Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

[Hurricane Angel]

Engineers can be wrong, too you know. I think Canadian (or maybe Australian; one of the colonies, anyway) engineers all wear an iron ring to commemorate a bridge that fell when it shouldn't have. We can't go around making up conspiracy theories for everything that doesn't work as it should. Where's my cheap, affordable jet-pack, anyway? And why don't my spam filters keep all spam out? Is George Bush sneaking onto the system and sending me messages entitled "zoo pr()n! b4by! yehah!" or trying to get me to give him my bank information?

Geoff

Why do you always have to take the discussion into random humorous directions.. I can bet you already get enough laughs in real life, but is your need so insatiable?!?

Anyways, your point is good, if you overlook three things. This conspiracy theory isn't based solely on the fact that the towers fell, although its a major component, you shouldn't let tunnel vision get in the way. Secondly, (source: "Thing on my Pinkie") you cannot compare engineering standards 60 years apart. Thirdly, have you seen any ideas to improve the engineering of the WTC? I haven't, although it's a regular practice to have a conference on what should be improved for future standards, a WTC "improvement meeting" was overlooked (because it was perfectly designed).. meaning there was a construction flaw, not an engineering flaw.

 

[Anomalous]

...
• Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? Fire alone had never before caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.

I had always hated humans for being so dumb and driving me nuts.

Now that we know that just fires can bring down buildings, then why not just burn them to demolish instead of using expensive explosives, Stupid stupid stupid humans. That will also confirm the WTC 7 collapse, simple.

• Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition?

Coincedence.

• Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft?

America is safe so why bother attitude.

• Why has there been no investigation of BBC reports that five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were alive and accounted for after the event?

This is news for me, Any links ? I dont believe U.

Our current probe-ophobia is due in part to the political landscape: When one party holds all the cards, any call to investigate an alleged abuse of power or cover-up -- no matter how valid -- will look like a partisan vendetta. Those in power never want to investigate themselves.

Jee U forgot that when they tested the strenght of WTC in 1993, it wasnt Bush in power ? was he ?

If Clinton was in power then, its obvious that the illuminati is controlling both.

Maybe that's politics; he who holds the hammer drives the nails. But the outrage of 9/11 transcends party affiliation.

We need all the outstanding questions answered -- wherever the chips may fall.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/robert_steinback/13 760721.htm

U Americans are Cowards, If U have guts then form a Organization, sign a petetion of your good questions and get it signed by a million Americans. Make them leagally answer, Use YahooGroups, uncensored.

 

[Ophiolite]

Thirdly, have you seen any ideas to improve the engineering of the WTC? I haven't, although it's a regular practice to have a conference on what should be improved for future standards, a WTC "improvement meeting" was overlooked (because it was perfectly designed).. meaning there was a construction flaw, not an engineering flaw.

You are mistaken. You seem to have quite a knack for that. Perhaps you should become civil engineer.

 

[spidergoat]

So really, it was a severe engineering flaw because it didn't withstand what it was specifically designed to.

We have to be precise about this, the WTC's were designed to withstand a much smaller jet with less fuel. I'll find a link to support this if you want.

 

[leopold]

if i am not mistaken the towers were hit with an airplane in excess of 50 tons of the buildings design limits
qwerty mob has provided links to the size of aircraft the buildings were hit with

someone else, can't remember who, provided a link that the buildings were designed to withstand an impact of a 707

there are other factors too such as the design limits of speed and weight

 

[TheVisitor]

If Clinton was in power then, its obvious that the illuminati is controlling both.

"The Illuminati"....
I haven't heard that one in awhile.
Don't let paranioa destroy ya.
"The more you look into them, the more they look into you"..
Hey, no one is in control of this thing except God.
"Is there evil in a city and I the Lord have not done it"
It's all under control, my friend.
Best get your life right now though.

 

[qwerty mob]

Heya, SG, Leo, all

A 707 isn't *that* much smaller than a 757... wings are within 18 ft... lengths maybe 50 ft. difference, and body widths 2 ft. or so... maybe 25% different overall. Links directly to Boeing's website were in one of these darn threads. lol. Besides, the transfer of energy of the planes' collisions alone didn't bring the towers down, nor Bldg. 7 at all. There are a few decent proofs around the net of that, and, it's not even the FEMA's or NIST's hypothesis that they did.

You are right though, both towers were designed to withstand at least one collision each with a fully loaded, fully fueled Boeing 707... because at the time they were being designed, Yamasaki was more concerned with one tower domino-ing into the other, rather than multiple crashes.

...

And sorry, HA (or other concerned party) no WTC buildings collapsed due to engineering flaws; google [outrigger space frame] for proof. I studied architecture for almost 3 years before switching to electronics, and studied Yamasaki's Towers intensely, since, back in the 80's, it seemed that steel and composite high-rise towers were the future of architecture.

