Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Empire State Building VS WTC


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#31    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 25 August 2010 - 12:55 AM

View PostObviousman, on 23 August 2010 - 12:12 PM, said:

There are a number of engineers who disagree with AE911:
There is as much disagreement between the papers you posted as anything else.  I’m not just saying that for the fun of it – read them, they cannot agree on much and show outright conflict in places.

The first paper you linked remarks that Quintiere’s theory is “improbable”.
Quintiere himself has left his disdain for the NIST investigation in no doubt.
The NIST impact analysis does not corroborate that of Purdue.
And so on.

They struggle to come up with a cohesive theory in support of the official story.  In the background to this squabbling and uncertainty, 1,258 independent architects and engineers demand a thorough and unbiased investigation to determine the true cause.  If there were nothing untoward then there is no reason to be afraid of this.

Edit: it is now 1,262 - another four qualified individuals have signed the petition.


View Postrambaldi, on 24 August 2010 - 02:51 PM, said:

Which of these buildings was hit by an airplane? Isn't it false and misleading to omit this simple fact?
You are omitting WTC7 which did not suffer an impact.

Apart from that, the WTC impact damage is too often over-hyped and it is still possible to make comparisons with severe high-rise fires in steel-framed buildings all as I have described above.

Edited by Q24, 25 August 2010 - 01:01 AM.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#32    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 25 August 2010 - 02:35 AM

View PostQ24, on 25 August 2010 - 12:55 AM, said:


You are omitting WTC7 which did not suffer an impact.

Apart from that, the WTC impact damage is too often over-hyped and it is still possible to make comparisons with severe high-rise fires in steel-framed buildings all as I have described above.

WTC7 did suffer an impact...large portions of WTC1 falling into it, creating a large (witness reported) hole in the front of the building. As for the WTC1&2 aircraft impact damage...it severed  support beams, external and core beams. It stripped fireproofing from large areas of supporting steel. The fires you compare it to had no such structural damage and exposed steel due to impacts. I still see it as a false analogy.


#33    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,872 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 25 August 2010 - 10:16 AM

View PostQ24, on 25 August 2010 - 12:55 AM, said:

There is as much disagreement between the papers you posted as anything else.  I’m not just saying that for the fun of it – read them, they cannot agree on much and show outright conflict in places.
Check the dates, most of the conflicting theories come soon after 9/11.  Once the NIST report is issued it seems to have put most of the controversy to rest.

What all the papers, pre and post NIST, are agreed on is that no explosives are needed.  How does the fact that engineers can come up with several different non-explosive collapse scenarios help your case that it must have been explosives?  This just shows that non-explosive collapse isn't nearly as unlikely as you claim.

Edited by flyingswan, 25 August 2010 - 10:26 AM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#34    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 25 August 2010 - 07:09 PM

View Postmrbusdriver, on 25 August 2010 - 02:35 AM, said:

WTC7 did suffer an impact...large portions of WTC1 falling into it, creating a large (witness reported) hole in the front of the building.
The debris damage was superficial in this respect, i.e. had no bearing whatsoever to the onset of global collapse.

With this in mind, the building fires I gave examples of are more than comparable to the WTC7 situation.

It may be of benefit to read the NIST report on WTC7.

They would have us believe that the building imitated a controlled demolition due to the loss of only one column beginning a chain reaction of failures which completed in a matter of seconds.  Further, that this would be the case irrespective of surrounding fire and/or damage.  They admit there was no heat induced weakening of the columns or redistribution of the building loads worthy of note (prior to that one all important column being pushed off centre).  It was this single column that the entire structure relied upon according to NIST, damage and fire or not.

Sorry but they don’t design buildings that way.

I wouldn’t design a shed to be this vulnerable, much less a skyscraper.

Does it honestly appear realistic to you?


