Pentagon Attacks

[ISpentHowMuch]

An interesting media file on the Pentagon attacks on September 11

http://pixla.px.cz/pentagon.swf

[The Fruity Hare]

check out snopes for more information

[The Fruity Hare]

Where they debunk urban myths and other unsubstantiated stories

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[baci2004]

So if it was a missle, what does that tell us or prove??

[shinyam]

A government cover up.

[The Shake]

Originally posted by baci2004
So if it was a missle, what does that tell us or prove??

Well, since it was a plane, it doesn't tell us or prove anything.

[Goober Mcfly]

Originally posted by baci2004
So if it was a missle, what does that tell us or prove?? What if it was a car-bomb? Or a guy with really bad gas? Or what if the Pentagon wasn't really attacked, and all the reporters and the military people were all actors on a sound stage in Hollywood and the Pentagon that we saw with a smoking hole in it was actually a remarkably detailed scale model?

*adjusts tin-foil hat*

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by Goober Mcfly
Or a guy with really bad gas?

*adjusts tin-foil hat*

I was nowhere near the Pentagon that day.

[AimlessWonderer]

http://terb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62889

[Goober Mcfly]

From the thread hdog posted
I understand that DNA disappears above 120 degrees Fahrenheit.

Hahahahahahahaha! That's why they can't solve any murders in Phoenix AZ!

*polishes tin-foil hat again*

People, what's harder to believe? That a bunch of religious nutjobs hijacked a bunch of airliners and crashed them into buildings, or that there is a vast government conspiracy which involved technological advances never discussed before, secrets being kept by thousands of people and a government nutty enough to kill thousands of their own for very little gain?

*pokes Occam with a razor*

[langeweile]

Some of theses rumours supports one of my favorite theories.
Pot might be harmless, but it does make you paranoid. Scary to think that some former pot users are in position of power now...AAARRGGGHHH.
Some of the more persistent theories are from the 60's and 70's...yikes
Current posters are excluded...I hope...

[happygrump]

Originally posted by hdog
First, the fires simply weren't hot enough.
They only had to be hot enough to cause the trusses between the floors to collapse. Heated metal weakens, but the metal doesn't have to melt to break down.

Originally posted by hdog
For the FEMA endorsed pancake theory to be correct would still require more heat than was present and in order for a floor to fall hundreds of joints had to break simultaneously.
Wrong again. Only one floor has to collapse. The mass of the floors above the collapsed floor acts as a ram to the floor beneath the collapsed floor, which rams the floor beneath that, and so on, adding mass and energy as it falls. High school physics, my friend: F=ma.

Originally posted by hdog
And at the rate the buildings fell there had to be almost no resistance at any floor.
See above.

Originally posted by hdog
And as improbable as all that is it still doesn't explain where the energy came from to cause the bulidings to spew debris and to turn the concrete to powder.
Actually, it does. The force of all that mass collapsing from that height is plenty.

Remember that when we watch the controlled destructions of buildings on TV (or, if you're lucky enough, in real life), the charges that collapse the buildings are relatively small. The mass of the building and the height from which the buildings fall creates enough energy to demolish the structure.


Originally posted by hdog
Then add the seizmograph readings before the towers fell, the survivor and eye-witness reports of bombs going off in the towers...
Haven't heard about the siesmographs readings, but enough material was burning in the buildings that undoubtedly there were bursting water tanks, electrical panels and so forth.

Originally posted by hdog
rubble and steel was hauled away (by the same company that demolished a buried, under 24 hour guard, the federal building in the Oklahoma city bombing case) without a proper investigation.
All the steel that was gathered from the site was put in a holding area while the investigtations were taking place. I think it was in an area of Battery Park, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

The shadowy world of conspiracy theorists is one that does not allow for reason and good sense. Any evidence to the contrary of the so-called conspiracy automatically generates accusations of being involved in the conspiracy. There's no way for reason to prevail.

