900 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

W Tell, on 20 September 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

(Sigh) Here we are again, debating the physics of this. And getting nowhere.

*sigh* indeed.  These issues have been discussed ad nauseum, I agree, but only because those who disagree with the reality of inevitable global collapse keep hand waving away the reasons that it was inevitable after initiation.

W Tell, on 20 September 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

I've already put forward that the buildings needed to fall.

Yes, you and others have stated that they had to fall in order to equivalent to "a new Pearl Harbor," but that doesn't change the simple physics which prove that they had to fall just because they were hit by these aircraft at extremely high velocity in the first place.  Yes they had to fall because nothing would have prevented it after the planes hit them as hard as they did.  It took time, but that is only an indication of the fantastic design of the structural engineers who built them in the first place.

W Tell, on 20 September 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

Can I ask this quick question... Did the terrorists understand physics enough to hit the buildings as they did and bring them down in a timely manner? As far as I know, the whole conversation on these collapses have only happened after that day. As if no one saw it coming.

Yes the intensive discussion of this event only followed the actual collapses and that is because the structural engineers hadn't really considered the full impact of intentional terrorist attack when the buildings were originally designed and built back in 1968 and 1969.  Yes they considered the possibility of an accidental crash of a 707, lost in fog for example, but not a targeted and intentional attack at maximum velocity.  Had these aircraft impacted the towers as an accident at a lower velocity, the towers may well have survived as predicted by the non-terrorist considering engineers of the late 60s, but that isn't the reality of what occurred.  I'm sure that the creators of my toaster oven didn't design it to withstand the angry application of my sledgehammer back in 1998 either, but the damn thing stopped working when I was craving crispy re-heated pizza and it was going down no matter what after I ate the limp microwave version.

W Tell, on 20 September 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

But I do remember an archetect talking about how well these buildings could sustain a hit, before the fact.

Yes they certainly did, and most likely the only consideration they had at the time was one of an accident.  Or do you reasonably think that they envisioned a terrorist attack of radicals crashing a plane into the towers intentionally at high velocity back in 1968 and 1969?  Go look up when exactly intelligence agencies first communicated this as a potential threat to the government and see if it was before or after 1970.

W Tell, on 20 September 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

So did the terrorists know the buildings would fall using physics (that seems to be the area in most contention right now) or did they get lucky. Cause result wise, they definatly improved from their 93 effort.

Who can say for sure?  I'd say probably not.  The global collapses were without precedent, no doubt.  As they say, there's a first time for everything.

Q24 has quoted bin Laden as indicating that the actual results of the attack were far beyond his highest hopes and expectations...  and yet Q24 still holds the position that bin Laden played virtually no role in the planning and/or organizing of the attacks...  really?  Why on earth would he have hopes and expectations for something that he had virtually no role in implementing?  Hrmmm...

My oh my how the claims and positions of 9/11 Truth adherents come back to bite them in the ass...

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 20 September 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

Wait, I thought Bazant's theory was intentionally not supposed to be represent the actual collapse, how is it the 'official theory'?  I thought the NIST report was the 'official theory' to some extent, that's not quite the same as Bazant, right?  Sorry, just trying to keep my models straight.

I mentioned this not many posts back - NIST investigated only up to the point of collapse initiation and then reference Bazant’s paper.  Together this is the best definition of the official collapse theory.  There is a tiny bit of overlap but just remember that NIST deal from the impact to collapse initiation, Bazant deals with the collapse progression.

Liquid Gardens, on 20 September 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

Boony, my understanding of the point of 'limiting case' is that it is kind of a best case scenario?  If the building cannot withstand this scenario than it can't withstand almost any.  If I'm understanding Q right, wouldn't it be an even more limiting case then if we hypothesized that the upper block is not rigid and is shedding mass to some extent, that would be more of a best case scenario for the lower block?

Thank heavens you understand.  Yes that is the point exactly.  Why can’t booNy get this?  It’s little wonder I tire of responding to him (it’s the same in numerous basic areas).  You will also have noticed that even when you put the question to booNy, he does not address the difference between a rigid/non-rigid block, nor understand that the first is actually detrimental to the lower block survival.

