9/11 what do you think?

[tokeprep]

Yep, I just found random pictures of skyscrapers on fire, its soooooo common. I haven't a clue what any of them are.

How long did the 9/11 fires burn? Do you even know?

45 minutes? 2 hours?

What percentage of towers 1& 2 were on fire? 10%?
What percentage of the Mandarin hotel was on fire? 100%?

hollow tube design?, none of the buildings involved in 9/11 were tube designs. Of course the 9/11 commission could have told you they were made of brick and you would have believed them.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/wtc1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire04/PDF/f04058.pdf

All three of the buildings at issue in the World Trade Center were tube structures. This is very well known fact, so your denial is quite perplexing (the first one I've ever seen in years of these claims, actually). The outside walls literally are holding the building up. As for percentages and times--none of your other building fires involve huge planes slicing through critical structural elements or the ignition of huge amounts of jet fuel. It makes no sense to compare ordinary fires without direct structural damage to extraordinary ones!

As for the Beijing Television Cultural Center fire, we've already discussed that in the past. You know what's most laughable about your using it as an example? The Beijing Television Cultural Center was designed and built after the World Trade Center attack; the engineering firm made this brochure expressly touting the fact that they had analyzed the collapse of those buildings and incorporated the lessons into their work: http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download582.pdf. Of course, even if that weren't true, the fires aren't comparable anyway. First, the building wasn't finished or occupied when the fire occurred, meaning that a substantial volume of flammable material wasn't even present compared to that in any of the World Trade Center buildings. Second, the fire burned for just 5 hours with a legion of firefighters who had good access to water on the scene fighting it. World Trade Center 7 stood for nearly 7 hours after the other buildings had collapsed with zero firefighting effort on going.

No one found any evidence of explosives? I suppose you ascribe to the "The wind did it" hypothesis when trying to explain the puffs of smoke accompanying the flash of light as it sequences down the side of Bldg 7 followed shortly thereafter by a collapse. It's quite the leap.

You must not pay much attention to things going on around you. People have found evidence. The fact that you dismiss it means less than nothing.

Right, because that could never possibly happen unless explosives were used. Logical fallacy in the first instance.

As for the supposed evidence of explosives, what is it?

 

[NoDrama]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/wtc1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire04/PDF/f04058.pdf

All three of the buildings at issue in the World Trade Center were tube structures. This is very well known fact, so your denial is quite perplexing (the first one I've ever seen in years of these claims, actually). The outside walls literally are holding the building up.

As for the Beijing Television Cultural Center fire, we've already discussed that in the past. You know what's most laughable about your using it as an example? The Beijing Television Cultural Center was designed and built after the World Trade Center attack; the engineering firm made this brochure expressly touting the fact that they had analyzed the collapse of those buildings and incorporated the lessons into their work: http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download582.pdf. Of course, even if that weren't true, the fires aren't comparable anyway. First, the building wasn't finished or occupied when the fire occurred, meaning that a substantial volume of flammable material wasn't even present compared to that in any of the World Trade Center buildings. Second, the fire burned for just 5 hours with a legion of firefighters who had good access to water on the scene fighting it. World Trade Center 7 stood for nearly 7 hours after the other buildings had collapsed with zero firefighting effort on going.



Right, because that could never possibly happen unless explosives were used. Logical fallacy in the first instance.

As for the supposed evidence of explosives, what is it?

Hollow tubes are Hollow. Anyone who isn't a moron could tell you that the 9/11 towers were held up by the MASSIVE CENTRAL CORE!!

You just proved how much you don't know. Arguing with someone who is completely ignorant is like trying to swim up river against a fast moving current. You never get anywhere.

Massive central core!! Not hollow as you claim. Your argument has easily been defeated and shame is now upon you for thinking otherwise.

This gonna be another one of those arguments where you claim something isn't so, even in the face of reality.

I can pull up blueprints of the towers and prove that the largest steel beams were used in the core, some more than 4 feet wide by 3 feet thick sections of solid steel. The core goes from bedrock all the way to the top. Has its own flooring system independent of the perimeter walls. The core was so strong and so big, that it could have stood all by itself.

Just because FEMA denies there being a core, does not make it so.


Does this look hollow to you? Or do you see a shit ton of steel girders near the center there? Gosh they sure do seem to be numerous and much much thicker than the perimeter walls don't they? Hmmmmmm.

