T Nation

WTC Engineered To Withstand Collision

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227

"Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world’s top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle’s downtown skyline and for several of the world’s tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling’s people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

“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. A lot of people would be killed,” he said. “The building structure would still be there.”

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

“I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”

They easily withstood the collision. It was the raging inferno that brought them down.

[/thread]

i never laughed so hard in my life when i heard rosie o’douchbag, when commenting on the conspiracy of the twin towers, say that for the first time in history, steel caught on fire and melted.

she obviously never spent any time in a foundry

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They easily withstood the collision. It was the raging inferno that brought them down.

[/thread][/quote]

He accounted for that. See his comment about the fuel dumping into the building. He’s saying a fire would not bring the building down. It would take an expert who knew what he was doing, not a random strike by a plane.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They easily withstood the collision. It was the raging inferno that brought them down.

[/thread]

He accounted for that. See his comment about the fuel dumping into the building. He’s saying a fire would not bring the building down. It would take an expert who knew what he was doing, not a random strike by a plane.

[/quote]

He is wrong. It was more than plane fuel. It was every combustible item in the towers that burned. He did an extremely poor analysis and he should refund his fee.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They easily withstood the collision. It was the raging inferno that brought them down.

[/thread]

He accounted for that. See his comment about the fuel dumping into the building. He’s saying a fire would not bring the building down. It would take an expert who knew what he was doing, not a random strike by a plane.

He is wrong. It was more than plane fuel. It was every combustible item in the towers that burned. He did an extremely poor analysis and he should refund his fee.[/quote]

Exactly. It was the overall fuel load of the structure that made for the extreme heat. At approximately 1000 degrees, steel structural members WILL warp/expand/and even melt. Structures, at this juncture, will fail and collapse. I have seen steel I beams expand and shoot through the sides of a commercial structure, and this was in a building with only ordinary fuel load. And let’s not forget that many of the steel structural members in the towers were not protected with the proper fire protection at that time due to past and present work. This is common in way too many structures.

There was a panel of MIT professors that debunked the conspiracy theories.

[sarcasm]Of course, they’re wrong in the mind of the conspiracy folks. They have to be, just have to be.

The truth is out there…[/sarcasm]

It’s nice to have some knowledgeable folks around here to help balance the tomfoolery.

No offence HH, I know you do most of this crap for giggles.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They easily withstood the collision. It was the raging inferno that brought them down.

[/thread]

He accounted for that. See his comment about the fuel dumping into the building. He’s saying a fire would not bring the building down. It would take an expert who knew what he was doing, not a random strike by a plane.

He is wrong. It was more than plane fuel. It was every combustible item in the towers that burned. He did an extremely poor analysis and he should refund his fee.[/quote]

Guess the skyline of Seattle is all poorly designed too. I’m sure he never thought that there would actually be combustible material inside the many buildings he put up. Who’d think of that?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They easily withstood the collision. It was the raging inferno that brought them down.

[/thread]

He accounted for that. See his comment about the fuel dumping into the building. He’s saying a fire would not bring the building down. It would take an expert who knew what he was doing, not a random strike by a plane.

He is wrong. It was more than plane fuel. It was every combustible item in the towers that burned. He did an extremely poor analysis and he should refund his fee.

Guess the skyline of Seattle is all poorly designed too. I’m sure he never thought that there would actually be combustible material inside the many buildings he put up. Who’d think of that?

[/quote]

I am not sure you know what a structural engineer is.

Or gargle on some 00 buckshot for his blood libel.

I agree with this guys logic on the issue.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

That article was written in 1993. If you could do the math you would have noticed that is eight years before 9/11/20001 and it is not a commentary on 9/11.

When they designed the WTC they did not design it to be hit by a plane that had just taken off with a full fuel load. They did their calculations on a plane that was about to land with most of it’s fuel gone.

HH if you are trying to make point you have failed.

And what about the speed in which the planes hit the buildings. Was that taken into consideration?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They easily withstood the collision. It was the raging inferno that brought them down.

[/thread]

He accounted for that. See his comment about the fuel dumping into the building. He’s saying a fire would not bring the building down. It would take an expert who knew what he was doing, not a random strike by a plane.

He is wrong. It was more than plane fuel. It was every combustible item in the towers that burned. He did an extremely poor analysis and he should refund his fee.

Guess the skyline of Seattle is all poorly designed too. I’m sure he never thought that there would actually be combustible material inside the many buildings he put up. Who’d think of that?

I am not sure you know what a structural engineer is.[/quote]

I’m not sure you read the link. I’m also convinced that no amount of evidence whatsoever would change your mind, even if Bush went on national TV and said it was an inside job. You’d put it down to job stress or a cocaine flashback or whatever.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
They easily withstood the collision. It was the raging inferno that brought them down.

[/thread]

He accounted for that. See his comment about the fuel dumping into the building. He’s saying a fire would not bring the building down. It would take an expert who knew what he was doing, not a random strike by a plane.

He is wrong. It was more than plane fuel. It was every combustible item in the towers that burned. He did an extremely poor analysis and he should refund his fee.

Guess the skyline of Seattle is all poorly designed too. I’m sure he never thought that there would actually be combustible material inside the many buildings he put up. Who’d think of that?

I am not sure you know what a structural engineer is.

I’m not sure you read the link. I’m also convinced that no amount of evidence whatsoever would change your mind, even if Bush went on national TV and said it was an inside job. You’d put it down to job stress or a cocaine flashback or whatever.

[/quote]

lol.

Since I have not yet seen a shred of credible evidence that points to anything other than a plane crash bringing down the towers I think you need to start worrying about yourself and not me.

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
I agree with this guys logic on the issue.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

[/quote]

This brings up an important point. Where do we see people getting knocked off for government malfeasance? Russia. The Russian government has no qualms about knocking off whistleblowers. If our government had no qualms about “staging” 9/11, then it should have no problem making those “film makers” disappear.