at high speed. Sorry, it was designed for an accidental lost in the fog, slow speed, low fuel aircraft. You are still behind with zero points.

[beachnut]

February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It

In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the Twin Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “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.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993] The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=john_skilling_1

Oops, you used a woo site to support your hearsay bs. Sorry, Skilling never said 600 mph. See, Skilling knew the impact to be SLOW speed. The articles you present inserted the 600 mph speed by ERROR. Your research is in ERROR. Because you are not using real facts, you like hearsay BS junk you pick up with GOOGLE. You need to use first hand facts, not hearsay. Try again.

Your best chance to understand 9/11 is to go to school for 4 years and try again. You can not differentiate between facts and hearsay, and lies. You are too gullible.

An engineer can tell you an impact equal to 186 pounds of TNT would give the results Skilling talks about when they mention local damage!
Why are you wrong on this, and why is 9/11 truth so wrong on everything? BTW, cooperative research web site is run by a truther who does no care if he has the correct information, he is just a collector of false information and hearsay, along with some junk on 9/11. He is the bystander hearsay passer, junk man of information. Beware, you need to use knowledge and good judgment to correct and use his junk. You have failed to use either.

[Belz...]

LMAO @ that ridiculous chart of kinetic energy where the 707 barely registers.

Because you don't like it, or because your calculations differ ? If the latter, please present them.

It was also designed to withstand the impact and the encompassing jet fuel fire.

Now you're just making stuff up.

[BenBurch]

You know I once met an old woman who had been in the Empire State Building when the bomber hit. She said the people in her office thought a water heater had exploded until somebody told them differently.

[BenBurch]

Who are you trying to kid?

Leslie Robertson was the lead structural engineer for the Twin Towers. Don't you get that?

HE WAS THE LEAD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. Not Skilling.

And the LEAD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER for the Twin Towers just told you what they were and what they were not designed to withstand.

Why must you turn this board into a house of lies?

Idiot?

Its because if he said that the building should have absorbed this sort of damage, he was WRONG.

We engineers are sometimes spectacularly wrong;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Challenger_explosion.jpg/640px-Challenger_explosion.jpg

And sometimes people die as a result...

But you are misquoting him.

[Belz...]

They remained standing until the structure failed from a combination of structural damage and fire.

Why is that so hard for truthers to accept?

Because so many raging douche bags say the damage from the planes is one of the reasons why the buildings collapsed

Do you have a reading comprehension problem ?

Where did NIST say that the impact of the plane plane crash was one of the pivotal reasons why the building collapsed?

They blamed the resulting jet fuel and fires.

That's a lie, Stick. Learn to read.

The fact that it was written back in 1993 is why it's IRONIC

If it was in 2001 that would be highly CONTROVERSIAL.

:rolleyes:

[Arus808]

Ben could you make it a smaller resolution. Images for forums shouldn't be bigger than 720 in width ^_^. makes reading this thread very hard when one post is outstretching the entire page.

[BenBurch]

Ben could you make it a smaller resolution. Images for forums shouldn't be bigger than 720 in width ^_^. makes reading this thread very hard when one post is outstretching the entire page.

I put in a smaller one. It expanded when I posted it from what it looked like when I cut the link!

[beachnut]

Idiot?

Its because if he said that the building should have absorbed this sort of damage, he was WRONG.

We engineers are sometimes spectacularly wrong;

And sometimes people die as a result...

But you are misquoting him.
Yep, Robertson said slow speed impact, the building would survive a slow speed impact. Skilling never said much of anything, and he never said 600 mph. So the engineers on the WTC were correct. The 9/11 truth movement is wrong, not the WTC engineers.

So the engineers are not wrong, the terrorist did wrong, and 9/11 truth is stupid.

[njslim]

Homework assignment for StickMan2008:

1) Find and list the specifications for the Mitchell B-25 and the Boeing 767. Be sure to include length, wingspan, the empty and maximum takeoff weights, and the cruising and maximum airspeeds.

2) Find and list the estimated weight and speed of the aircraft in each of the collision incidents you mentioned.

3) Calculate the difference in kinetic energy in each incident using the figures given in #2.

Since Stickman is in the slow class I'll give him some help. Max all up weight of a B25
is between 33,000 - 36,000 lb (depending on type, D model or H model) - this includes
max fuel of 2000 gal, bomb load, crew, numerous .50 machine guns and ammo. The
plane that hit ESB was on short ferry hop, only 3 aboard, no bombs, guns/ammo,
minimal fuel. Hit probably at 200 mph or less (max speed B25 = 275 mph). 767 on 9/11
going probably close to 3 x that speed or ~9 x energy of B25. Also 767 weighed in
around 15 x that of B25, do the math 9 or more likely 8 x energy multiplied by around
15 = 120 TIMES the force exerted on WTC than the ESB. Also fuel 767 that day had
over 9,000 gal of jet fuel, B25 probably less than 1/10 that. Fires on ESB had burned
out ny time FDNY made it to the impact floors. In 1945 offices had lot less to burn -
steel furniture, open work spaces with no cubicle dividers (foam/urethane), no plastics
(rugs, desk top, metal typewriters vs plastic PC's) = lot less damage from both impact
and resultant fires.

[HL7442]

180 MPH? WTF type of number is that? They built it to take a 707 at cruising speed which is just a fraction less kinetic energy than what hit the Twin Towers with much more jet fuel.




No it was designed to withstand a 707 flying at approach speed. The scenario was what if a 707 or DC-8-63 became lost in VFR conditions on it's approach to JFK and struck the WTC.
In 1978 an Aerolineas Argentinas 707 Freighter almost did just that, it became lost and nearly struck the WTC on it's way to land at JFK.
Why don't twoofers know anything about aviation?.

[CptColumbo]

You also need to take into account that the ESB is a different building. In design and materials, it will react differently than a building designed and constructed 35 years later.

[BenBurch]

CptColumbo,

Ah! Here you have the real issue.

WTC was in the first generation of buildings in which fire code specified performance not construction.

In the ESB and all other similar buildings over the years, all steel members had been encased in brick and terra-cotta, which both provided structural strength and which are well-known refractories.

WTC replaced this with encasing the steel in gypsum board and spray-on fireproofing which was not mechanically robust in any significant way!

I am absolutely sure that difference is what doomed the WTC.

Mind you, it is the only way a building of the scope and scale of the WTC could be built at all!

And similar structure made the conventional way would resemble Chicago's Monadnock building; The lower floors are all small spaces between huge columns, not a chance of an open-plan anything.

Likely by the time you got to the size of WTC, the ground floor would have to be nearly windowless and the usability of space on the lower floors would be only marginal.

-Ben

[Gazpacho]

Can troofers at least admit that building 7 wasn't designed to be hit by anything except the occasional wind gust?