mosque in South Tower before and during 9-11
-
fat_boy wrote:
What are you arguning about? Are you trying to tell me engineers dont make mistakes? That things dont f*** up, fall over, break, collapse, or fail in any one of the thousands ways engineered products can do?
I'm not trying to say that engineers don't make mistakes. I'm just trying to avoid blaming them for the buildings collapsing. They're not bungling incompetents.
OK. Starting fomr basics, a product is engineered to be functional given its expected usage. The bridge in London was engineered to take pedestrian traffic at a certain density (giving a figure for the maximum load it can carry). But they didnt count on the slight lateral movement of the bridge being amplified by the nature on the way in which people walk when reacting to a slight lateral movement of what they are walking on. Thus was the product fit for its purpose? No. Therefore the engineers fialed. The WTC buildings were engineered to take an impact from a 707. Given that planes genrally have fule in them one owuld expect the design to handle not only the kinetic effect of the impact but also the thermal effect of the burning fuel. Did the buildings meet this design target when tested? No. Therefore the engineering failed.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
OK. Starting fomr basics, a product is engineered to be functional given its expected usage. The bridge in London was engineered to take pedestrian traffic at a certain density (giving a figure for the maximum load it can carry). But they didnt count on the slight lateral movement of the bridge being amplified by the nature on the way in which people walk when reacting to a slight lateral movement of what they are walking on. Thus was the product fit for its purpose? No. Therefore the engineers fialed. The WTC buildings were engineered to take an impact from a 707. Given that planes genrally have fule in them one owuld expect the design to handle not only the kinetic effect of the impact but also the thermal effect of the burning fuel. Did the buildings meet this design target when tested? No. Therefore the engineering failed.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
The WTC buildings were engineered to take an impact from a 707.
You keep saying that, but, well, see point 1[^].
fat_boy wrote:
Given that planes genrally have fule in them one owuld expect the design to handle not only the kinetic effect of the impact but also the thermal effect of the burning fuel.
Except that it wasn't really the burning fuel that toppled the tower. It was the fires it caused, which were spread widely throughout the tower due to the impact, which also removed the insulation from the steel. Nobody could've predicted such an unusual combination of circumstances, especially not before the techniques to analyse them weren't very far developed.
-
fat_boy wrote:
The WTC buildings were engineered to take an impact from a 707.
You keep saying that, but, well, see point 1[^].
fat_boy wrote:
Given that planes genrally have fule in them one owuld expect the design to handle not only the kinetic effect of the impact but also the thermal effect of the burning fuel.
Except that it wasn't really the burning fuel that toppled the tower. It was the fires it caused, which were spread widely throughout the tower due to the impact, which also removed the insulation from the steel. Nobody could've predicted such an unusual combination of circumstances, especially not before the techniques to analyse them weren't very far developed.
Reread the link, it only states that documentation regarding the analysis used could not be found so the statement could not be vefiried. As stated ... a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ...indicated that the impact of a ... 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.…”
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Except that it wasn't really the burning fuel that toppled the tower. It was the fires it caused, which were spread widely throughout the tower due to the impact, which also removed the insulation from the steel. Nobody could've predicted such an unusual combination of circumstances, especially not before the techniques to analyse them weren't very far developed.
I could answer this is about 6 different ways, but I'll let you answer it since you know you are talking crap.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Reread the link, it only states that documentation regarding the analysis used could not be found so the statement could not be vefiried. As stated ... a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ...indicated that the impact of a ... 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.…”
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Except that it wasn't really the burning fuel that toppled the tower. It was the fires it caused, which were spread widely throughout the tower due to the impact, which also removed the insulation from the steel. Nobody could've predicted such an unusual combination of circumstances, especially not before the techniques to analyse them weren't very far developed.
I could answer this is about 6 different ways, but I'll let you answer it since you know you are talking crap.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
I could answer this is about 6 different ways, but I'll let you answer it since you know you are talking crap.
So, is this an official proclamation that you would've predicted this? You would've sat down and said, "Let's consider what would've happened if a jet was commandeered into the tower. Well, the insulation would obviously be first to go, and the fuel would..." and so on.
-
fat_boy wrote:
I could answer this is about 6 different ways, but I'll let you answer it since you know you are talking crap.
So, is this an official proclamation that you would've predicted this? You would've sat down and said, "Let's consider what would've happened if a jet was commandeered into the tower. Well, the insulation would obviously be first to go, and the fuel would..." and so on.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
"Let's consider what would've happened if a jet was commandeered into the tower. Well, the insulation would obviously be first to go, and the fuel would..." and so on.
If you were designing a building to survive a plane impact do you suppose the discussion would be very different from that?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
"Let's consider what would've happened if a jet was commandeered into the tower. Well, the insulation would obviously be first to go, and the fuel would..." and so on.