View Postmrbusdriver, on 25 August 2010 - 02:35 AM, said:

As for the WTC1&2 aircraft impact damage...it severed  support beams, external and core beams. It stripped fireproofing from large areas of supporting steel. The fires you compare it to had no such structural damage and exposed steel due to impacts. I still see it as a false analogy.
I described in my post #24 how the structural damage was not decisive; there remained huge reserve capacity in the cores following the airliner impacts (more than in many buildings which are wholly intact).  It is of course true that areas of fireproofing would be removed during the impact, though in the other building fire examples this had also been removed or the fire rating had been exceeded so making the comparison still appropriate.

Look at the One Meridian Plaza fire over the page again.  Why is it that this building can sustain significant structural damage with large deformation of the steelwork and remain intact, whereas pushing a single column out of place in WTC7 or a sagging floor in WTC1 leads to global collapse?

The difference in behaviours is startling.

The official collapse theory is so outlandish next to all known precedent as to be unreal.

There are now 1,263 architects and engineers who would also lean that way.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#35    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,872 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 August 2010 - 08:52 AM

View PostQ24, on 25 August 2010 - 07:09 PM, said:

It may be of benefit to read the NIST report on WTC7.
It would be of more benefit to you if you showed any ability to understand it.  The collapse wasn't just "one column", it started with one column which lost its supporting structure due to thermal expansion breaking joints, but the surrounding columns would also be in a weakened state due to similar loss of supporting structure.  In other words, the fact that the fire lasted so long with no attempt at control led to a lot of damage, and it was because of this fire-induced damage that the eventual failure of a single column brought down the surrounding columns as well.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#36    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 26 August 2010 - 03:32 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 26 August 2010 - 08:52 AM, said:

It would be of more benefit to you if you showed any ability to understand it.  The collapse wasn't just "one column", it started with one column which lost its supporting structure due to thermal expansion breaking joints, but the surrounding columns would also be in a weakened state due to similar loss of supporting structure.  In other words, the fact that the fire lasted so long with no attempt at control led to a lot of damage, and it was because of this fire-induced damage that the eventual failure of a single column brought down the surrounding columns as well.
I see, so you are saying that without the wider “lot of [fire] damage” causing the “surrounding columns” and “supporting structure” to be in a “weakened state”, the failure of column 79 on its own would not have led to progressive and ultimately global collapse?

I got the impression NIST were saying that if that column alone failed then it would lead to the whole house of cards tumbling down.  Well I did think it was quite an absurd idea that the entire building relied entirely on a single column and you seem to agree.  Other weakening from the fire in addition to the failure of column 79 would have been necessary to produce the witnessed collapse – we are on the same page here?

If this is the case then it does make more sense I guess.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#37    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,872 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 August 2010 - 04:00 PM

View PostQ24, on 26 August 2010 - 03:32 PM, said:

I see, so you are saying that without the wider “lot of [fire] damage” causing the “surrounding columns” and “supporting structure” to be in a “weakened state”, the failure of column 79 on its own would not have led to progressive and ultimately global collapse?
Exactly.

Quote

I got the impression NIST were saying that if that column alone failed then it would lead to the whole house of cards tumbling down.  Well I did think it was quite an absurd idea that the entire building relied entirely on a single column and you seem to agree.  Other weakening from the fire in addition to the failure of column 79 would have been necessary to produce the witnessed collapse – we are on the same page here?
Yes.  

For instance, look at Fig 3.9 in the NIST report, showing the predicted progression of the fire damage prior to the collapse.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#38    rashore

rashore

    Telekinetic

  • 6,941 posts
  • Joined:26 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Female

Posted 26 August 2010 - 04:01 PM

View PostZELDAR, on 21 August 2010 - 08:02 PM, said:

So I was reading an article about the Empire State Building having bedbugs in its basement. I noticed it said it withstood a B-52 Bomber crashing into it at 200 mph.  So, how could a building built in 1931 be made to take a hit from a plane, and the World Trade Centers went down after 56 minutes? All of these buildings (WTC) were built between 1975 and 1981. Surely the architects would have built it with the ability to withstand multiple plane crashes at over 200 mph and more weight. I mean... it was almost 50 years later. If this doesn't prove that there were explosives in the damn buildings, and that this was an inside job. WTF does? Also don't know if this should be posted here but it seems like a modern mystery to me.

