Bronks argued well. He told you people put buildings together. He explained clearly to you that all the pieces are small. he told you people put in very small connectors to hold the pieces together. All connectors fail because of one reason. Exceeding the limits of elasticity after deformation. stated another way: excessive tension for the molecular condition extant at the time and duration the tension force is applied. Flocking included. A cardinal source of such tension is TORQUE in this case. The imploding was a succession of orderly bending and putting lateral tension on perimeter connectors. You may now solve the problem being presented to you. Here are the questions: 1. What were the relative times of the two collapses? 2. What was the primary influence on this result? Hint: Count the floors above impact points on two identical buildings. 3. Where was the most Stress and Strain placed on given connectors? 4. Where was the greatest molecular degradation (permanent and non restorative) to connectors occurring? 5. Are the answers to 3 and 4 coincident? Now turn to the "transfer" problem. 4. How was the design of the building done (focus on the floors you have determined in 2) to prevent the limits of elasticity of connectors from occurring in 3? Especially examine increasing size of elements to eliminate connectors in critical places. 5. Re-examine how the answer to 1. demonstrates that it was a foregone conclusion that the buildings would collapse even before the incident occurred except for what limiting case(s)? From this, determine what records to find and to look at to determine if the event planners gave proper instructions to the implimentors. Extra credit: a. At what altitude would flight 93 have to be disabled (open the hull) to deposit the fartherest found remote luggage (7 miles) of flight 93. b. Who was in the air at the time from Dayton?
"As instructed?" Kiss my ass again for the first time. Keep in mind that "research" on the internet can be a tricky thing. How am I to confidently separate the wheat from the chaff without committing serious time to the endeavor, seeing as how there is no lack of nut cases with web sites and their own agendas floating around on the internet? You can find web sites supporting just about any claim imaginable if you look long enough, and some of those sites will appear fairly authentic at first blush. Nah, I'll wait for the folks at 60 Minutes. What, exactly, are you doing about the matter other than alienating people like me?
Forget it T-dog, you're pushing a string with these conspiracy nuts.... The things people believe in are usually just what they instinctively feel is right; the justifications and arguments are the least important part of the belief. That's why you can win the argument, prove them wrong, and still they believe what they did in the first place. You've attacked the wrong thing. So what do you do? Agree to disagree. Or fight. - C. Zakalwe. They believe what they believe due to their hatred of Bush. No logical arguement will ever dissuade them.
Typical. Democrates and Republicans are owned. Clinton is just as guilty as Bush. Klinton waived multiple opportunities to have Bin Laden arrested and extradited to the US when he was the FBI's #1 most wanted criminal (during and after the Cole bombing). US Leadership needs an Emmanuel Goldstien to justify its relentless expansion into our lives by scaring the hell out of us. This is the 'military-industrial-complex' Eisenhower warned us about. But what does Eisenhower know? Obviously, not much.
Sure he did Thats great. Except the WTC was specifically designed to withstand a greater impact/fire than that experienced on 911. But I guess you know more about the WTCs redundant design then the onsite construction manager (engineer) who actually built it? See where this is going? The media conjures tautological theories as to why the Towers fell. On the other side, the WTC designers/engineers insist they had planned for such a disaster. Heres another clip of a stunned WTC architect, Aaron Swirski, interviewed on the mornings of 911 who reiterated the Towers were designed to withstand such an impact: http://www.jpradio.com/Archive/2001/09/11/asx/010911swi.asx But I guess such weighty conclusions should best be left to the head engineers and construction managers, like Frank DeMartini, whose credible opinion....uh..... also doesnt count!
oh here's another genius that probably doesnt even know that a third bldg fell that day. Lmaoooooooo where do you ppl come from?
Well what else are they gonna say?! "Duh, I designed a building that came down...But really, it wasn't supposed too!" Once they came down, the backpedaling begins. Cremminy sakes man! You really need to read the things you write. Besides all this, the buildings did what they were designed to do. STAY UP LONG ENOUGH TO BE EVACUATED. It's not anyones fault (except the murdering terrorists...oh, and THEY) someone decided to fly a freeking full size jet into the damn thing at 500 mph and cut off the emergency exits above it. You can't build a building around that. NOBODY knows what would happen, and if they did, it certainly would've been designed so. Then right off the bat you can lop about 95 stories from the equation.
Ha ha - Sorry guy, but my gf took one of the calls from flight 93. She was a deputy sheriff filling in at dispatch. She personally met the family afterwards. Went to Ground Zero. She had a hard time of it after meeting the family. She was even on tv for a couple of days. Realistically, I probably know more than you do. But to answer your question, I come from the real world. Unlike you, where you live in bizarro world.....
Take a look at the interview date with DeMartini whereupon he said the WTC could withstand a fully loaded 707 impact: January 25, 2001. Want me to hold your hand while we do the math together, too? That interview was given 7 months BEFORE 911. So much for your 'backpedaling' theory, huh? No, they were designed to withstand a fully loaded 707 impact, remember? The engineers said they did. BEFORE sept 11th even happened. I think the WTC engineers have a bit more credibility than you. What are you again? A carpenter? People far more qualified than yourself have weighed in and said otherwise. I am much more inclined to take their word for it then yours - since their experience eclipses yours by, I don't know, a million times?
Oh yea, and the chief onsite engineer (Frank DeMartini) who gave that interview: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6825174698620514684&q=WTC .....died in the towers on sept 11, helping people escape.