Did The World Trade Center Collapse Collapse Because Of Unforeseen Design Flaws?

Submitted by: kalron27 1 month ago in News & Politics


I was away this weekend visiting with my dad and brought up the discussion occurring on this site about 9/11 conspiracies. He directed me to this series from PBS\NOVA. The first one in particular is an in-depth interview with the designer of the World Trade Center\Twin Towers. He explains in detail the "flaws" in his design that caused the collapse...and by "flaws" it means unforeseen circumstances, IE: Planes flying into the building intentionally. 

The designer has lived with guilt since then, always questioning what he could have done to prevent the collapse.  Other engineers share their thoughts and comfort him with the knowledge that his designs were revolutionary for the time and that no one could have predicted what occurred on 9/11. In addition, they acknowledge that his design actually saved thousands of lives by maintaining structural stability for as long as it did. 

The PBS/Nova series also debunks the 9/11 bomb theories here and goes into detail on information about the structure of metal that was used to build both towers here.

Now you know...and knowing is half the battle!

There are 79 comments:
Male 1,417
yep, completely.  Engineers SHOULD HAVE DESIGNED IT to have a fully fueld jumbo jet crash into it at hundreds of mile per hour.  What were they thinking???

lol

Automotive engineers need to start designing cars so you can crash into trees going 100 MPH too.  Totally inadequate design.
0
Reply
Male 1,018
A fine post to combat the mean spirited stupidity that has been going on. Though below it looks like someone should get back to their bridge if they don't  want to miss the second goat.
1
Reply
Male 5,476
marsii unfortunately it's not a fine post at all, but clearly a misguided one.  Though i understand deniers of the facts would have to dishonestly say it's a 'fine post'
0
Reply
Male 5,028
monkwarrior Troll can't recognize a troll joke about himself.
2
Reply
Male 5,476
markust123 Obviously i recognized a denier of the facts who was trying to insult, and exposed the flaws of their reasoning.  I understand you can't understand that though.
-1
Reply
Male 1,018
markust123 Be nice. He probably missed the 2nd goat for this.
1
Reply
Male 5,476
LIVE WTC7 REPORT BY THE ALASKA FAIRBANKS UNIVERSITY IS ON RIGHT NOW: CATCH IT WHILE YOU CAN: https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_nglk89c0

THE FOCUS: "DID FIRE CAUSE THIS BUILDING TO COLLAPSE"

Hit it up you science folks!

Deniers of science keep whining! 
0
Reply
Male 3,425
monkwarrior i made a recreation of the Titanic sinking with an icecube and a paper boat. SCIENCE!
2
Reply
Male 5,476
rumham pics or it didn't happen
0
Reply
Male 3,425
monkwarrior #BECAUSE SCIENCE!
2
Reply
Male 5,476
rumham like i said..
0
Reply
Female 407
monkwarrior Wait, did a moon hoax, flat-earth creationist just make a crack about deniers of science? Is that level of irony even legal?
4
Reply
Male 1,018
monkwarrior Yes but you need a permit. 
0
Reply
Male 5,476
DrCribbens I dont know, did you delude yourself into thinking i was such a person?  If so, it's really too bad for you.
0
Reply
Male 4,953
DrCribbens She shoots... and she SCOOOOOOORES!

Sorry, Monk, but Dr. Cribbens really did get off a zinger there.
2
Reply
Male 5,476
squrlz4ever unfortunately, only to those who have deluded themselves into believing a lie of what i think.
0
Reply
Male 3,425
monkwarrior wait you think? prove it
2
Reply
Male 5,476
rumham you think it doesn't take thoughts to neuter your trolls?
0
Reply
Male 3,425
monkwarrior i thought you ate trolls
0
Reply
Male 5,476
rumham neuter/eat trolls is quite similar.
0
Reply
Male 3,425
monkwarrior no one cares about your fetishes
0
Reply
Male 1,082
What happened to BECAUSE SCIENCE!!. I thought the original twin towers had massive 2X4s running up the middle of them.
2
Reply
Male 5,476
lockner01 perhaps the science of explosives, as many people have been inclined to agree with.  But ultimately this video is just a documentary on the new buildings, with a few digs at pushing lies in the early few moments as exposed below in my comment.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior BECAUSE SCIENCE!!
3
Reply
Male 5,476
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior Are you sure it's not snow and cardboard jets?
3
Reply
Male 5,476
lockner01 see for yourself, but don't dwell on trolling, you know it does you know good.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior Hey you're the one that posted the towers built out of snow that were destroyed by people jumping on them and then labelled them BECAUSE SCIENCE!!
2
Reply
Male 5,476
lockner01 deniers of facts often get confused about science, often caught up in the 'scientism' preached by western media delusions, which is anything but science.  That's why the facts the video presented went over your head.
0
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior Facepalm
3
Reply
Male 5,476
lockner01 i don't do that, but i know exactly what you mean when people like yourself deny the Newtonian laws surrounding 9/11.
0
Reply
Male 3,425
monkwarrior BECAUSE DERP!
1
Reply
Male 5,476
rumham intelligent response, not.
0
Reply
Male 3,425
monkwarrior cool beans
0
Reply
Male 5,476

