#7. To: christine, kawika, titorite, Fred Mertz (#1)(Edited)
This mainly focused on the WTC7 collapse which I thought was well-understood as having been "pulled," as per its owner. Evidently that's still not widely nor officially recognized. Big, big insurance crime looks like to me. And to set that up in advance would have been quite a feat, not something to do on the day of the main towers' incident.
Here he gets to some interesting criticism of the official (NIST?) analysis of the north WTC tower's collapse: they say the pancaking of an upper block of the building brought it down, but video evidence shows that it basically flaked apart and went into free fall.
He moves on to talk about explosions that were heard at the ground level.
I think the planes were CGI mixed with real explosions. No planes. Aluminum can not cut steel under any circumstance not ever.
T: The sides of the building were lightly reinforced aluminum and would have been easy for a plane to enter. Your CGI theory is pretty complicated. A lot of people saw the planes, which didn't have to be flying at 500mph to reach their destinations. Also, we do not know who was piloting the aircraft or their talents. There's been a lot of conjecture that is impossible to prove or disprove. We should all be wary about those things and stick to the known facts, which at this point are many but still murky in important places.
Another interesting item (I'm sure the rest of you know) is that the engineers determined that particles of nanothermite were found at the site (along with?) other substances that they believe were manufactured by advanced defense contractors and only available to the military.
What I liked best about this clip was the analytical nature of the dialog, and the fact that it was on C-SPAN live without apparent censorship.
The sides of the building were lightly reinforced aluminum
And the columns that the aluminum were faceted to were vacuumed compressed Steel.
So what are you trying to push? No offense but the outter parimter was not "lightly reenforced"
It was reenforced with vacuum compressed steel. The archetech of the building designed them to withstand 747 hits because of the empire state building hit.
Say whatever you like but provide some proof if IF you can prove even one instance of alumininum cutting steel in any other instance.... becausde I bet you can't. Because it aint possible. Never happened before or since... NO comparisons. THis is physics. Ya dig?
I'm not saying that the building was knocked down by the aircraft itself. The 747 did not exist at the time of the building's design or even by the beginning of construction. The design goal was to minimize damage and avoid toppling of the building due to airliner strikes. One wouldn't imagine that the "design specifications" against aircraft strikes included a requirement that no entry into the building by the plane in question be permitted. The architect wouldn't have dared to be on any of the surrounding floors during a live test, for example.
There's a fallacy in the argument that aluminum never cuts steel. Imagine a thin sheet of steel like tinfoil. Now take an aluminum ball and hurl it at the steel sheet with a rubber-band slingshot or even an air gun. The thicker you make the steel sheet, the harder you'll have to fire the aluminum ball at the sheet for it to penetrate. Eventually, it will fail to break and "bounce" off. But until the sheet is much thicker, a dent will still be visible. No matter how thick you make the sheet, the aluminum ball will leave a mark if fired hard enough. Compared to the relative strength of the building's external shell, the force of a plane at a few hundred MPH could readily damage and even penetrate steel with the correct conditions.
Although the reinforcement steel may have seemed thick at first glance, it was probably well under the thickness needed to withstand aircraft penetration into the building. If you have any engineering studies to present that contradict this conclusion, I'd take a look of course.
In the following interview clip, which took place inside of the Twin Towers on January 25, 2001, and aired on the 7th Season of the History Channel's Series "Modern Marvels" on June 25, 2001, Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management, explains how the Twin Towers were "designed" to withstand the impact of a "fully-loaded Boeing 707." He also goes on to say that each of the Twin Towers would "probably sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door: this intense grid; and, the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing this screen netting; it really does nothing to the screen netting."
It is interesting to note that the planes that slammed into the Twin Towers were Boeing 767s, which have a maximum take-off weight of 300,000 pounds, slightly less than the 330,000-pound maximum of the Boeing 707, making them slightly smaller than the planes the architects designed the Twin Towers to withstand the impacts of.
Sadly, Frank DeMartini is not available for comment because he perished in the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.
Thanks Lod: I thought it was designed to withstand a 707. He even says the plane would act like a pencil puncturing a screen door net; it would leave the overall screen intact. It would, he thought, tolerate multiple plane hits.
Thanks Lod: I thought it was designed to withstand a 707. He even says the plane would act like a pencil puncturing a screen door net; it would leave the overall screen intact. It would, he thought, tolerate multiple plane hits.
Their weren't multiple hits. Each tower was only hit once. Save the 3rd tower which was never hit at all.
