So, terrorists?

**Xavsnipe** · 09-15-11, 12:19 AM

The structural engineers themselves explain what was taken into account when they built the towers. Since you can’t account for everything, you build the things with over protection, just in case...you don’t build stuff thinking nothing will ever happen to it. They didn’t design the tower to withstand a plane being DELIBERATELY flown into it...but they did consider that someday a plane MIGHT hit the tower by ACCIDENT. Laws of physics weren’t any different in the 1960’s. I’m sure they could calculate the amount of damage a projectile would cause when it hit a structure constructed mainly of steel. Deliberately or by accident...a projectile is a projectile.

Where do you get ‘the core was demolished?’ ....meaning, the core was completely obliterated

?? I’ve never read that anywhere.

Fovezer...I think you’re taking all of this out of your aaaaaasss!!

No but seriously, Hey, I’ve never read that the engineers took into account a 707 at slow speed and low fuel, not a 707 at full speed with max fuel capacity. I also haven’t read that the core of the building was DEMOLISHED...I find it hard to believe too. I mean, the building wasn’t chopped in half. It was damaged on one side.

Again, show me where you’ve read that the core of the building (all the columns in the middle) were completely severed, or demolished as you put it. If the tower’s exoskeleton (which supported a lot of the structure) and its inner core columns would’ve been completely demolished...that tower wouldn’t have stood for 1 whole hour. Then again, how does anyone know this if the towers fell and what was left was dust...nothing else but dust.

**Xavsnipe** · 09-15-11, 12:30 AM

Can anyone simulate this? I mean...we have lots of data right? Projectile size, weight, material, speed, altitude ... and we have data for the tower as well...material built, altitude, weight above impact, amount of columns on the outside, amount of columns in the core. Just plug in the data...it’s simple physics isn’t it?

How far into the tower could the plane have gone before the projectile itself (the plane) got destroyed...how much damage to the core could the plane have done? Do we know for a fact how many columns the plane took out in the core?

**DuDDy** · 09-15-11, 12:43 AM

Heres the North Tower Simulation for you. Notice the destruction of the inner columns on the model.

**Xavsnipe** · 09-15-11, 12:55 AM

Thanks Duddy...I can see it took out some columns in the core, just can’t make out how many of them...shouldn’t the tower have fallen asymmetrically? If only one side of the tower was structurally damaged? I’m just thinking out loud here. My main question would be...how much damage could the core withstand...and how much of the exoskeleton could be taken out for the tower to be structurally unstable?

**DuDDy** · 09-15-11, 01:06 AM

ok here's the difference between the two towers. tower 1 had the antenna on the top of it and tower 2 did not. The reason why tower did fall asymmetrically was that the support for the antenna was actually holding up the top floors of that building. When the internal structure for the antenna was gone you got this result:

watch closely and you will actually see the building cave in at first, which is the antenna support giving way, then the rest of the top floors collapsing on top of each other. This all caused a chain reaction so that the floors went down on top of each other instead of off to the side like tower 2.

**DuDDy** · 09-15-11, 01:08 AM

also notice how when the building collapses notice how the debris cloud kind of gets sucked down with it as well. thats also a sign of an imploding building. this was caused by the floors falling on top of each other.

if your still wondering about the other tower, see my previous post about the Jenga tower. that explains.

**DuDDy** · 09-15-11, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

Thanks Duddy...I can see it took out some columns in the core, just can’t make out how many of them...shouldn’t the tower have fallen asymmetrically? If only one side of the tower was structurally damaged? I’m just thinking out loud here. My main question would be...how much damage could the core withstand...and how much of the exoskeleton could be taken out for the tower to be structurally unstable?

now that i answered the first question (asymmetrical collapse) im gonna get to the others here.

there were in fact 2 sides of the tower that were structurally damaged. the airplane did not lose momentum as it went through the building and some of it did acutally blow out the other sides. heres the best video (and only one that i know of) that shows this:

Now the inner core could not withstand a whole lot of damage. This is mainly because it was not designed to be the main load bearing support of the building ( i think i covered this in another thread). But those columns were there for the elevator shaft, stair wells and support for each floor NOT the whole building.

As for the external skeleton of the building this is the best way i can think of to explain it. If you have Knex (or know what they are this easy to do/visualize) try making a 4 sided building, with no internal support, of nothing but the longest pieces, taller you can make this the easier it is to see. Take an encyclopedia or other heavy book and place it at the top of said tower (this resembles the antenna and its wieght). Then near the top replace a few of the long pieces with a hole and then some of the shorter pieces similar to that of the impact hole on the wtc tower. Stand back and see what happens. What should happen is that the building should collapse. The point of this is that unbroken those external columns are very very strong, so long as they arent broken. BUT break a few of them on each side and they become very very very weak at that exact spot.

This help at all?

**Xavsnipe** · 09-15-11, 03:04 AM

I wanna see NUMBERS duddy I WANNA SEE NUMBERS!!

Seriously though, thanks for taking the time, I have a clearer picture of both sides of the story. Still need to look into it some more, just to ease my curiosity.