PS even column to column impacts do not favor the lower block survival.  The best case would be if the core columns missed each other and ripped through the supporting structure of the upper and lower blocks.  What the column to column impact does, is hit the most vital part of the structure with every bit of energy available – this is not a best case for survival.

Anyhow, I’ll just have a little more fun with booNy because some of this is too good to leave behind...

booNyzarC, on 20 September 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:

I'll have to look into this I suppose.  I haven't looked at James Gourley yet, but am I correct that he's an...  attorney?  Well then, I guess we should expect some convincing structural engineering and physics points from him eh?  I'll have to give a full evaluation a rain check if you don't mind.

Classic example of having made up your mind before even viewing the evidence.  The allegation of favortism isn’t about physics, rather bias in the publishing rules – and Gourley demonstrates it very well from experience.

booNyzarC, on 20 September 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:

I made the animation and I made it to hopefully help illustrate Bazant's limiting case.  Again, it isn't representative of the actual collapse.  Which is clearly depicted on the image itself in plain text, intentionally, because I suspected that you would try to pull some kind of nonsensical BS about it.

But please do tell.  What is so telling about it's inaccuracy?  What does it indicate in terms of ignorance regarding building construction, collapse, or 'the official theory?'

I'm sincerely curious because I'm actually rather proud of that rudimentary animation and the explanations I provided which were intended to explain and clarify the visual.

Should I have said "there are more than 6 core columns?"  It seemed a reasonable simplification considering that your own image consisted of 6 core columns...  or was it 8?  I'm not sure whether you intended the heavier lines on either side of your 6 core columns to also be columns or if they were just the separation point for the horizontal floor depiction in your picture.  At any rate, I'm not creating an animation with 47 core columns with the tools I have available.  Perhaps if I had some decent CAD software I'd consider it.

Ah that’s what I thought.   As mentioned, the animation was clearly put together by someone of bias and/or lack of understanding.  On the plus side, it is very pretty.

The first error at the initial impact is so rudimentary, depicting the bias mentioned,  not even adhering to the official theory and completely ignoring the whole discussion we’ve had on this thread.  booNy, at the initial impact I can see the lower columns buckle.  Where is the buckle of the upper columns?  How typical and grossly biased that you only focus on getting those lower floors to collapse (and also humorous, considering that even Bazant states damage to the first two opposing storys at impact is equal).

The second error to raise is this: why do the “floors” bisect the columns?  I’d like to see the floors removed altogether from the core area which mostly comprised elevator shafts and stairwells and where in any case the columns were continuous.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 20 September 2012 - 03:12 AM, said:

Q24 has quoted bin Laden as indicating that the actual results of the attack were far beyond his highest hopes and expectations...  and yet Q24 still holds the position that bin Laden played virtually no role in the planning and/or organizing of the attacks...  really?  Why on earth would he have hopes and expectations for something that he had virtually no role in implementing?  Hrmmm...

My oh my how the claims and positions of 9/11 Truth adherents come back to bite them in the ass...

Now we hold people fully responsible for having “hopes and expectations”?  I’ve told you before, bin Laden knew the attack was coming - the intelligence agents who laid the plot at his doorstep and implemented it made sure of that.  It was a setup, bin Laden took the bait like a dream (which wasn't difficult to predict he would) and the Neocons got their wars.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 20 September 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

I mentioned this not many posts back - NIST investigated only up to the point of collapse initiation and then reference Bazant’s paper.  Together this is the best definition of the official collapse theory.  There is a tiny bit of overlap but just remember that NIST deal from the impact to collapse initiation, Bazant deals with the collapse progression.

Well at least we agree on something.  That's a good thing isn't it Q24?

Q24, on 20 September 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

Thank heavens you understand.  Yes that is the point exactly.  Why can’t booNy get this?  It’s little wonder I tire of responding to him (it’s the same in numerous basic areas).  You will also have noticed that even when you put the question to booNy, he does not address the difference between a rigid/non-rigid block, nor understand that the first is actually detrimental to the lower block survival.