[Ranger68]

ROTFLMFAO!
Oh, mercy.
*sniff*
That made my day.
LOL
I'm gonna be laughing for days.
:D

[Ranger68]

Thanks, hdog.
LOL

[Exclusive]

first of all, that snopes thing is bull. aluminum can't "burn up". the most it can do is melt. aluminum would have to reach a temperature of about 2700 degrees fahrenheit to "burn up". 2700 degrees fahrenheit is the approximate boiling point of aluminum. boiling point is the temperature in which a liquid turns to a gas. so to burn up, or not be seen it would have to turn to a gas. if only melted, aluminum would become solid again and clearly visible shortly after. the fires would be making the metal too hot. it would have to be cleaned up in buckets, and u'd still see lots of glowing red melted aluminum on the lawn. there is none. and once the fires go out... the aluminum will become solid again.


They only had to be hot enough to cause the trusses between the floors to collapse. Heated metal weakens, but the metal doesn't have to melt to break down.

weeken it yes... but you must remember... buildings are built to be MUCH stronger than they need to be. it's a rule of artichitecture. now first of all... like hdog said, the fuel for the most part burnt up immediately. after the fuel is gone, ur left with fires of about 500 degrees fahrenheit... that's NOTHING to steel. steel could take that like a kevlar vest takes a tiny .22 derenger... now even IF it was possible to collapse like that... you'd FIRST noticably see the building start to buckle...
now historical example: 1992 (i think) there was a building fire in philadlphia, EIGHT floors were COMPLETELY on fire... raging in flames... it did not collapse after hours and hours of being on fire. it was a building similar to the size of WTC 7.

[/QUOTE]Wrong again. Only one floor has to collapse. The mass of the floors above the collapsed floor acts as a ram to the floor beneath the collapsed floor, which rams the floor beneath that, and so on, adding mass and energy as it falls. High school physics, my friend: F=ma.[/QUOTE]

first of all, you're using the wrong law. quiz for you: what has more force, an 11 lb. piece of steel resting on the ground, or a 10 lb. piece of metal that's been falling for 5 seconds and has reached a velocity of 49 m/s?
if you guessed the falling piece of metal at 49 m/s, you're wrong. F = ma. a = 9.8 whether ur falling or sitting still. it's called ur weight. i weigh 115 lbs. whether im sitting still or skydiving, falling thru the air.
now, to talk about MOMENTUM, which is what u meant to speak of. momentum = m*v. but after falling a mere 10 ft, an object will only be traveling 17.3 MPH. that's not very fast. HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS, MY FRIEND. that momentum, when hit the floor below will get distributed throughout the tower. now only the floor that collapses will collapse... the ones above it dont... according to the pancake theory... thats ONE floor hitting a floor below it. the energy of the falling floor will get distributed THROUGHOUT all the lower floors... dont forget u have about 80 floors below to distribute the energy too... and dont forget the structure of the towers... the support columns START at the bottom at a thickness of 2"... then taper away to 1/4 inch at the top... that's a LOT of steel on those lower 80 floors to get the energy distributed to. HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS, MY FRIEND.


Remember that when we watch the controlled destructions of buildings on TV (or, if you're lucky enough, in real life), the charges that collapse the buildings are relatively small. The mass of the building and the height from which the buildings fall creates enough energy to demolish the structure.

what you state here is correct. the charges are small. but the explosives create enough heat to melt steel. explosives create temperatures of about 3000 degrees fahrenheit. steel's melting point can be estimated at 2850 degrees fahrenheit. you also have to remember, MOST controlled demolitions set a charge at nearly every joint. that's because it's designed to blow out floor by floor, making it so all the steel gets broken up into small pieces, and the building falls into its footprint. the towers fell into their footprints.

Yours truly,
Exclusive

[Exclusive]

Haven't heard about the siesmographs readings, but enough material was burning in the buildings that undoubtedly there were bursting water tanks, electrical panels and so forth.

gimme a break... a truck rolling past would create more of a seismographic impression than a bursting water tank or an electrical pannel.

now as for the collapsing to dust. ONLY explosives could do that. nothing else. there wouldn't be so much of a dust cloud if it just collapsed. now also if it just collapsed, u'd see steel pieces as big as houses. dude, more physics for you: METAL IS MALLEABLE. this means that u have to bend it back and forth before you can break it. notice how when u take the tab off a soda can, u usually have to jiggle it back and forth. that's the idea. u would get very uneven pieces of steel, some as big as houses if an actual collapse like they see did happen. think about that one. the steel was in pieces like 10-20 ft long... u'd have partially assembled portions of steel there... they'd be bent, but still in tact.