**Red_Lizard2** · 09-15-11, 03:16 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

No but they were carrying thousands of gallons of fuel that would not have been taken into account when doing calculations for a sustained impact. No fire alone has never brought a steel building down or none that i am aware of. However the building took the hit and with out a doubt they degraded the integrity of the building.

Would they have fallen if there was no fuel? Hard to give a real answer your forced to speculate. My guess is no. The reason i say that is the building took the blow and did not cave at any point until after the fire was going. Knowing what i know about fuel fires and explosives i have to conclude the fire was far more intense then what the jet fuel alone would have burned at. Some areas probably did burn at 700 degrees like jet fuel would but this fire had some serious hot spots.

Taking into consideration how offices are typically set up i have to also conclude there was most likely furniture sitting next to the walls that concealed these columns. That alone is going to give hot spots in the exact places you do not want them.

I can give you a little test if you wish to try it out. Jet fuel burns much hotter then gasoline but you will get the point regardless. Take an infared temp gauge and check the temp of just gas burning. Then get a piece of foam and saturate it in gas and check the temp. You will find there is a drastic increase in temp coupled with an increase in burn time.

Its one thing to take into account a plane with a couple hundred gallons or even a thousand lbs of fuel but its a whole new game when you had thousands of gallons. Carpet itself is fire resistant but if you manage to light it it burns hot. Now consider the whole floor is covered in it and its covered in burning jet fuel.

too lazy to cut out certain parts but just hit on something brought up in some PBS thing I was watching on their website (I think it was building 9/11 or something like that *Shrugs*). But anyways according to that, the jet fuel burned off fairly quickly (and a 3rd of it outside the building), the fires after it burned off were mostly office furniture and all that crap. The reason the (i think) 2nd tower fell faster then the first was because the fire there was mainly in one spot where the 1st tower was jumping around between different spots (the reason for the sustained fire, iirc, had to due with the spot near where the fire originally started their was a large amount of office supplies and so forth in that area).

**deathgodusmc** · 09-15-11, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

The structural engineers themselves explain what was taken into account when they built the towers. Since you can’t account for everything, you build the things with over protection, just in case...you don’t build stuff thinking nothing will ever happen to it. They didn’t design the tower to withstand a plane being DELIBERATELY flown into it...but they did consider that someday a plane MIGHT hit the tower by ACCIDENT. Laws of physics weren’t any different in the 1960’s. I’m sure they could calculate the amount of damage a projectile would cause when it hit a structure constructed mainly of steel. Deliberately or by accident...a projectile is a projectile.

Where do you get ‘the core was demolished?’ ....meaning, the core was completely obliterated

?? I’ve never read that anywhere.

Fovezer...I think you’re taking all of this out of your aaaaaasss!!

No but seriously, Hey, I’ve never read that the engineers took into account a 707 at slow speed and low fuel, not a 707 at full speed with max fuel capacity. I also haven’t read that the core of the building was DEMOLISHED...I find it hard to believe too. I mean, the building wasn’t chopped in half. It was damaged on one side.

Again, show me where you’ve read that the core of the building (all the columns in the middle) were completely severed, or demolished as you put it. If the tower’s exoskeleton (which supported a lot of the structure) and its inner core columns would’ve been completely demolished...that tower wouldn’t have stood for 1 whole hour. Then again, how does anyone know this if the towers fell and what was left was dust...nothing else but dust.

See xav your trying to take a building failure and find why it happened. When doing that you have to start at the very begining. When these building were built they were built so far past building codes its ridiculous. It was not and still is not nessecary to make a building like this. It was reenforced to a level of what was considered retarded at the time and still to this day.

There are no building codes that take into consideration acts of terrorism of damage of war. The owners took it completely on their own to far excede the standards for the time and they did that at their own expense.

The qoutes i will use are pieces from an 9-11 conspiracy page and i will explain why they are wrong in their assumption. The red is the authors perspective.

"It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds. That the WTC was designed only to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707 that was seeking to land at a nearby airport, and therefore low on fuel, is an obvious lie. Why is it an obvious lie? Well, because if you take into consideration planes that are landing at an airport, then you must consider planes that are taking off, and such planes are fully laden with fuel."

Now why would they have to consider fully fueled planes taking off from an airport hitting a building 6 miles awayas the crow flies? That pretty fucking rare to begin with seeing as passenger liners immediately go into a climb apon take off.

"The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact."

I dont think i even need to real say the different in an impact from 180 mph to one at 500 mph is substancial to say the least. However for the sake of arguement i will go ahead and give an example. A car can bump you at 5 mph but at 100 mph you become pastry filling.

Now when your talking about fire rating and fire codes you have to consider the applications. A 2 hour fire wall is rated to with stand 2 hours of a regular type office fire. Fire proofing on beams are the same. However those rating were completely eliminated when those fire prevention materials became covered in fuel. To say the least they became ineffective because they to were on fire.

Now i have found some new information while reading. According to wiki the fireproofing was actually being redone in the building but they had only done 18 floors at the time. So that im sure did not help. The also site the offical report reason for the collapse as inner columns were damaged which caused a buckling in the floor. Tha buckling caused the exterior columns to fail. So fire is not the direct cause of the collapse but odds are it helped considerably.