headup Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by fnkysknky I think you'll find they did withstand the impact of a plane hitting them - as they were designed to. It's what happened after the impact that caused the collapseNobody has said that the steel melted, they actually said that it failed due to it weakening - to weaken it only needs to reach half the temperature that it does to melt. There were 244 supports on the inside perimeter of each floor thus giving redundant support in the event of some failing - the planes did a good job of taking many of these out but the remaining supports held until weakened by the burning aviation fuel which explains the delay in the towers falling. As for it falling straight down as people keep mentioning - it weighed 500,000 t, was 95% air and had no lateral load - the only place it was ever gonna fall was straight down. A buidling of that weight generally will. If the explosion(s) mentioned did in fact happen in the basement(s) and were not a direct result of the plane impact then why the delay in the towers collapsing? That's really cool info - thanks for posting that..adds a little more to the debate. AFAIK - all reports say that the steel supports did in fact melt. I'd be happy if you could point out where this was proven untrue. Additionally, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this - an excellent read: http://www.911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm Here's a quick excerpt: According to Engineering and Technical Handbook by McNeese and Hoag, Prentice Hall, 3rd printing, September 1959: page 47 (Table) Safety Factors of Various Materials, the mandatory safety factor for structural steel is 600%. That is, a steel structure may be rated for a load of only one sixth the actual theoretical limit. Given that none of those floors was holding a grand piano sale or an elephant convention that day, it is unlikely that any of them were loaded to the maximum. Thus, any of the floors should have been capable of supporting more than its own weight plus the two floors above it. I suspect the WTC was engineered for safer margins than the average railroad bridge, and the actual load on each floor was less than 1/6 the BreakingStrength. The platters were constructed of webs of steel trusses. Radial trusses ran from the perimeter of the floor to the central columns, and concentric rings of trusses connected the radial trusses, forming a pattern like a spider web (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif ). Where the radial trusses connected with the central columns, I imagine the joints looked like the big bolted flanges where girders meet on a bridge — inches thick bolts tying the beams into the columns. In order to weaken those joints, a fire would have to heat the bolts or the flanges to the point where the bolts fell apart or tore through the steel. But here is another thing that gives me problems — all the joints between the platter and the central columns would have to be heated at the same rate in order to collapse at the same time — and at the same rate as the joints with the outer columns on all sides — else one side of the platter would fall, damaging the floor below and making obvious distortions in the skin of the building, or throwing the top of the tower off balance and to one side. But there were no irregularities in the fall of those buildings. They fell almost as perfectly as a deck of cards in the hands of a magician doing an aerial shuffle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by Sierra Do me a favor, those of you so inclined. PLEASE. Don't quote statistics. You have no real idea what 40%, or 60% of the American people think, believe, or feel. NO IDEA. The population of the US is 296 million. 60% of THAT is 177 million. There is NO possible way that the statistics you are using to make your point, are a truly accurate representation of the political views of 177 million people. It just isn't possible. And to those of you who live in the states? The opinions of your co-workers, your spouse(s), your spouse's extended family, the guy who mows your lawn, the kid who bags your groceries etc, are just that. ONLY THEIR OPINIONS. They cannot and do not speak for the other 295,999,000 Americans. Sierra Erm wern't you the one i called out for calling people anti-american who disagree with Bush's policies? I think your were. Slightly hypocritical of you don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by back2basics Chicago where about in Chicago do you live, if you don't mind me asking? Also live in Chicago, downtown and West Chicago. Forest Glen Area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by Chicago Forest Glen Area Dam i was hoping you were district 14. Never mind. You an ex-pat? Sorry for the 100 questions just interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sierra Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by back2basics Erm wern't you the one i called out for calling people anti-american who disagree with Bush's policies? I think your were. Slightly hypocritical of you don't you think? What are you talking about? I never said people were anti-american for disagreeing with Bush's policies. Hell, I disagree with Bush's policies most of the time. And it would be pretty hard for someone WHO ISN'T EVEN AN AMERICAN CITIZEN TO BE CALLED ANTI-AMERICAN. Now wouldn't it? By the way, for those who don't know. back2basics is apparently still smarting because I disagreed with him here. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&postid=531199#post531199 What I meant was, that seeing as how some folks were born and raised in Sheffield, their views and frame of reference are bound to differ from those of us who were born and raised in the US. No matter how much time said Sheffield born person spends in the states. They will always have their earlier experiences in another country. I would appreciate it if you would stop with the name calling, I don't think I am being hypocritical, nor do I feel I have to defend my views to YOU. I did try to offer you an olive branch after you angrily accused me of all kinds of things. It was in the thread that was pulled by the Mods, so you either didn't see it, or are choosing to ignore it. In either case, I am asking you to LAY OFF. I am not attacking YOU directly, and I don't intend to start. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, then you're in the wrong place. Sierra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
back2basics Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Calm down, i am not attacking you either. I have better things to do with my time. You must get lots of people attacking you to accuse me of that IMO. You did call people anti-american for talking about the prisoner abuse. And i beleive i pointed out then the hypocracy of that statement, which it was. I pointed out in that thread, exactly whay you pointed out just now that America if diverse. It was in the thread that was removed, i am sure people remember it. Because in that thread you basically said that people should not talk about America, and as i said then people have a very real right as our troops are also fighting over there and these prison abuses endanger our troops as well. I didn't see the responce to the thread that was pulled, i have been away from computers for a few days, by the time i returned it was gone and the girl was banned. So in a way we agree. No olive branchneeded, i don't take things personally just like to stick to the facts, i suggest you do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headup Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Hey guys - as the mighty Porkins once said "Stay on target!" Let's not have this fall into mud-slinging or the mods will be out with their big ban stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tulip Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by Sierra Do me a favor, those of you so inclined. PLEASE. Don't quote statistics. You have no real idea what 40%, or 60% of the American people think, believe, or feel. NO IDEA. The population of the US is 296 million. 60% of THAT is 177 million. There is NO possible way that the statistics you are using to make your point, are a truly accurate representation of the political views of 177 million people. It just isn't possible. And to those of you who live in the states? The opinions of your co-workers, your spouse(s), your spouse's extended family, the guy who mows your lawn, the kid who bags your groceries etc, are just that. ONLY THEIR OPINIONS. They cannot and do not speak for the other 295,999,000 Americans. And headup, I think that what you wrote: "In one way or another - the events we see unfolding are affecting us all (our freedoms are slowly being eroded to 'protect' us) and I for one will not sit back and accept everything that I'm told." Isn't a bad way to be at all. Just, you know. We shouldn't let ourselves get carried away. Some of Carole's "conspiracy theories" were so wild and out there, that the truth really did make more sense. *Off Topic* And just for the heck of it, I'm not usually a "conspiracy theory' person, but when I heard that Princess Diana had been killed, it immediately crossed my mind that this would make things so much easier for Prince Charles and the Royal Family. I mean, she'd been behaving like a Palm Beach floozie, what with the flaunting of the boyfriend and all, and become a major embarrassment to them. However, in spite of that, I still believe that what happened to her was an accident...they say she would likely have survived the crash if she'd been wearing a seatbelt. Something that was entirely under HER control. Sierra Well said! I don't know why a lot of people in England think U.S citizens don't think for themselves. Lots of people were obsessed by a Diana conspiracy too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headup Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by tulip Well said! I don't know why a lot of people in England think U.S citizens don't think for themselves. Lots of people were obsessed by a Diana conspiracy too. A percentage of the British population will always believe that to be true. Just in the same way that a good number of Americans think of bad teeth, warm beer and fog when they think of Britain. A local asked my mum (when she was over here visiting) if she'd met the Queen. She had - and told this lady. Thanks mum - reinforce the perception that we all know the Queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fnkysknky Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Originally posted by headup That's really cool info - thanks for posting that..adds a little more to the debate. AFAIK - all reports say that the steel supports did in fact melt. I'd be happy if you could point out where this was proven untrue. -snip- [/i] It wouldn't melt until approx 1500 deg - the fire in the WTC couldn't have reached that temp. - for a more thorough explanation and also as I'm off to bed so don't have time read through http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html Explains just about everything including why it fell straight down etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.