The shadowy world of conspiracy theorists is one that does not allow for reason and good sense. Any evidence to the contrary of the so-called conspiracy automatically generates accusations of being involved in the conspiracy. There's no way for reason to prevail.

no. wrong. evidence is well taken. but being a physical scientifical person i am, i choose the smoking gun. SCIENCE is always the smoking gun... you could either believe the "religion" (govt's official story) or you could believe the clear scientific evidence.

Yours truly,
Exclusive

[Ranger68]

You guys just keep on coming.
LOL
Now you're passing yourselves off as scientists. LOL That may be more credible if you learned how to capitalize at the beginning of a sentence.
;)
ROTFLMFAO

[Exclusive]

now elaborating on the steel burning up thing. for something to actually catch on fire, that thing needs a HIGH carbon content. if you didnt know, the 2 products of fire are PURE carbon (soot, ash, smoke) and a gas, usually nitrogen. now metal can't catch on fire. the only way u can make it seem like it is is if u put an accelerant on it (ie oil, fuel, gasoline of some type). this will make it seem like the metal is on fire, when really the gasoline itself is on fire. once the gasoline stops burning, the fire will completely go out... and the metal will still be there intact, because the metal itself doesnt burn. after a few minutes the metal will cool, and if melted (like in aluminum's case, which has a fairly low melting point of around 600 or so degrees celcius...) it will harden again. thus metal doesnt burn up.

[Exclusive]

Originally posted by Ranger68
You guys just keep on coming.
LOL
Now you're passing yourselves off as scientists. LOL That may be more credible if you learned how to capitalize at the beginning of a sentence.
;)
ROTFLMFAO

i dont care about capitalizing at the beginning of sentences. im writing on a message board, not on an english essay that i'll be handing in. if you do not believe me, u can look up all the stuff i looked up and do the research that i took months doing...

[strange1]

Originally posted by Exclusive
... dude, more physics for you: METAL IS MALLEABLE. this means that u have to bend it back and forth before you can break it. notice how when u take the tab off a soda can, u usually have to jiggle it back and forth. ...

Actually, maleable means that the material can be worked, specificaly made into a flat sheet. The bending back and forth is called fatigue. As you cold work a metal (such as bending a pop can tab), you are actually changing the physical properties of the metal, making it more brittle as the bending creates internal heat.

The pancake theory for the WTC has nothing to do with the floor hitting the floor together. The design of the WTC used the floors as a load bearing member, holding the walls together. When one floor collapsed, the floor below is subjected to extra stress. After one or two floors fall, the remaining floors are stressed beyond their maximum strength.

I don't have the data in front of me but i'm pretty sure contained jet fuel fed with ample oxygen burns much hotter than 500 F.

[Exclusive]

Originally posted by strange1
I don't have the data in front of me but i'm pretty sure contained jet fuel fed with ample oxygen burns much hotter than 500 F.

correct you are. jet fuel burns at around 800 degrees celcius i believe... which is 1492 degrees fahrenheit i think (correct me if im wrong... that's a mental calculation). but my point is that is still far short of what is required to turn aluminum into a gas (2600 degrees fahrenheit). the only way to make aluminum dissappear would be to turn it into a gas. and like i said b4... the stress of ONE floor crashing down on another would not be nearly enough... for the energy would get distributed throughout the lower 80 floors.

[Goober Mcfly]

TLC had a great analysis in a program called World Trade Centre - The Anatomy of a Collapse. They interviewed the architect of the towers who admitted the design flaw that ultimately led to their demise. Namely, not seeing that some religious nutjobs would crash a fuel-laden 757 into them.