Do you even know the explanation for the collapse? Pancake ring a bell?

 

[tokeprep]

Hollow tubes are Hollow. Anyone who isn't a moron could tell you that the 9/11 towers were held up by the MASSIVE CENTRAL CORE!!

You just proved how much you don't know. Arguing with someone who is completely ignorant is like trying to swim up river against a fast moving current. You never get anywhere.

Massive central core!! Not hollow as you claim. Your argument has easily been defeated and shame is now upon you for thinking otherwise.

This gonna be another one of those arguments where you claim something isn't so, even in the face of reality.

I can pull up blueprints of the towers and prove that the largest steel beams were used in the core, some more than 4 feet wide by 3 feet thick sections of solid steel. The core goes from bedrock all the way to the top. Has its own flooring system independent of the perimeter walls. The core was so strong and so big, that it could have stood all by itself.

Just because FEMA denies there being a core, does not make it so.


Does this look hollow to you? Or do you see a shit ton of steel girders near the center there? Gosh they sure do seem to be numerous and much much thicker than the perimeter walls don't they? Hmmmmmm.

Do you even know the explanation for the collapse? Pancake ring a bell?

The only person who said "hollow" was you. I never said it. "Tube structure" does not mean "hollow tube structure," and I never said anything to that effect. A conventional skyscraper is a huge mass of steel columns welded together; a tube structure is a central core, outer walls, and floors. The picture you posted shows that the World Trade Center is indeed a tube structure. Since this is easily determined fact--see any architectural or engineering resource you want--I am dumbfounded that you would be trying to argue about it. NIST and FEMA both understand what tube structures are and were certainly well aware of the central core, I assure you.

Indeed, you are actually implicating the fact that the building was a tube structure when you say the core was independent of the perimeter walls. That's absolutely true--in a sense the outside wall and the core are like totally independent structures (which is not the case in a conventional skyscraper, with all the parts welded together). I take it your assertion, then, is that severe damage to the outside walls could not have brought the whole building down; the core should have stayed up. That's only true if the core wasn't damaged. Are you suggesting that the plane impacts didn't affect the core?

Edit: I think I see where you stepped off. When I said the outside walls were holding the building up, I didn't literally mean holding the entire building up or that the building was hollow. I just meant that the outside walls of a tube structure are vital structural elements; the building falls apart without them (the core couldn't hold up all the floors if you removed the outside walls). Thus the outside walls are holding the build up.

 

[aknight3]

"Patriotism is to support your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." – Mark Twain

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ClaytonBigsby again

 

[NoDrama]

The only person who said "hollow" was you. I never said it. "Tube structure" does not mean "hollow tube structure," and I never said anything to that effect. A conventional skyscraper is a huge mass of steel columns welded together; a tube structure is a central core, outer walls, and floors. The picture you posted shows that the World Trade Center is indeed a tube structure. Since this is easily determined fact--see any architectural or engineering resource you want--I am dumbfounded that you would be trying to argue about it. NIST and FEMA both understand what tube structures are and were certainly well aware of the central core, I assure you.

Indeed, you are actually implicating the fact that the building was a tube structure when you say the core was independent of the perimeter walls. That's absolutely true--in a sense the outside wall and the core are like totally independent structures (which is not the case in a conventional skyscraper, with all the parts welded together). I take it your assertion, then, is that severe damage to the outside walls could not have brought the whole building down; the core should have stayed up. That's only true if the core wasn't damaged. Are you suggesting that the plane impacts didn't affect the core?

Edit: I think I see where you stepped off. When I said the outside walls were holding the building up, I didn't literally mean holding the entire building up or that the building was hollow. I just meant that the outside walls of a tube structure are vital structural elements; the building falls apart without them (the core couldn't hold up all the floors if you removed the outside walls). Thus the outside walls are holding the build up.

Couple of notes:

By definition tubes are hollow.

The frames of skyscrapers are not welded together. You don't have a clue.

The walls keep the floors from sagging, they do not hold the building up, the core holds the building up.

I think I see where you stepped off. When I said the outside walls were holding the building up, I didn't literally mean holding the entire building up or that the building was hollow. I just meant that the outside walls of a tube structure are vital structural elements; the building falls apart without them (the core couldn't hold up all the floors if you removed the outside walls). Thus the outside walls are holding the build up.