PS even column to column impacts do not favor the lower block survival.  The best case would be if the core columns missed each other and ripped through the supporting structure of the upper and lower blocks.  What the column to column impact does, is hit the most vital part of the structure with every bit of energy available – this is not a best case for survival.

Who says I don't get it?  I think my response to him and my earlier responses to you summed it up pretty clearly, though you'll probably just decide to hand wave that away along with every other valid point I've raised throughout our long lasting debate.  That isn't good debating tactics, it is simply denial.  If you are comfortable with that, I guess I've given you more credit than is deserved.

Q24, on 20 September 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

Anyhow, I’ll just have a little more fun with booNy because some of this is too good to leave behind...

Oh yes, have fun with me.  Avoid all of the points that you can't contend, and hi-light the points that you think you can refute with your misunderstandings.  Good show Q24, completely up to form today!

Q24, on 20 September 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

Classic example of having made up your mind before even viewing the evidence.  The allegation of favortism isn’t about physics, rather bias in the publishing rules – and Gourley demonstrates it very well from experience.

As I said, I will have to look into Gourley before I can provide an informed response.  Would you rather I just ignore his statements as you are doing with the majority of what I've said today?  Well too bad, I won't do that.  I'm actually interested in examining and addressing the information provided and the evidence on the table.  I only wish that you were equally devoted to an honest and truthful investigation of matters in question.

Q24, on 20 September 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

Ah that’s what I thought.   As mentioned, the animation was clearly put together by someone of bias and/or lack of understanding.  On the plus side, it is very pretty.

Thank you for the compliment.  It took quite a bit of effort to make it pretty for you with the tools I have at my disposal.  I'd tell you how many hours I spent but frankly, I don't need more ridicule.

Q24, on 20 September 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

The first error at the initial impact is so rudimentary, depicting the bias mentioned,  not even adhering to the official theory and completely ignoring the whole discussion we’ve had on this thread.  booNy, at the initial impact I can see the lower columns buckle.  Where is the buckle of the upper columns?  How typical and grossly biased that you only focus on getting those lower floors to collapse (and also humorous, considering that even Bazant states damage to the first two opposing storys at impact is equal).

I explained that with the text that accompanied the visualization provided by the graphic.  Did you read and digest the text?  If not, I suggest that you give that a try.  I'm not going to repeat it here as the redundancy isn't essential.  You can scroll up or page back to read it.  If you have questions related to the explanations already provided I'll be more than happy to try to answer.

Q24, on 20 September 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

The second error to raise is this: why do the “floors” bisect the columns?  I’d like to see the floors removed altogether from the core area which mostly comprised elevator shafts and stairwells and where in any case the columns were continuous.

Simple; ease of animation.  Whether the depicted floors intersect or not in the animation is meaningless, the core columns were still stabilized by horizontal elements as you would know if you had read the accompanying text with the animation, studied NISTs documentation, and/or reviewed any of the myriad documentaries describing the towers' construction.  Here is a good video that can save you some time in understanding this basic fact: (link, click and watch).

By depicting the floors as I have I am able to label them as such right in the middle and it gives an easily recognizable point of separation for the localized collapses within Bazant's limiting case.  How much more representative of reality was your picture attempting to isolate the core structures from the rest of the building?



I mean, look at it.  Is that really how you envision the core?  No, it isn't.  You've provided a simplification in order to illustrate the concept you were attempting to convey.  I recognized this in my response to the image and acknowledged your reasoning for depicting it.  I didn't criticize you for the fact that it doesn't even remotely provide an accurate visual representation of the core columns' relationship with the rest of the building.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt regarding your likely intention about making the core distinct to show that it was a continuous vertical structure.

Why do you not afford my animation the same consideration?  Obviously it isn't representative of the actual building layout.  It is completely intended to visualize my interpretation of Bazant's limiting case.  What's next?  Are you going to criticize me and it because I haven't depicted every rivet?

Give me a break.

Instead of avoiding and/or hand waving away the essence of my posts today, try something different and confront them fully.  See whether or not your position measures up.

Or I suppose you could just keep on criticizing irrelevancies and avoid the reality which proves that you are completely, totally, and utterly wrong.

