100 Million Americans Question Official 911 Story

by sammielee24 217 Replies latest members politics

• 

  bohm

  It appears that i am in error.

  There has apparently been made two studies regarding the safety of the WTC. One by Robertson and one by Skilling, both in the 60's. Robertsons study seem to be about a low-velocity impact and did not model the effect of the fuel, while Skillings study was regarding a high-velocity impact with roughly 90m^3 fuel - the planes contained 34m^3 in comparison. The details of the study took up 3 pages and the methology and detail in modelling is lost since the paper and copy was kept with the rest of the documentation in WTC1 and WTC7 (ju-bi-duh). NIST, ofcourse, conclude that Skilling did not model the fire properly which also appear difficult without an extensive model, infact i have read that NIST fire model has been critisized for the same.

  See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#cite_note-12

  Sorry, i was unaware that multiple studies had been performed.

  UPDATE: It appear you have allready found the study :-).
• 

  JWoods

  I don't see why anybody is arguing over studies on whether a plane could bring down the buildings.

  The planes hit the buildings and the buildings came down.

  That makes the study (or lack of a study) prior to the event irrelevant.
• 

  read good books

  don't see why anybody is arguing over studies on whether a plane could bring down the buildings.

  The planes hit the buildings and the buildings came down.

  That makes the study (or lack of a study) prior to the event irrelevant.

  I think the threads orginal question or argument of a while back is that nobody anticipated in the designing of the building that a jet flying into the building and major fire would occur certainly not the designers in the 60's and that isn't true. But even after 911 the government was running around saying we never anticipated this happening while there was an agency running mock drills of jet airplane attacks on the buildings almost right up until the day it happened.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  I don't know why I am doing this. Must be bored...

  ROUGH TIMELINE

  Jets flew into buildings. The buildings fell.

  Previous studies hypothesized on the theoretical affects of jets flying into the buildings as best they were known at the times. From here on out, real data exists of what happens when a jet full of fuel flys really, really fast into a skyscraper. Jet explodes, causes fire, melts steel, causes catastrophic failure of building, resulting in destruction of building.

  For the terminally bored and paranoid, there is the time consuming hobby of linking this to a vast government conspiracy that would have you believe that Bush Jr (of all people) in 9 months from the time of his inaguration was able to keep totally silent a secret plan that was the actual cause of 9/11. Thats right, Bush did it. Not Bin Laden. He masterminded this plot that never leaked to the press, and to this day, not a single person speaks of it.

  Yup.

  Back to being bored. I think I will watch Dancing With The Stars, or scratch.
• 

  read good books

  Jets flew into buildings. The buildings fell.

  Well if you read the above study in Boehms post Jeff one of the buildings designers Mr. Skilling said that they studied the buildings design and concluded that it would withstand a hit from a jet 707 going 600 miles an hour and the ensuing major fires would not cause it to collapse. let alone be reduced to powder. Now really if you think about it we can only conclude one of two things from this-

  A. People who design buildings don't know what their talking about.

  B. The reason all three Towers including the one, Building Seven, that wasn't hit by a plane fell into their own footprint at the near speed of gravity leaving nothing but dust just like a controlled demolition is... because it was a controlled demolition. (If you choose B. welcome to conspiracy world, welcome to 911 Truth.)
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  RGB, you have labored on this one caveat, that the engineers got it right in their estimates that the buildings could withstand the impact of a jet. Without any real evidence, only their own calculations.

  Substitute original WTC engineers for Jehovah, and you could be a JW.
• 

  bohm

  ATJ: I will give RGB that many '9/11 debunked' pages are seriously misleading in this aspect. When i did my original research i only ran into Leslie Robertson, and it was very much hinted at various sources that his report was the only one and the 600mph analysis was a fabrication; that is why i look rather foolish now.

  I dont think it change a lot in the big picture: Analysing the damage from an impact by a plane is difficult in itself, doing a proper calculation/simulation of what effect thermal expansion and weakening will have on the steel structure is very, very difficult - just getting a proper model of the temperature of the fire is a very debated subject!

  Since being able to withstand a plane impact was not an original design consideration, and Skillings work was only 3 pages out of 1200 total pages of documentation of the structural integrety of the buildings, i dont think to much should be read into the discrepancy of his conclusions and the official interpretation... but it is still a lesson that 'our' side also provide sloppy representation of the facts.

  grr.... I hate being wrong!
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Bohm, if you really want to start a legit conspiracy, one could successfully argue in the fashion of 9/11 conspirators that an engineer standing to make a shitload of $$ would be tempted to overly generalize the potential ability of his creation to withstand the effects of a jet flying into the buildings they are hoping to get approved so they can get paid on it.

  I have to say, the engineer is the last person I would believe in a scenario like this. He was the only person who got paid to say that his drawings would withstand a jumbo jets crashing, like anyone was going to argue with him? What were they going to do, fly a jet full of fuel into one of the buildings to see if he was right?

  Maybe thats what Bush wanted to see. Maybe it was all a bet.....
• 

  read good books

  RGB, you have labored on this one caveat, that the engineers got it right in their estimates that the buildings could withstand the impact of a jet. Without any real evidence, only their own calculations. Substitute original WTC engineers for Jehovah, and you could be a JW. a "JW" eh just for that Jeff your off my Christmas card list. I made many points about 911 on this thread not one caveat there Jeff, and there were more than one of the building designers who said the plane could take a jet crashing into it. But lets skip to results, a jet hit the building, fireman, police, first responders, all heard explosions from inside the building some even prior to the fall of the building. When in history of steel fires has a building been reduced to dust and rubble, not even the Mcormick fire did that Boehm I saw the picture, but if it's such a big frickin joke Jeff maybe you can explain to me why the BBC and CNN announced that building seven had fallen about an hour before it had, or how Larry Silverstein Building Sevens owner said he was going to "pull the building at 4:30" and it came down after that. A JW that's hitting below the belt, that's hitting below the knee. Maybe I should just go watch 'dancing with the stars' and forget it.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  You're right RGB. I mean it, I am sorry. That is a pretty bad insult around here. I should save it for when its merited. You didn't merit it. I was just being a smart ass. Mea culpa.

  I still don't agree with you, and I honestly think your arguements are silly at best. Having said that, you are entitled to your opinion. All the best!