IMO... I don't think the ESB getting hit with a plane does anything for the WTC theories..

The ESB is made of serious amount of rock and concrete with steel support, with little bits of glass inserted for windows.
The TWC was made of steel framing and pretty much sheathed in glass, in a design meant to sway a bit for high winds.
I would expect that the ESB is sturdily enough made to be able to take a hit... I would also expect a skyscraper like the WTC not to be able to take a hit.

There's a bit of truth to the saying "We just don't build them like we used to."

And besides, several thousand gallons of jet fuel is sure gonna make a far more serious fire than any builder would account for..

Edited by rashore, 26 August 2010 - 04:04 PM.


#39    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 26 August 2010 - 05:30 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 26 August 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:

Exactly.

Yes.  
Have you any idea how badly you just trashed NIST’s WTC7 model?

You don’t get it do you.

NIST simulated four scenarios, varying the fire/debris impact damage in each.  In the final simulation, NIST left out this damage altogether and removed only that single column 79 – the rest of the building remained fully intact.  The relevant text: -


NIST NCSTAR 1A

pg. 39

  • In the fourth simulation, the building experienced no debris or fire-induced damage.  A section of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13 was removed.  The purpose of this analysis was to determine the potential for a classic progressive collapse, i.e., disproportionate structural damage from a single failure, regardless of the cause of that failure.
pg. 42
  • The fourth LS-DYNA analysis showed that, following the removal of Column 79 between Floors 11 and 13, vertical and horizontal progression of failure occurred.  This was followed by downward movement at the roofline due to buckling of exterior columns, which led to the collapse of the entire building.  This analysis showed that WTC 7 was prone to classic progressive collapse associated with the local failure of Column 79.


You see, NIST do absolutely claim that the failure of that one column alone would lead to the whole house of cards tumbling down, no debris or fire induced damage involved.  So that is where I got the impression from, I don’t just make these things up you know, there is more often than not a source involved.

Now, you just firmly asserted that the above result is not possible to obtain in your opinion.

It was necessary for the surrounding columns to be in a weakened state, you said.
The failure of column 79 on its own would not have led to collapse, you confirmed.
The idea of the building relying entirely on a single column was absurd, you agreed.

I do completely agree with you in these points.

And so here we are, your own opinion is in complete conflict with NIST on this specific issue – you say that the single failure is not enough to bring the entire structure down and they say that it is.  Don’t forget, I’m right with you in agreement on this one.  But now here’s the test for us… what are we going to do?  There are two choices: to hold firm in our conviction or to forget what we know and fall meekly in line with what the authority figure dictates to us is ‘right’.  Heck I already know which way each of us is going to go.

Still, for a moment at least you showed that NIST produced results deemed impossible by an engineer.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#40    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,278 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 26 August 2010 - 05:34 PM

View PostMoon Princess, on 21 August 2010 - 08:29 PM, said:

The plane that hit the Empire State Buildng wasn't a Boeing 757 (correct me if I'm wrong about the number) and not going at high fast speed. And the building was still unoccupied. The plane didn't have the fuel like the planes that hit the towers. Not to mention that the plane was much MUCH smaller than the two 9/11 planes.

When the towers went up, no one thought THAT could happen. It's not like people could see the future or anything.
Actually when the twin towers were constructed they originally had anti aircraft guns on the roof.


#41    Black Hound

Black Hound

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,635 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 August 2010 - 05:38 PM

View PostZELDAR, on 21 August 2010 - 08:02 PM, said:

So I was reading an article about the Empire State Building having bedbugs in its basement. I noticed it said it withstood a B-52 Bomber crashing into it at 200 mph.  So, how could a building built in 1931 be made to take a hit from a plane, and the World Trade Centers went down after 56 minutes? All of these buildings (WTC) were built between 1975 and 1981. Surely the architects would have built it with the ability to withstand multiple plane crashes at over 200 mph and more weight. I mean... it was almost 50 years later. If this doesn't prove that there were explosives in the damn buildings, and that this was an inside job. WTF does? Also don't know if this should be posted here but it seems like a modern mystery to me.
Just asking but didn't a B-25 bomber hit it durring a heavy fog  as opposed to a B-52? I might be wrong, and if so, I  do  apologize for my error.