Your choice really, but anyone who actually knows anything about the concepts we are discussing can see your errors.  It's sad really that you appear to be incapable of understanding the "why" behind the factual nature of that reality.

[booNyzarC]

You find yourself backed into a corner of your own making Q24.  How will you respond?

Will you try to chew your own leg off to escape?  Or perhaps you'll try to break down and scurry your way through one of the corner walls?

You cannot win this debate because you are completely wrong in your interpretations.  There is no denying it.  There is no escape from it.  You are simply wrong.  Your refusal to address the points that I've raised today is an admission of defeat, whether you want to speak those words yourself or not.  The writing on the wall speaks for you.

So you are now in a position to either learn something or to continue running away like a scared rat trying to escape from the exterminator's advances.  Which will it be?


Inquiring minds want to know...

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 20 September 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:

Now we hold people fully responsible for having “hopes and expectations”?  I’ve told you before, bin Laden knew the attack was coming - the intelligence agents who laid the plot at his doorstep and implemented it made sure of that.  It was a setup, bin Laden took the bait like a dream (which wasn't difficult to predict he would) and the Neocons got their wars.

Oh yeah, bin Laden was completely innocent in the whole thing...  sure he was...

Keep telling yourself that as you avoid the points which prove beyond any doubt that global collapse of the towers was inevitable once initiated.  Obviously you are more aware of the realities of this whole thing than the rest of us.  

[booNyzarC]

W Tell, on 20 September 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

Not quite what I was going for. Here's what I'm getting at. We have spent the last eleven years arguing about how these buildings came down. In all honosty the pro collapse people have lost this argument all these years to the point we get a blender effect and NIST pushing their models to the extreme.

I'm not sure what you are basing your assumptions on, but after 11 years we've simply learned more by the many analyses that have been done.  Early assumptions have been understandably refuted as it came to light that they didn't represent the actual collapses, like the original 'pancake theory' for example.  That doesn't mean we haven't learned from the effort and study that went into that original hypothesis.

W Tell, on 20 September 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

We've had eleven years to justify these buildings falling as they did, it hasn't happened. I know it would if the truthers would just shut up. But they don't. We are left now with an official story so convluted that Isaacs laws mean nothing. I won't even bring up Bazant, who's not supposed to be talking about this collapse, but he is...

Whoah there W Tell, we've learned an awful lot through the many studies and analyses that have been done.  NIST has provided an extensive and admirable body of work in this regard and even if their final conclusions have proven to not be 100% accurate, you can't fault the energies they have put forth in investigating the event.  Even if the actual collapse mechanisms that they derived may not have been completely perfect, as I currently conclude, those mechanisms still played a role in the initiation of collapse and their overall body of work during investigation is unrivaled for providing solid facts and data regarding the building's composition, construction, and capacities.

As for Bazant, I invite you to respond to the descriptive analysis of his papers that I've posted today in post 333.  By all means please explain how his original paper and subsequent clarifications and defenses have failed in any way at all.

W Tell, on 20 September 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

With all of this in mind, did the terrorists just give it another flying **** (excuse my launguge) and hit the buildings differently than in 93? Or did they know that with a major attempt like this, that if they had the balls and the audasity to follow through, that their plan would come to fruition? No one ever talks about how much the terrorists knew, ever.

How much did the terrorists know?  You tell me.  I have no idea about exactly how much they may have known.  Can you shed any light on this question you've raised?

Once you've completed that, please also elucidate about the validity of this questionable knowledge.  Why should they have known anything at all beyond the expression of their hatred which was realized by the attacks themselves?

W Tell, on 20 September 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

But here we are eleven years later. The CT side has not changed. The OC has had to remodel the collapses over and over again just to make it work.

If we screw around with these facts so long after the event, of a collapse, after the impact, would they have been confident to pull the event of in the first place? (please don't tell me they would because they were religious zealots)

Yes, the explanations for collapse have evolved over time, which is exactly how science is designed to work.  An initial hypothesis is made and then tested.  If that hypothesis fails the tests it undergoes changes and is re-evaluated until a new hypothesis is made.  Repeat this until validation is reached.  That's the way science works.