The Main Feature:


First let it be known that David Childs actually wasn't the builder of the original WTC1 and 2, Minoru Yamasaki was, yet he's working on the new ones. So he can't speak about WTC1 and 2.

Childs: "No (they will not fall down), because i knew if they hadn't been knocked over they wouldn't fall down" @ 6:43  - Exactly!

Childs: "Never has a steel structure ever fallen down from a fire" @ 6:54 - Percisely!

PBS: "At 1800 degrees f, it's hot enough to weaken the steel structure" @ 7:13 Wrong!

PBS (speaking NIST's babble): "The steel gives way to the heat.. the truses begins to sag" @ 7:28  - Really?  Nope!

Childs: "Safety has always been a measure of how buildings are built" @ 8:22
Childs: "We needed to investigate and invent new ways to show how buildings could be built in the future" @ 8:54 No you didn't, they just shipped most of the 9/11 rubble away rather than examining the rubble to find out what happened, that sensible people like High Rise Safety Initiative wanted to do.

@ 21:15 Alice Greenwald, with no engineering or architectural understanding telling us about how architects and engineers understand things from what was stored of the debris, and goes on to say that they might be able to re-construct the events?  Architects and engineers already are talking about the explosive evidence.  Also independent investigators are examining the official report, the debunkers, and the evidence here, here and here.  In fact, About all that 'evidence', as was reported in N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02 - "Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage."  Even Alice  states @ 21:53 saying "what is in this hangar is less than 1% of what was there". Personally, it wouldn't surprise me if the bulk of the most incriminating 'cuts' would have been removed.

The remainder of the video goes into a show of how the new buildings were built.  

Link 2:

Shyam Sunder of NIST says that there was no explosive sound loud enough to have been an explosion that could have taken out one of these columns. Here is a recording of 2 of them:
https://youtu.be/CcRs1fv8i3I

The NIST team found no evidence that explosives were involved in the collapse.”

Because they didn’t LOOK. (NIST admitted they NEVER TESTED FOR EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE. “NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue and such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.”)

Our analysis shows that even the smallest explosive charge that was capable of bringing down the critical column in the building, had it occurred, we would have seen sound levels of 120 to 130 dbs, a half a mile away. That (could) have been an incredibly loud sound, and that sound was not picked up by any of the videos or the witnesses we have talked to.” -Shyam Sunder 

Perhaps Mr. Sunder never saw this video. Then again, maybe he is just full of baloneyhoo.

Link 3:

Just a link about metal, read it all, nothing in relation to 9/11, i suppose this is kalron27's 'appeal to authority' to try to prop up their now debunked main feature and Link 2.  To kal:  Nice attempt, but you really have nothing with this series.


Closing Thoughts:

So there you have it, all you whiners and complainers of the 3 part series that was previously shown on I-A-B.  This is how you can go about debunking a post, not by complaining and whining, or down voting like a teenager throwing a tantrum.

Want to find out what really happened on 9/11?  View that previous series on I-A-B, or go right ahead and view this other video on PBS.org/video, entitled "Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out"

You're welcome!



P.S: ALERT - HUGE BONUS CONTENT:

-2
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior "Childs: "Never has a steel structure ever fallen down from a fire""

Total lie. Period. Basic firefighter training teaches otherwise.

"PBS: "At 1800 degrees f, it's hot enough to weaken the steel structure""

Absolutely correct. Ever done any steel work? I have. 1800 degrees is quite enough to weaken steel, so that a steel part that you normally would not be able to bend by hand, is very easy to bend. I have personally done so.