Translation: The walls don't hold the building up, thus the walls hold the building up.

That's about a piece of shit logical merry go round you are on.

Dance little dog, DANCE!!!

 

[Doer]

When on military standby, it takes less than 10 minutes to get that bird in the air. Considering there are Navy aviation bases, Air Force bases, and Marine Corps bases all within a couple hundred miles of NYC and Washington DC, getting a response flight up and in the air to do a intercept is CHILD'S PLAY!! You have to get the order to go first though. With no order to go it matters not how fast you can fly or how far out a Sidewinder can take out another aircraft.

Don't I know it. The capability was there back in 1952. ADIZ scamble? Sure. But, this was over PA. So, an intercept means nothing if the command will is absent. If everyone is wondering WTF?? and there is this other airplane that has turned back.

To me this is Monday morning quarterbacking, 20/20 hindsight, and you of all people should know better.

It is false approach, imo. Not science. Review the time line, of that morning. This view only makes sense if the govt was in on it. Of course, you have decided they are. So the facts are smushed to fit your mindset.

It doesn't make any sense. They could have shot down the plane but they did not. Any exploitation of this, just war fog, confusion related, illusion, means you have the blinders on and the facts not straight.

Yet, it all makes perfect sense, if it was an act of war, and is the fog of war and assets were not deployed by lack of Will in Command.

So, are you saying that somehow WE had prior knowledge and just let the aircraft proceed in-bound to target. And the govt plan was a bit stymied by the passengers?

What possible evidence of that? Just the, pretzel, Hate Bush, logic of the entire thing. So, the all powerful govt kind a blew it and WE the People broke up that sub-op?

So, all powerful, but not so much the Alpha Warrior can't figure it out....not so much as, all they really killed, was first responders, not so powerfully perfect they (woops) actually killed a bunch of civilians.

And so, all powerful, that all WE wanted to do have an excuse to war with Islam?

So all powerful that a consipracy this size with involved 500 people min? But only a frew of you were smart enough to figure it out?

Awesome power, such that we elected total idiots to run it and those idiots produce this Awesomeness? Prezel Logic of Tortured Conspiracy Thinking. PLCTC.

So, all those times you punched out, you didn't land on your head or anything, I hope? Meaning I hope this point of view is not structural for you.

BTW, I have a bit of time in F4 instruments simulators....what's that carrier variant, stall speed again? The real one?

Oh, and why Xbox and Hang Gliders? FAA won't renew me, medically, so I'm down revved to Sport Plane.

 

[tokeprep]

Couple of notes:

By definition tubes are hollow.

Thank you for your dictionary definition of the word tube. "Tube structure" does not mean hollow, without a core, or anything else of the sort. I never said hollow; the descriptions of a tube structure don't describe a hollow object without a core, etc., etc., etc. The fact that the World Trade Center has a core does not indicate that it isn't a tube structure.

The frames of skyscrapers are not welded together. You don't have a clue.

They don't weld steel together in skyscrapers? How do they do it then? Enlighten us.

The walls keep the floors from sagging, they do not hold the building up, the core holds the building up.

This is just ignorance of engineering to claim that the outside walls of a tube structure are not a critical part of the structure. How peculiar to tell someone else they're clueless when you seem to be the clueless one.

Here's a description from the Wikipedia page specifically relating to the World Trade Center's construction:

The tube-frame concept, earlier introduced by Fazlur Khan, was a major innovation, allowing open floor plans and more space to rent. The buildings used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure. There were 60 perimeter columns, narrowly spaced, on each side of the buildings. In all, the perimeter walls of the towers were 210 feet (64 m) on each side, and the corners were beveled. The perimeter columns were designed to provide support for virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and to share the gravity loads with the core columns."

Translation: The walls don't hold the building up, thus the walls hold the building up.

That's about a piece of shit logical merry go round you are on.

Dance little dog, DANCE!!!

All the parts of the building are holding the building up. If you removed the outside walls, the building would fall apart. That you didn't and still don't understand this doesn't alter what I meant when I said it. The walls are absolutely critical--they hold the building up. I stand by it.