Despite all of this, the claims of controlled demolition still remain unsubstantiated.  Rather than adjust from this position despite all repudiating evidence, the 9/11 truth movement attempts to create evidence in support of it's preferred conclusion rather than evaluate the actual evidence on the table; namely Harrit's claim that thermitic materials were purportedly discovered in the WTC dust.  His testing doesn't adequately substantiate the claim and other analyses show that what Harrit claims as thermitic materials is easily explainable by non-volatile constituent elements that existed within the building from day one.

Add to this the fact that the CT side has actually changed in a great number of things.  Conspiracy theorists have been all over the board, and as each claim is debunked a new unsubstantiated claim rises in its place.  So your contention that the CT side has not changed is a complete fabrication.  Surely you must realize this if you've devoted any significant measure of study into this subject overall.

At any rate, the bottom line at this current date is that no conspiracy theory claims have been substantiated.  All that remains is innuendo, misinterpretation of evidence, and poorly applied physics.

The Truth Movement needs a hell of a lot more than that to start gaining traction.  Right now it is just spinning its wheels in a quagmire of confusion and ignorance.

Edited by booNyzarC, 20 September 2012 - 05:44 AM.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 20 September 2012 - 04:41 AM, said:

You find yourself backed into a corner of your own making Q24.  How will you respond?

Will you try to chew your own leg off to escape?  Or perhaps you'll try to break down and scurry your way through one of the corner walls?

You cannot win this debate because you are completely wrong in your interpretations.  There is no denying it.  There is no escape from it.  You are simply wrong.  Your refusal to address the points that I've raised today is an admission of defeat, whether you want to speak those words yourself or not.  The writing on the wall speaks for you.

So you are now in a position to either learn something or to continue running away like a scared rat trying to escape from the exterminator's advances.  Which will it be?


Inquiring minds want to know...

That post was just weird.

Well, you have certainly won the talking drivel award.

Once again, I’m not interested in discussion with you on this subject at the moment.  The reasons are that I’m thoroughly bored of repeatedly going over such easily refuted points because you have failed to grasp some of the fundamentals at the the first half dozen times of explanation and I have better things to do with my time.  If you are so desperate to make the same mistakes over and over, ask the same questions over and over, read the same answers over and over, then please use the search function.  For now, I’d like to concentrate on discussion with LG (who thankfully understands such basics as what a limiting/conservative case actually entails).  That means  I might respond to bits of your posts and not others – for the above reasons.  I’ll be good to you though, and to prove a point – let me know what you think is the single best point of your last few posts that I’ve ignored and I’ll show you how easily refuted it is.

LG, if booNy raises anything useful/new/sensible that would help the discussion and that you think needs to be addressed please let me know.

booNyzarC, on 20 September 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:

Oh yeah, bin Laden was completely innocent in the whole thing...  sure he was...

Now you're just being silly, and this is another typical example of where you don’t read what I’ve actually said.  Far from being “completely innocent” I'm sure that bin Laden could have been charged as an accessory to the crime.  Beyond that, the evidence does not exist.  We have been over it all before.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 20 September 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

I’ll be good to you though, and to prove a point – let me know what you think is the single best point of your last few posts that I’ve ignored and I’ll show you how easily refuted it is.

You should respond to all of it, but if you want to start in one specific place how about post 337?  I'd just love to hear your 'easy refutation' of that.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 20 September 2012 - 03:12 AM, said:

Yes they considered the possibility of an accidental crash of a 707, lost in fog for example, but not a targeted and intentional attack at maximum velocity.

False.

You have personaly been corrected on this before.

The information has been available for years.

Why are you repeating the same tired misinformation?

A study, dated February 3, 1964, found: -

"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://www.historyco...a022793skilling

NIST NCSTAR1 pg.6 corroborates the above: -

"An additional load, stated by The Port Authority to have been considered in the design of the towers, was the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest commercial airliner when the towers were designed, hitting the building at its full speed of 600 mph.”

http://www.nist.gov/...m?pub_id=909017

In all, the WTC designers individually considered all of the following: -

• An impact at low speed
  
• An impact at high speed
  
• The fuel load of the aircraft
  
• The impact of multiple aircraft

All studies unreservedly concluded structure of the buildings would withstand the assumed airliner collision.