I hate agreeing with Ranger68, but you guys are killing me as well...

[Exclusive]

Originally posted by strange1
Actually, maleable means that the material can be worked, specificaly made into a flat sheet.

maleable simply means metal will bend before breaking. this is because of the way the electrons flow thru the metal. in a metallic substance, electrons flow thru all atoms, instead of just confined to each molecule of the substance. this is what makes metal maleable, AND makes metal a good conductor of electricity.

[strange1]

But 800 C is enough to change structural steel's properties enough to cause faliure, especially as the steel beams were designed to be as lightweight as possible. WTC had far lower factors of safety than traditionaly desugned buildings.

Please re-read my statement about the pancake theory. It has nothing (or little) to do with the crashing. It's the ability of the other floors to compensate for the missing piece that is the problem. The stresses do get distributed over all the floors but are far more concentrated on the floor below and to a slightly lesser extent above). As the floor fails, the walls beside the missing floor begin will begin to oscillate because of the various forces acting on it, causing a dramatic increase in dynamic loading to the adjacent floors structural members. The dynamic loading causes significant extremes of force (ever seen video of the wobbly bridge?) which exceeds the strength of the floor below. Once that floor fails, the floor below has to compensate for two missing structural members and fails faster. This continues untill catastrophic failure.

[strange1]

from hyper dictionary.

Webster's 1913 Dictionary

Definition:

\Mal"le*a*ble\, a. [F. mall['e]able, fr. LL. malleare
to hammer. See {Malleate}.]
Capable of being extended or shaped by beating with a hammer,
or by the pressure of rollers; -- applied to metals.

The property you are looking at is

Brittle \Brit"tle\, a. [OE. britel, brutel, AS. bryttian to
dispense, fr. bre['o]tan to break; akin to Icel. brytja, Sw.
bryta, Dan. bryde. Cf. Brickle.]
Easily broken; apt to break; fragile; not tough or tenacious

Malleabe and brittle are often but not always antonyms

The electrons are the reason for conduction but it's not that simple for malleability. Metals are malleable because there is no natural affinity for the atoms to remain in place with respect to each other (referred to as plastic flow). Brittle substance are usually so because there is an ionic structure that prevents the individual atoms from being rearranged without causing a failure.

[Exclusive]

i understand u... but for the little amount of time that the fires were that hot wasnt enough to change the steel's properties. once the jet fuel's done burning out it goes to about 300 degrees celcius... and like i said.... structural steel takes 300 degrees celcius like i'd take a 7 yr old punching me in the arm. it just dont do nothin to it. STEEL is designed to be lightweight. steel is an iron alloy. it is formed by taking out all the heavy impurities, like carbon at certain levels. steel is lighter and stronger than iron. period.

[Exclusive]

http://66.200.92.141/christop/chem12-13/sld033.htm

^ maybe that will clear things up about the malleability of metal and why it is malleable. like i said, the electrons allow the molecules in metal to slide past each other.

[Goober Mcfly]

These conspiracy theory people make me laugh.

On one hand, they say that an airplane could never have made enough damage to collapse the WTC. On the other, they say that there wasn't enough damage at the Pentagon to prove that it was a plane that hit it.

Make up your damn minds.

WTC: The planes took out structural members. Not all of them, mind you, but a bunch of them. The building were never designed to hold themselves up without a certain amount of their structural support members. The fires that raged for over 50 minutes (for the first collapsing tower) weakened the remaining structural support at the impact floor. They collapsed. The top 20-odd floors moved downward, picking up speed, increasing the weight on the lower floors. To say that this was "absorbed by the lower 80 floors" is ludicrous. The entire weight of the top 20 floors first fell upon the next-highest floor, which was also weakened by fire. Then the whole mess kept going down and by the time they hit the parts of the building that were not affected by the fire, the weight was too great and the inertia too much for it to stop collapsing.

Pentagon: The plane's aluminum bits were still in the wreckage of the Pentagon. They didn't "burn up". They were destroyed by running into the equivalent of, what, 20-30 feet of solid concrete wall.