 

[echelon1k1]

OK fine. You have a resume. So do I. You are simply a warrior idiot with quals. You do know all about deploying warplanes. I just disagree with your brand of crazy. You said I know nothing without knowing. Now you want to dick wag about your superiority, huh? Why did you assume I was not a fellow pilot?.....not an aviator, certainly, granted.

Done taking your shit now? I already secured the General's Pooch.

So not an idiot after all. Just a stupid person on this subject. Feeling good, now that you waved that Aviator wong? So, you are no stranger to pucker factor. Why didn't you say so. I have plenty of Worship for Naval Aviators.

Still no helicopter, huh? Can't afford it yet. You will like it. I like flying. I fly Ft. Funston. And I kick ass in Apache on Xbox. Play ya, anytime, Mr. Warrior. But, no helo, and no govt policy setting....I'd say a friendly tie.

BTW, I'm quite the slip kid, in hot planes on tight airports. You know one side of Monterey, north side, is 1500 pattern alt. Short field, I love that. I am addicted to auto-rotation with low mass rotor systems.

But, are you just begin funny with the xbox and hang glider comments? Those like the magazines and building are interests, not quals....are they? Seaplanes? Or did you manage to drown your F4?

Honestly you're a douchebag. every time you're put in your place you resort to this bullshit... get a life you fucking poser...

 

[cannabineer]

I tell you, see if you possess a single ounce of courage. Go land a seaplane at dawn on a glass smooth lake. HA HA.

Now I am curious. What is the procedure for this? cn

 

[Doer]

Well, orient into the best visual apporach since there is no wind. No need to fly into the sun that is about to pop up.

- and then according to situation, , like a short approach into a small lake, make a pass and throw out a life vest
- Test the short approach
- by using the vest to get low enough to disturb the water
- test the climb out and go around
- come around again and land with some depth cues

Or, if there is plenty of lake you make a very shallow approach at a good bit above stall speed, until you kiss it onto the light planning spray to know where the surface is. And then there is the type capability. Some seaplanes, especially the boat hull type, cannot break the surface sticky, with no wind. They can take off with wheels on the runway with no wind.

. Do not land in water, with wheels down without life insurance. You might want to fish until the afternoon winds.

Of course, it is very pleasant to be on the surface with no wind. But, there is quite a bit of sailing technique in seaplane to manage docking, for example when there is the usual afternoon wind.

It is really why I think the helicopter is so cool, not a slave to the wind, so much. I never get airsick in the R-22.

And I can land on the sand to fish.

 

[cannabineer]

Well, orient into the best visual apporach since there is no wind. No need to fly into the sun that is about to pop up.

- and then according to situation, , like a short approach into a small lake, make a pass and throw out a life vest
- Test the short approach
- by using the vest to get low enough to disturb the water
- test the climb out and go around
- come around again and land with some depth cues

Or, if there is plenty of lake you make a very shallow approach at a good bit above stall speed, until you kiss it onto the light planning spray to know where the surface is.

Of course, it is very pleasant to be on the surface with no wind. But, there is quite a bit of sailing technique in seaplane to manage docking, for example when there is the usual afternoon wind.

It is really why I think the helicopter is so cool, not a slave to the wind, so much. I never get airsick in the R-22.

No fair!! cn

 

[Doer]

It is required, by FAA regs that every passenger seat, in seaplane also has a life vest....to throw out the window.

So, two passengers, two vests, you can't throw the vest. It has to be something else. A $799 easily retrievable, self inflating seaplane approach buoy or a pine straw, a penny splash,.... its your neck. It will be ruled pilot error no matter what.

Unlawful to land 2 souls without 2 vests unless an emergency is declared and then the paperwork is hell. Of course, with the radio switches who can say the message was not sent? Yet, it is funny how Fish and Game can show up for a vest check. Just as you are going to get yours. Sir, Center just reported you didn't declared an emergency and we saw you throw out this vest?

 

[Doer]

Oh, yeah, to paraphrase the Baron VonR....there is nothing fair in airplanes.


And yeah, I can see how Xbox can sound pretty lame, but you haven't seem my setup. Sit closer than TV to a 72" display in 1080p.

Heavy duly in wall, 7 channel sound system. Controls are realistic and the settings in Apache are very realistic physics. Big heavy pig, the Hind, light and nimble Longbow. Armed Firescout drones on both sides. Immersed in fun with my v-buddy squadron LIVE!

