@parados,
Quote:And this is after you had the temerity to accuse others of lacking curiosity?
Not all steel structures are equal JTT. The towers were very different from WTC7.
That was not adressed to you, Parados, but you really haven't offered much more than your opinions, opinions that seem to be to direct the conversation away from any serious inquiry. You really haven't brought much of anything to the table, wouldn't you agree?
Do you mean to suggest that there are robust discussions going on across America on this topic?
Quote:All the other buildings weren't damaged by rubble falling on them as well as fire. Why didn't ALL the buildings in Haiti collapse? Some did, some didn't. Pointing to the ones that did as proof of some man made plot to destroy them would be asinine. But then so is pointing to WTC7 that way.
More opinion, Parados.
Have you come across much in the way of "man made plots" here?
Quote:That is just silly JTT. It is like arguing that the Golden Gate bridge can't collapse unless the towers collapse, but I guarantee that if you cut all the cables the bridge deck will be gone.
I dare say that the bridge deck would be gone, if you cut the cables. No argument there. Why did you bring it up?
That doesn't mean the towers would all go too.
And what of the picture perfect collapses?
Quote:
The perimeter panels in the towers were not designed to hold the entire weight of 7 floors falling on them. Maybe you should use some of that curiosity you think you have and look at the actual engineering of the buildings.
You might have a point, Parados, but 2000%, that's two thousand percent. Looking over your calculations, I can't say that I agree with you totally.
Quote:Engineering News Record
The Engineering News Record (ENR) contained a number of articles on the design and construction of the World Trade Center. The article "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings" quotes lead architect John Skilling:
"live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."
--John Skilling, in Engineering News Record, 4/2/1964
Quote:Design Claims
Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson White Paper
A white paper on the structure of the Twin Towers carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson contained eleven numbered points, including:
3. 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.
bold and underline are mine
--City in the Sky, p 131
Glanz and Lipton summarize the findings of the white paper:
The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers' calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.
--City in the Sky, p 133
bold is mine
The Richard Roth Telegram
A telegraph from the architectural firm Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, was distributed to reporters on February 14, 1965. The telegraph was in response to claims by real estate baron and Lawrence Wien that the design of the Twin Towers was unsound.
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
--City in the Sky, p 134-6
capitals are not mine
One has to wonder why a building, two actually, that were designed to take the hit of a theoretical fully loaded Boeing707/DC8 with a full load of fuel, which the actual planes that hit were not carrying, went down, when the designers said, let me quote it again,
"... that
all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as
the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.
bold is mine
Was it all just engineering hype? Can someone point me to, in the American press, among the public, what should be voluminous discussions of why these two towers went down when the engineers said, pretty much, that it was an impossibility?