"PBS (speaking NIST's babble): "The steel gives way to the heat.. the truses begins to sag""

See above. No only will the steel begin to sag, but it will expand enough to weaken the joints between adjoining structural members. You do realize that heat expands steel, right? You are also totally ignoring, or totally ignorant of, the exponential effect of thermal expansion over a long distance. If a 1 foot long piece of steel expands 1/16 of an inch (don't know the exact amount, this is just an example) with a temperature increase of 1500 degrees, then a 100 foot piece of the same steel will expand over 6 inches when exposed to the same temperature. This is MORE THAN ENOUGH movement to cause a failure between structural members that are not designed to move against each other in this manner. How much will steel beams like the ones used in the WTC actually expand? I have no idea, but I can assure you that it is more than enough to contribute to structural failure and collapse.

"Childs: "Safety has always been a measure of how buildings are built" @ 8:22
Childs: "We needed to investigate and invent new ways to show how buildings could be built in the future" @ 8:54 No you didn't, they just shipped most of the 9/11 rubble away rather than examining the rubble to find out what happened, that sensible people like High Rise Safety Initiative wanted to do."

The rubble was never investigated? Really? Then where, exactly, did all the so-called "evidence" that idiot conspiracy nuts like you use come from? You know, all the evidence saying that explosive residue was found in the rubble, lumps of steel re-solidified after being molten found in the rubble, beams that had been "cut" being found in the rubble, etc. IF THERE WAS NO EXAMINATION OF THE RUBBLE, THEN WHERE DID ALL THIS SUPPOSED "EVIDENCE" COME FROM, YOU IDIOT?
2
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat 

"Never has a steel structure ever fallen down from a fire""

Total lie. Period.

Prove it outside of the buildings that fell on 9/11.  Yep.  you can't.


"PBS: "At 1800 degrees f, it's hot enough to weaken the steel structure""

Again, wrong as the point i was making was NIST claimed it was that hot, but never provided their data, and others found it was not that hot.  So NIST was just telling another 'fable' of the 'story of 9/11'.  Of course, if you had viewed the link you would know this.

Also, if you had listened to what people are saying in the "Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out", you would have heard that independent investigators had used many pictures, videos, and many dust samples (there was a lot of dust afterwards), along with first responded reports.  They wanted to examine all the evidence and piece it back together, but yet, as noted, it was shipped away faster than it could be investigated thoroughly.

You're horrible at this because of your bias, prejudice, ignorance, you have already made up your mind, and don't want your fragile world-view challenged.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior How about a steel building erector (not a "news" site, or a "debunking" site, or a "government" site, but just a plain old steel building erector) totally blowing your stupid shit out of the water? "As long as your building was designed using high quality fire resistant parts as Safeway Steel Buildings are, your building SHOULD be able to withstand a STANDARD fire better then other materials BUT THAT IS NOT A GUARANTEE.  Some fires burn hotter then others BASED ON THE FUEL OF THE FIRE and determine the longevity of any building.  No matter what material it is made out of." This is quoted from their website, which can be found here: https://safewaysteel.com/can-steel-buildings-collapse-due-fire/. The bold parts are not from them; I added the bold so that you can perhaps see them, and understand what they, STEEL BUILDINGS EXPERTS, are trying to tell your dumb ass. Took less than 30 seconds searching with Google to find that.

Never provided their data? I have, personally, as a volunteer firefighter, been in a burning structure that was over 1500 degrees F. This is not a high-rise, with jet fuel burning in it, but a plain wood structure single story house. Jet fuel burns at up to 1500 degrees F, plus you have to take the other fire loads in the buildings into account. I have worked in the construction trade, and know how "fire resistant" structures are put together. They are called "fire resistant", and not "fire proof", because they are engineered to slow the spread of fire, not stop it completely. Where does your plethora of knowledge on this subject come from? Personal experience, or a bunch of other idiots like yourself on the internet? Remember, they can't put anything on the internet if it isn't true. Want to know where I heard that?

Again, if all the "evidence" was removed so quickly, where did all the "evidence" provided by your fellow conspiracy idiots come from? All of the "official agencies" that are part of this vast coverup tested the debris offsite, in a controlled environment, as they always do. Your fellow idiots are just upset they weren't granted access to it, so they are making up "data" like mad to try to cause a stink, and sucker in idiots. Clearly, their tactics have worked VERY WELL on you. Sheep.