Sheesh! :rolleyes:

[strange1]

The fact that a large chunk of a couple off floors was destroyed by the actual crash means that the steel didn't have to be significantly altered. The actual theory produce by experts is that as the walls bowed outwards as the beams sagged. The shorter length of the floor beams cause increased shearing on the bolts attaching the floors to the walls.

Please don't condecend. From my posts, you must be able to tell that I'm well versed in science and structures. I would therefore be well aware of the composition and differing properties of various types of steel. Steel is actually formed by ADDING other substances. For example, structural steel is about 95% iron with carbon, manganese, chromium and a few others. If you removed everything, it would just be iron.

[strange1]

Aluminum from the plane would have melted at about 630 C and would have turned into globules of varying size. These globules would have melted into the concrete and have been ground up by the rescue vehicle so there wouldn't be big chunks of it lying around.

[Exclusive]

Originally posted by Goober Mcfly
These conspiracy theory people make me laugh.

On one hand, they say that an airplane could never have made enough damage to collapse the WTC. On the other, they say that there wasn't enough damage at the Pentagon to prove that it was a plane that hit it.

Make up your damn minds.

no. what im saying is for 80 tons of aluminum doesnt dissapear. there was no pictures of any wreckage anywhere at the pentagon. i think 80 tons of aluminum, human remains, and wat not would be recovered somewhere.

now like i said... to make steal from iron, they put iron in a furnace, and PUMP oxygen at the bottom, to make the fire hotter... and that burns out all the carbon and impurities. THEN carbon can be added at various levels to make strength. i know my stuff too guy.

[Goober Mcfly]

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

Unless, of course, you think that the University of Sydney, Australia is under US Gov't control too, in which case I'll just call you a raving nutter and try instead to go convince the Inuit to purchase freezers...

[strange1]

Exclusive, I'm impressed that you joined us only to bask in conspiratical glory.

[papasmerf]

Hmmmmmmmm

what if the aluminum was a 356 alloy with a high magnisium content???

[strange1]

papa, just because you asked

http://www.efunda.com/materials/alloys/aluminum/show_aluminum.cfm?ID=AA_356.0&prop=all&Page_Title=356%2E0

[papasmerf]

Thank you

[Exclusive]

http://www.rense.com/general59/mega.htm

let's see how many ppl step up to claim that prize. ill bet u anything nobody claims it.

[strange1]

By the way, I just had a frozen dinner that was in a plastic bowl with plastic film that didn't melt in the oven at 375. Must be the american military-industrial complex hiding the truth (that plastics don't melt) to cover up for the bin ladens and the bushs oil conglomorates.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by strange1
By the way, I just had a frozen dinner that was in a plastic bowl with plastic film that didn't melt in the oven at 375. Must be the american military-industrial complex hiding the truth (that plastics don't melt) to cover up for the bin ladens and the bushs oil conglomorates.



Could just be it is doped with other compounds

[strange1]

I'll offer $100,000 to anyone that can provide a that you're not all figments of my imagination.

No one will be able to collect the prize. The proofs would all require assumptions based on the tooo many variables that could affect the calculations. (ie. heat concentrations, amount of insulation left after the impact, the extent of the damage, etc)

Even with a complete reconstruction of the WTC from the original damaged materials would only answer the most basic questions. The review team will be justified in claiming atheory is invalid if there are any assumptions at all.

[strange1]

Originally posted by papasmerf
Could just be it is doped with other compounds

But but but ...

A design axiom. KISS
Conspiracy nut always complain if the explanations too simple and then don't take the time if the explanations too detailed.

I think it's made of alien plastic from area 51. LOL

[assoholic]

..you guys laugh all you want I know zilch about Physics, but it certainly is not too hard to tell on this board who knows what they are talking about. Ranger you kill me, you seem to know a little about history I would have suspected you would recognize and appreeciate when somebody else comes on and tells us about something they know. In this case Physics. You know nothing of course so you insult him instaed. Boo Hoo Hoo all you want, 9/11 was our Kennedy assassination , and once again we are just going to let the govt get away with it, and swallow their pathetic lies, thanks alot Hdog and Exclusive. Great post !