Edited by Graveyard Hound, 26 August 2010 - 05:39 PM.


#42    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,872 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 August 2010 - 06:17 PM

View PostQ24, on 26 August 2010 - 05:30 PM, said:

Have you any idea how badly you just trashed NIST’s WTC7 model?

You don’t get it do you.

NIST simulated four scenarios, varying the fire/debris impact damage in each.  In the final simulation, NIST left out this damage altogether and removed only that single column 79 – the rest of the building remained fully intact.
You do realise that removing a column over two floors means that you also have to remove the stabilising effect of the intermediate floor beams on the surrounding columns?

No, you obviously don't.  They may be removing the predicted fire-damage, but they are adding in equivalent extra damage none-the-less.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#43    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 26 August 2010 - 09:16 PM

View Postrashore, on 26 August 2010 - 04:01 PM, said:

IMO... I don't think the ESB getting hit with a plane does anything for the WTC theories..

The ESB is made of serious amount of rock and concrete with steel support, with little bits of glass inserted for windows.
The TWC was made of steel framing and pretty much sheathed in glass, in a design meant to sway a bit for high winds.

Actually, they're all built to sway in the wind.


Quote

I would expect that the ESB is sturdily enough made to be able to take a hit... I would also expect a skyscraper like the WTC not to be able to take a hit.


Actually, they were both quite capable of taking a hit.



Quote

And besides, several thousand gallons of jet fuel is sure gonna make a far more serious fire than any builder would account for..

Fire was the significant accelerant on 9-11.  However, if the fire could've been extinguished in a reasonable amount of time, odds are the buildings probably would've stood (although you'd be hard pressed to get me inside one of them!).

But you're absolutely correct.  There's no correlation between the B-25 impact on the ESB and the 767 impacts on the WTC towers on 9-11-01.  Absolutely no relevant comparison.


#44    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 26 August 2010 - 09:18 PM

View PostGraveyard Hound, on 26 August 2010 - 05:38 PM, said:

Just asking but didn't a B-25 bomber hit it durring a heavy fog  as opposed to a B-52? I might be wrong, and if so, I  do  apologize for my error.


No you're correct.  It was a B-25 in low visibility conditions, and at relatively low speed.  The B-52 hadn't been developed yet at that time.


#45    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 August 2010 - 12:09 AM

View PostMID, on 26 August 2010 - 09:16 PM, said:

Actually, they're all built to sway in the wind.
Correct. It's called sheer strength. That's the reason framers stager the joints on the plywood when sheeting a roof with plywood. (But the exterior walls on the WTC's were a much larger scale)





View PostMID, on 26 August 2010 - 09:16 PM, said:

Actually, they were both quite capable of taking a hit.

Multiple hits actually. The buildings were designed to redistribute their load in times of crises. At least that's what I gathered from the architects. Personally, I thought it was a sound design, using the core columns to support appr. 85% of the load and the exterior to handle the sheer strength.





View PostMID, on 26 August 2010 - 09:16 PM, said:

Fire was the significant accelerant on 9-11.  However, if the fire could've been extinguished in a reasonable amount of time, odds are the buildings probably would've stood (although you'd be hard pressed to get me inside one of them!).

But you're absolutely correct.  There's no correlation between the B-25 impact on the ESB and the 767 impacts on the WTC towers on 9-11-01.  Absolutely no relevant comparison.


Here's where we differ. If we're talking 47 "four inch wall" steel box beams, not aluminum aircraft parts nor fire will touch them. If they were compromised it was by the explosion, most of which happened outside. But it still would have been one heck of a shock wave. Was it enough? I don't know, but the fire theory needs to go to the rubbish bin.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users