Do you realise that you have a responsibility here, booNy?

For misleading people you should be ashamed.

booNyzarC, on 20 September 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

You should respond to all of it, but if you want to start in one specific place how about post 337?  I'd just love to hear your 'easy refutation' of that.

No sorry, I don’t have the time or will to respond to all of it, 99% of which has been addressed in our previous discussions, but as a gesture of goodwill I’ll look at that one post when I get around to it, probably tomorrow.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 20 September 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

NIST NCSTAR1 pg.6 corroborates the above: -

"An additional load, stated by The Port Authority to have been considered in the design of the towers, was the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest commercial airliner when the towers were designed, hitting the building at its full speed of 600 mph.”

http://www.nist.gov/...m?pub_id=909017

From your link.

Quote

This is the final report on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, conducted under the National Construction Safety Team Act. This report describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapse of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings;

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 20 September 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

False.

You have personaly been corrected on this before.

The information has been available for years.

Why are you repeating the same tired misinformation?

A study, dated February 3, 1964, found: -

"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://www.historyco...a022793skilling

NIST NCSTAR1 pg.6 corroborates the above: -

"An additional load, stated by The Port Authority to have been considered in the design of the towers, was the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest commercial airliner when the towers were designed, hitting the building at its full speed of 600 mph.”

http://www.nist.gov/...m?pub_id=909017

In all, the WTC designers individually considered all of the following: -

• An impact at low speed
  
• An impact at high speed
  
• The fuel load of the aircraft
  
• The impact of multiple aircraft

All studies unreservedly concluded structure of the buildings would withstand the assumed airliner collision.

Do you realise that you have a responsibility here, booNy?

For misleading people you should be ashamed.

Show me the actual analysis that was performed.  I want to see the calculations that were made.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q, quick question as I'm swamped currently and need to pull together in my head all the recent comments.  Am I assuming correctly that you disagree with the portion of the NIST FAQ that essentially states that the stories of the WTC could handle up to 6 stories falling on it (I think it was 11 additional stories if it was static)?  Thanks also to you and Boony about the clarification on the NIST and Bazant studies and how they together comprise the 'official theory'.

[Babe Ruth]

Boo

Virtually this entire thread is an example of Q "laying it out for you", but you remain in denial.

A specific example is the matter of the towers being designed to withstand the strike of a Boeing.  He provided at least one link regarding that, maybe two.  I have seen interviews with the architects and engineers making EXACTLY that statement, and comparing the towers and their exoskeletons to "mosquito netting", but you poo-poo that.

Kevin Ryan's point was similar, in that the fires we saw were insufficient to weaken the UL approved and building code required steel.  But you remain in denial.

You can lay it out for a man, but if he's in denial, you cannot make him think.

And now you want to see all the calculations.  ROFLMAO

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 20 September 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Boo

Virtually this entire thread is an example of Q "laying it out for you", but you remain in denial.

A specific example is the matter of the towers being designed to withstand the strike of a Boeing.  He provided at least one link regarding that, maybe two.  I have seen interviews with the architects and engineers making EXACTLY that statement, and comparing the towers and their exoskeletons to "mosquito netting", but you poo-poo that.

Kevin Ryan's point was similar, in that the fires we saw were insufficient to weaken the UL approved and building code required steel.  But you remain in denial.

You can lay it out for a man, but if he's in denial, you cannot make him think.

And now you want to see all the calculations.  ROFLMAO

You like links?  Here's one for you (link).  The person who reportedly did the analysis was Leslie Robertson.  He has stated that his recollection of the study was specifically taylored under the assumption of a low velocity impact like one might expect in an accident in fog.

Who claimed that the study accounted for an impact at high speed?  Not the man who did the study.  What did the man who did the study say when he was shown the statement by the Port Authority?  "That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did"

So once again I ask if someone can please show me this study to substantiate the claim.

Thanks.


Edit to add:

Here's another link for you.

7. If the WTC towers were designed to withstand an impact by a Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of a 767 cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the PANYNJ indicated that the impact of a [single] 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.

Edited by booNyzarC, 20 September 2012 - 07:14 PM.