[Goober Mcfly]

*spits 7-UP out his nose*

[Ranger68]

Dude, I majored in Physics.
Nice try, though.
:)
I could point out all the flaws in those retarded postings, but I just don't have the inclination.
Of course, this isn't PHYSICS this is *STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING* we're talking about.
Anyway, have a nice night.
LOL

[assoholic]

..uh uh surrreee you could.Like I said I know Zilch about Engineering or Physics. But I will have that nice night thanks.

[zzap]

There are many other Government cover-ups like those of Alien visitors from outer space, Bigfoot, Yeti, Yowie, Sasquatch, and the Skunk Bush Ape Man. I find this more alarming then that of 9/11. You would think that the Bush administration would not care to find out more about the Skunk George Bush Ape Man!

[strange1]

Unfortunately our laws say women must cover-up their bush. Thank god for strip clubs.

[assoholic]

..gee you guys really refuted his arguements, good one. Your knowledge is truly a sight to behold.

[strange1]

So is your sarcsam. Perhaps you should re-read the posts from before we got silly. It may be difficult to follow without a background in the material which is what the conspiracy pseudo-scientists depend on. Lots of theories make sense untill you understand enough of the actual science.

[assoholic]

..I read them and your right I have no background so it is not easy to follow, what is easy to follow however is how most of you side step the points he raises.

[strange1]

Lets see exclusive's points.

- weakened metal, metal on fire - addressed. Only has to be weakened enough to stress other members.

- factor of safety - addressed. WTC had a lower than normal factor of safety du to the need to keep the structure as light as possible. Add to that the large chunks missing because of the crash.

- panckae theory - addressed. Dynamic loading and excessive forces on consecutive adjacent members. The debris that fell in the time expected for freefall was just that, debris. With all the dust, It would be extremely difficult to see how long it took the floors to fall.

- aluminum in the pentagon. - Ok, not huge amount of explanation possible without access to the site but it is feasible that melted aluminum was mixed with all the other debris. This is the only point that was sidestepped for lack of evidence. overall, science looks for evidence, not conjecture and there is more than enough evidence to deal with all the other theories.

From a political slant, what reason would the us blow up or cover up a bomb or rocket attack, especially on such short notice?

[assoholic]

..well the answer is so obvious I am supriseed you asked it. To be given a blank cheque by the American people, which they have almost used up, I think and hope.

[Ranger68]

Dude, if you weren't so retarded, I might consider wasting more time on your nonsense.

Saying that, from a Grade 12 or 13 knowledge of phyics, you can talk authoritatively about the collapse of a building is like saying knowledge of mathematics let's you talk authoritatively about the general theory of relativity.

LOL

[Asterix]

assoholic,

There have been times when you've made good points, but you're so far out on a limb here....elementary physcis apply afterall. Try not to hit the ground too hard. And here I thought the global warming thread was getting silly.

[Exclusive]

Originally posted by strange1
- factor of safety - addressed. WTC had a lower than normal factor of safety du to the need to keep the structure as light as possible. Add to that the large chunks missing because of the crash.

do u have proof of that? from what i've heard, the towers, like all buildings were built lots stronger then they need to be. u know around the WW II period, a B-17 (i think) crashed into the empire state building.... did that collapse?

now hwat do u say about building 7??? it collapsed like a controlled demolition yet no plane ever hit it... it had a few minor fires... and that building was the most recent... built in 1987... how the hell does a few office fires make building 7 collapse when a fire that CONSUMED 8 floors of a philadelphia building of similar dimensions didnt make it collapse? explain that to me. explain how the hilton hotel across the street from the towers only suffered minor damage, yet WTC7, 200 yards AWAY from the towers, collapsed. explain please!