The dumbasses at NIST said that the spray-on fireproofing foam was knocked off and that *this* contributed significantly to the collapse, which is laughable; their own mockups failed to show that the hydrocarbon "office" fires in the South Tower were intense enough after 56 minutes to weaken both the core and the exterior just enough to maybe initiate a partial collapse... so they invented this detail out of thin air, then later tried to validate it with a couple "clean" trusses they kept, even admitting on their website that they didn't know where half their scrap came from- only pieces that had clear signs of shearing and twisting were examined but there is ZERO provenance, forensically.

Very sorry to disagree so.

Greetings, all

 

[leopold]

Heya, SG, Leo, all

A 707 isn't *that* much smaller than a 757... wings are within 18 ft... lengths maybe 50 ft. difference, and body widths 2 ft. or so... maybe 25% different overall.

if you remember me and you haggled about this and came to the following conclusion
feel free to correct me qwerty

the design was for a 150 ton aircraft
they were hit with a 210 ton aircraft

i beleive the above is correct
and you are right qwerty the links are in one of these threads but i can't find them nor can i point to where they are

 

[qwerty mob]

Larger version appears in FEMA's Report, from their site. (.pdf format)


Edit: larger picture link removed


I have forgotten the tonnage and capacities, Leo...

 

[qwerty mob]

Advanced 707-320B
Wingspan 145 feet 9 inches (44.42 m)
Length 152 feet 11 inches (46.6 m)
Wing Area 3,010 square feet (280 m2)
Gross Weight 336,000 pounds (152,400 kg)
Cruising Speed 607 mph (977 km/h)
Range 6,160 miles (9,913 km)
Service Ceiling 36,000 feet (10,973 m)
Power Four Pratt & Whitney JT3D turbofans of 18,000 pounds thrust each
Passenger Cabin 141 passengers mixed class or a maximum of 189 all economy


767-400ER Passenger Seating Configuration
Typical 3-class 245
Typical 2-class 304
Typical 1-class up to 375



Cargo 4,580 cu ft (129.6 cu m)
Engines
maximum thrust Pratt & Whitney PW4062
63,300 pounds (281.6 kN)

General Electric CF6-80C2B8F
63,500 pounds (282.5 kN)
Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal
(90,770 l)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 450,000 pounds (204,120 kg)
Maximum Range 5,645 nautical miles
(10,454 km)


Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet Mach 0.80, 530 mph (851 kph)
Basic Dimensions
Wing Span 170 ft 4 in (51.9 m)
Overall Length 201 ft 4 in (61.4 m)
Tail Height 55 ft 4 in (16.8 m)
Interior Cabin Width 15 ft 6 in (4.7 m)


...


~150 tons vs. ~200 tons

http://www.boeing.com/

 

[GeoffP]

Jee U forgot that when they tested the strenght of WTC in 1993, it wasnt Bush in power ? was he ?

If Clinton was in power then, its obvious that the illuminati is controlling both.

...this is a joke, right?

Geoff

 

[leopold]

the frikken link won't let me cut and paste

anyway in the link you provided qwerty on page 17 gives the stats on the design and what it was hit with

edit
this is the link i'm talking about
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf

 

[vincent]

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

The theory im working on is that 2 hundred tonnes jets, travelling at 200mph crashed into them, i mean its sounds far out, i mean surely the designers should have built them strong enough to withstand such a regular occurence.

And the designers should have made them fire proof against 50,000 gallons of fuel, surley the sprinklers were not working correctly, i often use 50,000 gallons of fuel to light my cigarette, sure it can be dangerous, but i often find just sprinkling a little bit of my mineral water over the spent fuel, puts it out no bother.

There is a kfc in bangkok which has a notice saying, there building is jet proof, thats why i only eat there & no where else, you have to be careful these days.

 

[GeoffP]

Interesting engineering comments on the crash - so if this is it, what's the concern about then?

Geoff

 

[vincent]

Interesting engineering comments on the crash - so if this is it, what's the concern about then?

Geoff

I dont know geoff it sounds like another of brian foleys conspiracy theories, lets ignore the bloody obvious, & dream up another crack pot equation.

 

[qwerty mob]

Also remember that Flight 175, which struck the South Tower, had 56 passengers, 7 flight attendants, and 2 pilots, a manifest of 65 people plus baggage... nowhere near "max" weight. Cheers

 

[leopold]

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

The theory im working on is that 2 hundred tonnes jets, travelling at 200mph crashed into them,

they were flying at least twice that fast vincent

 

[leopold]

Also remember that Flight 175, which struck the South Tower, had 56 passengers, 7 flight attendants, and 2 pilots, a manifest of 65 people plus baggage... nowhere near "max" weight. Cheers

lets say the max. capacity was 375. that leaves 310.
if we take the ave weight of a person to be 150 lbs then it would be 310X150=4650 lbs or a little over 2 tons. even if we add 2 tons for their luggage that is 4 tons, so 200-4 is 196 tons. not much difference

 

[qwerty mob]

[...] 196 tons. not much difference

exactly.

 

[leopold]

exactly.

wasn't my point
196 tons isn't much different that 200 tons
but 196 tons is alot of difference that 150 tons