Thread: 9/11 question

Originally Posted by MattInFla

So, what do you think happened?

I would be more interested in you telling me what flew into the third building?

Debris from the first two, combined with hours of fire freely burning (assuming you are talking about WTC7).

So, what do you think happened? I answered your question, it's your turn.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Debris from the first two, combined with hours of fire freely burning (assuming you are talking about WTC7).

So, what do you think happened? I answered your question, it's your turn.

Debris?! They were everywhere, and the fire was not burning in WTC7...

What do I think happened to the first two? The same thing as to the WTC7.

Originally Posted by Alma

Debris?! They were everywhere, and the fire was not burning in WTC7...

What do I think happened to the first two? The same thing as to the WTC7.

And that would be?

Originally Posted by Sluggo

One could simply say that means they knew which buildings to hit and why.

I doubt it.

For reasons that we'll never fully understand OBL was fixated on the WTC. Tallest in NYC, a simple of US financial might, who knows?

As to why they fell is simple... they won't designed to take the loads placed on them. John Drake has shown that while he has all the pieces, he has failed to understand the whole picture.

While true, there were trusses used, and while true structural elements were damaged due to the violent removal of fire-proofing insulation, these are contributed to the failure. But they are not the failure. The failure was all of these things and more. See here:

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017

Would the Empire State Building have held? Maybe... it did survive the 1944 crash of a B-25 into it. But why would it survive? For the every reason that the WTC didn't... it's remaining undamaged structure would hold the loads.

Buildings were designed far differently then than now... most of the sizing of structural members were done from experience, not calculation. The Empire State Building was then over designed. It was much heavier... and this mass would help withstand the crash. It's floor plan was smaller... much smaller in the higher floors, making the distance to the core much shorter.

The WTC was designed to be much lighter it's structural tolerances closer to an airplane than a 70 year old building. This lightness was viewed as a feature, a way to get to the height that they wanted. Lighter weight meant a more open plan. Also the towers didn't step back as the Empire State Building does. Each tower floor plan is the same going up.


As for the first responders... it was never envisioned that, with the building fully covered by fire sprinklers, that a massive failure could or would ever take place. So it was always planned that for fires on the upper floors that the FD would ride in elevators and arrive with the worse of the fire out. They would also use the building stand pipe system thus would not be hauling large sections of hose up stair wells... stair wells filled with people, as again it was not envisioned that people would need to evacuate en masse... there was no need, with the systems in place and if anything the attacks in 1993 confirmed this. They would wait out the crisis in one of the areas of refuge located throughout the towers.

AREA OF REFUGE. An area where persons unable to use stairways can remain temporarily to await instructions or assistance
during emergency evacuation.

1007.6 Areas of refuge. Every required area of refuge shall be accessible from the space it serves by an accessible means of
egress. The maximum travel distance from any accessible space to an area of refuge shall not exceed the travel distance
permitted for the occupancy in accordance with Section 1016.1. Every required area of refuge shall have direct access
to a stairway within an exit enclosure complying with Sections 1007.3 and 1022 or an elevator complying with Section
1007.4. Where an elevator lobby is used as an area of refuge, the shaft and lobby shall comply with Section 1022.9 for
smokeproof enclosures except where the elevators are in an area of refuge formed by a horizontal exit or smoke barrier.

(Quoted sections from the 2009 International Building Code)

Nobody ever designs a building to withstand a fully loaded airplane to hit it.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

And that would be?

Exactly: what would that be?

After all, WTC7 was not a straw hut, and if other buildings in the vicinity did not collapse from the debris...

Originally Posted by Alma

Exactly: what would that be?

After all, WTC7 was not a straw hut, and if other buildings in the vicinity did not collapse from the debris...

LOL

There are plenty of pictures out there of WTC 7 on fire.

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/wtc7fire1.jpg

Since you claim it wasn't on fire, what do you think that orange stuff coming out the windows is?

Again, what do you thing happened? You got answers to your question, now it is your turn to answer. Please stop evading.

Matt

Originally Posted by tsquare

Nobody ever designs a building to withstand a fully loaded airplane to hit it.

"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters

Originally Posted by MattInFla

LOL

There are plenty of pictures out there of WTC 7 on fire.

Since you claim it wasn't on fire, what do you think that orange stuff coming out the windows is?

Again, what do you thing happened? You got answers to your question, now it is your turn to answer. Please stop evading.

Matt

I did not say it didn't have fires or that it did not collapse. I said that what happened to it did not happen because of the "debris" or suchlike.

I unswered your question: the thing that happened to the twin towers happened to WTC7.

Originally Posted by Alma

"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."

They were wrong weren't they?

Nothing is better than testing... and no building was ever tested in this way.

However you did note that:

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire.

This, written 40 years before, kills off the conspiracy nuts...

I was going to say this at first, but in re-reading the report, I didn't see where they said it, but this bears mention:

The failure of the secondary members likely came at the connections, not the members themselves. Rarely does a beam fail. Even less likely is for a column to fail. What does fail is the connection. The welds or bolts that hold one member to another. These, generally of high strength steel will hold, but the area around them often will not. There is just too much localized stress for it to handle and then if pulls out and the connection fails.

Attack the connections and any building fails...

Originally Posted by tsquare

They were wrong weren't they?

Says who? Those who said the hijackers that are still alive flew into the buildings?
A "horrendous fire" doesn't demolish a building into its footprint.

The towers were supposed to withstand the collision of loaded airliners, but they didn't account for the large amounts of jet fuel a cross country flight would be carrying. And the fireproofing wasn't up to code anymore and needed maintenance.

But back to the original question, what was the plan for dealing with a skyscraper fire of that nature and how long would it have taken to put out the fire and get everyone out of the buildings?

And I'll add a second question since you guys are taking too long to answer my first.

If they'd put out the fires, how long would it have taken to repair the buildings?

Originally Posted by Alma

I did not say it didn't have fires or that it did not collapse. I said that what happened to it did not happen because of the "debris" or suchlike.

I unswered your question: the thing that happened to the twin towers happened to WTC7.

You certainly did say WTC7 was not on fire:

Originally Posted by Alma

Debris?! They were everywhere, and the fire was not burning in WTC7...

Anyway, this thread isn't about silly conspiracy theories. If you cannot answer the questions the OP asked, then don't try to derail the thread.