[Goober Mcfly]

*books appointment with Agloolik and Arnakua'gsak*

[strange1]

I'm getting the impression that people (assoholic, exclusive) think that the US intentionally blew up the WTC and killed a few thousand americans as an excuse to go somewhere else and get some more americans killed. This is too fu**ed up for me. I'm out. Goober, I'll carry the freezers.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Exclusive
do u have proof of that? from what i've heard, the towers, like all buildings were built lots stronger then they need to be. u know around the WW II period, a B-17 (i think) crashed into the empire state building.... did that collapse?

now hwat do u say about building 7??? it collapsed like a controlled demolition yet no plane ever hit it... it had a few minor fires... and that building was the most recent... built in 1987... how the hell does a few office fires make building 7 collapse when a fire that CONSUMED 8 floors of a philadelphia building of similar dimensions didnt make it collapse? explain that to me. explain how the hilton hotel across the street from the towers only suffered minor damage, yet WTC7, 200 yards AWAY from the towers, collapsed. explain please!

Actually there was a hour program either on PBS or the Discovery Channel, that adressed the very same issue.
i am not an engineer, but from what I understood, the collapse was due, to what you could almost classify as a design flaw.
The basic structure looked like a house of cards, once on part of the structure gave way, the rest literally imploded.

Common sense would tell me that the designer of the building never allowed for a 767 to hit the building. Back then that was just to far fetched.
Rest asssure those calculations will be part of the new design.

[Goober Mcfly]

Originally posted by strange1
I'm out. Goober, I'll carry the freezers. Nootaikok ordered a freezer, but his wife Tekkeitsertok would have Nunavut.

[assoholic]

..the Towers were not built very long ago, they specifically were built with the possibility of a commercial jet crashing into them.

[langeweile]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

It was Nova on PBS that had the story of the collapse.

[Asterix]

An article from Architecture Week. Essentially the overheated trusses pushed out the outer walls, became detached, and the buildings collapsed like a house of cards.

http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0515/news_1-1.html

[Peeping Tom]

This is not the case, especially when large amounts of stress are involved. There is a safety factor but not overkill. Using a larger than required section of steel increases the likelyhood of cracks, which one most certainly doesn't want in a highly stressed member. Dislocations move throughout the metal and dissapear if they make it to the surface. The longer the distance the more likely it is that they get stuck at a microstructural anomaly. This results in a high localized stress and the probability of forming a crack. This is why wire rope is much stronger than solid section, Likewise for anisotropic structure and monocrystalline metal products.


Originally posted by Exclusive

from what i've heard, the towers, like all buildings were built lots stronger then they need to be.

[Peeping Tom]

The towers survived the impact just fine, as designed for, standing for about an hour afterwards. IIRC the impact was more severe than McVeigh's blast in Oklahoma City. The WTC was done in by a massive fire.


Originally posted by assoholic

..the Towers were not built very long ago, they specifically were built with the possibility of a commercial jet crashing into them.

[Cardinal Fang]

Originally posted by assoholic
..the Towers were not built very long ago, they specifically were built with the possibility of a commercial jet crashing into them.

Construction of the building started in 1966 and the building officially opened in 1973. Since the time the construction drawings were approved the state of New York has gone through 5 building code revisions. Each revision strengthened the existing standards of structural design as well as fire resistance ratings between occupancies. The building was designed to the standards of the time.

The building was designed to withstand a commercial jet of THE TIME. At the time the drawings were approved for construction, the 747 was still in design and the 757 wasn't even an idea. As a matter of fact the first 747 to go into service occurred in 1970. The first 757 and 767 was not in service until 1983 and 1987 respectively. The first DC10 showed up in 1983. The airliners of the 1960's were smaller than those of the 1970's with much smaller fuel capacities than today’s airliners.

The structural collapse of the WTC is well documented and most if not all of the important findings have been noted in this thread. The bottom line is that the unique structure that formed the WTC was also its flaw. Oh yeah and the fire didn't help either.

[red]

Originally posted by Goober Mcfly
Nootaikok ordered a freezer, but his wife Tekkeitsertok would have Nunavut.

you are blaming the inuit for the WTC collapse?

[strange1]

Originally posted by red
you are blaming the inuit for the WTC collapse?

Look out, the americans are invading the frozen north next.