If you were designing a building to survive a plane impact do you suppose the discussion would be very different from that?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
If you were designing a building to survive a plane impact do you suppose the discussion would be very different from that?
I imagine it would've gone more like: "OK, the maximum stress the beams can support is blah, and the expected stress will be blah, and a jet crashing will be about blah, so we're covered there. The support beams are properly fireproofed, so even if the jet causes a fire the beams will be protected, so I guess we're covered there. OK, I think we're good to go!" I mean, the buildings DID survive the impact, quite easily in fact, and they probably would've survived the fire if the insulation was intact.
-
fat_boy wrote:
If you were designing a building to survive a plane impact do you suppose the discussion would be very different from that?
I imagine it would've gone more like: "OK, the maximum stress the beams can support is blah, and the expected stress will be blah, and a jet crashing will be about blah, so we're covered there. The support beams are properly fireproofed, so even if the jet causes a fire the beams will be protected, so I guess we're covered there. OK, I think we're good to go!" I mean, the buildings DID survive the impact, quite easily in fact, and they probably would've survived the fire if the insulation was intact.
-
Remind me never to get into a product you engineered! :) And they wouldnt have collapsed if the floor were joined solidly to the shell.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Remind me never to get into a product you engineered!
Well, obviously they didn't know that the insulation would be so effortlessly removed, and that was probably the main factor in the collapse, so what's so unreasonable about my hypothetical discussion? Giving artistic license, of course. ;P
fat_boy wrote:
And they wouldnt have collapsed if the floor were joined solidly to the shell.
You can't know that.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Remind me never to get into a product you engineered!
Well, obviously they didn't know that the insulation would be so effortlessly removed, and that was probably the main factor in the collapse, so what's so unreasonable about my hypothetical discussion? Giving artistic license, of course. ;P
fat_boy wrote:
And they wouldnt have collapsed if the floor were joined solidly to the shell.
You can't know that.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, obviously they didn't know that the insulation would be so effortlessly removed
What, after being smacked into by tonnes of airplane?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You can't know that.
If floor collapse was part of the failure, and most analysis points in this direction, then pinning them to the skin and central colllumn, would have made a big difference.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, obviously they didn't know that the insulation would be so effortlessly removed
What, after being smacked into by tonnes of airplane?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You can't know that.
If floor collapse was part of the failure, and most analysis points in this direction, then pinning them to the skin and central colllumn, would have made a big difference.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
What, after being smacked into by tonnes of airplane?
Not even just that - the fast movement of air it caused, apparently, stripped the insulation off.
fat_boy wrote:
If floor collapse was part of the failure, and most analysis points in this direction, then pinning them to the skin and central colllumn, would have made a big difference.
Well, I thought that the floors were anchored to the walls: http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm[^]. I'm not sure what to make of it.
-
fat_boy wrote:
What, after being smacked into by tonnes of airplane?
Not even just that - the fast movement of air it caused, apparently, stripped the insulation off.
fat_boy wrote:
If floor collapse was part of the failure, and most analysis points in this direction, then pinning them to the skin and central colllumn, would have made a big difference.
Well, I thought that the floors were anchored to the walls: http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm[^]. I'm not sure what to make of it.
Thats a better explanation. The one I saw at the time said neither end of the beam was anchored. This one shows differently. The anchor is only 3/8th plate. Thats about 10mm. Each plate looks to be about 10 inches long. The plates are fillet welded to the outer skin, with no hanging knees or triangulated supports. Thats a lot of weight hanging off those welds. (The lower bracket wont carry any weight). And you know why the holes are slotted? Its to allow for tollerances. But that means that the end of the beam will often not be up fluch against the skin. Thus the 10mm plate is subjected to not only a shear load at the welds, but also a bending load. If I was bolting that floor together my bowels would start to clench at that thought. Its very weak. The plates shoudl be triangulated at 3 or 4 points along their length. With a good weld this is virtually indestructable. (At least till the outer skin to which they are welded deforms)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Thats a better explanation. The one I saw at the time said neither end of the beam was anchored. This one shows differently. The anchor is only 3/8th plate. Thats about 10mm. Each plate looks to be about 10 inches long. The plates are fillet welded to the outer skin, with no hanging knees or triangulated supports. Thats a lot of weight hanging off those welds. (The lower bracket wont carry any weight). And you know why the holes are slotted? Its to allow for tollerances. But that means that the end of the beam will often not be up fluch against the skin. Thus the 10mm plate is subjected to not only a shear load at the welds, but also a bending load. If I was bolting that floor together my bowels would start to clench at that thought. Its very weak. The plates shoudl be triangulated at 3 or 4 points along their length. With a good weld this is virtually indestructable. (At least till the outer skin to which they are welded deforms)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Well there you go.