So, not looking into a PC monitor if that was the impression.

 

[echelon1k1]

Oh, yeah, to paraphrase the Baron VonR....there is nothing fair in airplanes.


And yeah, I can see how Xbox can sound pretty lame, but you haven't seem my setup. Sit closer than TV to a 72" display in 1080p.

Heavy duly in wall, 7 channel sound system. Controls are realistic and the settings in Apache are very realistic physics. Big heavy pig, the Hind, light and nimble Longbow. Armed Firescout drones on both sides. Immersed in fun with my v-buddy squadron LIVE!

So, not looking into a PC monitor if that was the impression.

Pull the other one... Limited distribution for 65" and above...

 

[NoDrama]

All the parts of the building are holding the building up. If you removed the outside walls, the building would fall apart. That you didn't and still don't understand this doesn't alter what I meant when I said it. The walls are absolutely critical--they hold the building up. I stand by it.

If you removed the outside walls, the walls would fall. The core would still be there. Your wiki explanation tells you right there that the walls DO NOT HOLD THE BUILDING UP like you previously claimed.

The perimeter columns were designed to provide support for virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and to share the gravity loads with the core columns."

I love it when some doofus comes along and proves himself wrong, then thinks he is proving himself right.

 

[Doer]

The towers were designed as framed tube structures, which provided tenants with open floor plans, uninterrupted by columns or walls. This was accomplished using numerous closely spaced perimeter columns to provide much of the strength to the structure, along with gravity load shared with the core columns. The elevator system, which made use of sky lobbies and a system of express and local elevators, allowed substantial floor space to be freed up for use as office space by making the structural core smaller. (cores are only between sky lobbies...Doer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center



No unified structural core. Staggered elevator shafts and sky lobbies. You are only seeing these pieces constructed.

All the shaft concrete was powdered on the way down.

So I was atop this thing, 2 month before it came down. there is no core. The sky lobbies are all wall to wall for the view.

So, Drama, were you ever there? No. Because you get a fine display of the way the building was made. They brag about the outer tube (square) wall being THE STRUCTURE.

Traditionally, skyscrapers used a skeleton of columns distributed throughout the interior to support building loads, with interior columns disrupting the floor space. The tube-frame concept, earlier introduced by Fazlur Khan, was a major innovation, allowing open floor plans and more space to rent.

....steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure. There were 60 perimeter columns.





This is how the building failed, Sir. Notice the tiny tabs on the end of the floor joints and are pinned to the wall?

Now land a loaded 747 on that and it explodes. Oh the floor will hold, the had to use thermite.

IDIOTS.

 

[tokeprep]

If you removed the outside walls, the walls would fall. The core would still be there. Your wiki explanation tells you right there that the walls DO NOT HOLD THE BUILDING UP like you previously claimed.

The perimeter columns were designed to provide support for virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and to share the gravity loads with the core columns."

I love it when some doofus comes along and proves himself wrong, then thinks he is proving himself right.

The section you just quoted described the essential structural functions being performed by the outside walls: providing support for virtually all lateral loads and sharing the gravity loads with core columns. That you think this is meaningless is dumbfounding.

 

[cannabineer]

It is required, by FAA regs that every passenger seat, in seaplane also has a life vest....to throw out the window.

So, two passengers, two vests, you can't throw the vest. It has to be something else. A $799 easily retrievable, self inflating seaplane approach buoy or a pine straw, a penny splash,.... its your neck. It will be ruled pilot error no matter what.

Unlawful to land 2 souls without 2 vests unless an emergency is declared and then the paperwork is hell. Of course, with the radio switches who can say the message was not sent? Yet, it is funny how Fish and Game can show up for a vest check. Just as you are going to get yours. Sir, Center just reported you didn't declared an emergency and we saw you throw out this vest?

I would keep two cans of Pringles then. Excellent scale objects, and they'll float long enough. I'd periodically rotate a can into the munchies hopper. cn

 

[NoDrama]

There is no core, its all just an illusion.

 

[Doer]

I would keep two cans of Pringles then. Excellent scale objects, and they'll float long enough. I'd periodically rotate a can into the munchies hopper. cn

I think it is yet another excellent use for Pringles!