No, my "bias, prejudice, and ignorance" have not made up my mind. My personal experiences, education in fields that you clearly have absolutely NO CLUE about, and common sense have made up my mind, and my "fragile worldview" hasn't been challenged, because you have yet to present me with a challenge. A bunch of stupid shit that you found on a bunch of questionable websites is NOT a "challenge". I'm sorry that you were gullible enough to be taken in by these idiots. Just keep drinking that Kool-Aid, and I'm sure that everything will be ok. YOU are horrible at this, because you refuse to listen to someone with experience relating to this subject, and instead choose to listen to some idiot on a random website, with no qualifications to back up their idiotic blathering. I have those qualifications. Would you like to see pictures of my firefighting certificationS? Would you like a list of the fire resistant buildings that I have worked on when I was in construction? Have you seen any such from the people that you are stupid enough to listen to on this subject? 
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat again, your prejudice is that you 'believe' what NIST has said, that the fires were at 1800 degrees, and you are taking that on faith.  The problem is that they never provided their data, and independent sources have found that the fire wasn't that hot.

Also, since the floors several floors below the impact weren't even exposed to any heat of the fires, there should have been no reason for those and lower floors (down to the first and basement floors) to have the slightest weakness from fire.

As any sensible person can see in the videos of 9/11, explosives were used to bring these buildings down, as there were several lateral ejections on its way down indicative of them.

I also really liked how you simply assumed that steel structure buildings have fallen due to fire outside of 9/11, and when asked for proof you ignored it for the sake of names.  Keep drinking your kool-aid the media is preaching to you, and demanding it is fact, even though the science doesn't support it.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Idiot, I am not going on what NIST said. I am going on the FACT that jet fuel, by itself, CAN REACH TEMPERATURES UP TO 1500 DEGREES. What part of that is confusing to you? It appears to also be confusing to you that the other fire loads (meaning the flammable contents) in the building will add their own heat to the heat already being generated by the burning jet fuel. This is not an opinion. This is a known, proven FACT, not as related to the WTC, but as proven by years of research into fire science. As I have already tried to tell you in the past, and you choose to ignore it, it does not require more than 1000 degrees to weaken steel to the point that it bends easily. So what if the fires didn't reach 1800 degrees? From personal experience as a firefighter, I can assure that it was AT LEAST 1000 degrees in there, which is, again, hot enough to cause the steel to weaken to the point of failure.

What the hell are you talking about when you said that, "when asked for proof you ignored it for the sake of names". What? That doesn't even make any sense. What "names" are you referring to? I provided you with information from an industry expert, stating that fires can cause a steel building to fail. What part of this statement is confusing to you? You and your idiot conspiracy brethren keep claiming that fire can't cause a steel building to fail, unless the fire is hot enough to melt steel. I have provided proof from an industry expert to the contrary. How is this so confusing to you? Are you trying to claim that this guy, randomly picked from a Google search, is in on the cover up, too? You want to talk about me refusing to learn, when you refuse to even consider something that totally refutes one of your most popular arguments? 
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat There you go pulling facts out your butt again to protect your fragile world view. You do understand that the fires  didn't affect the steel many floors below the impact, right?

You're just echoing the 'debunkers' who have been debunked, looking quite desperate at it too dude.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior No, I'm not "pulling facts out of my butt". Try doing a little actual research, somewhere besides those conspiracy theorist's websites. I've already tried to explain why the lower floors failed, and you didn't pay attention then. Why should I expect you to now? One more time: THE LOWER FLOORS FAILED, BECAUSE THEY WERE SUBJECTED TO A DYNAMIC LOAD SEVERAL ORDERS HIGHER THAN THE STATIC LOADING THEY WERE DESIGNED TO SUPPORT. I can't make it any clearer for you. 
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior I'm not denying facts; you are. 

FACT: Jet fuel burns hot enough to weaken steel.
FACT: No official reports ever said that steel was melted by the initial fires, yet, conspiracy theorists seem to find it necessary to point out that the initial fires were not hot enough to melt steel.
FACT: The lower floors collapsed due to a sudden, high dynamic load, which they were not designed to hold, introduced by the upper floors collapsing on top of them. You can comfortably hold a 10 pound weight on top of your head, right? Now, lets drop that same 10 pound weight onto your head from 15 feet. Get the picture?
FACT: Jumbo jets crashed into the buildings.

What "facts" am I missing? This is the whole problem: you are going on "facts" from a bunch of like-minded people, without the education to back up their stupid theories. I, on the other hand, and going on "facts" learned from my education, and my own personal experience.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat Oh, just the fact that the floors below the fires couldn't have weakened due to no fire.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Again, learn English if you want to talk to me. You obviously don't understand it very well. Either that, or you are doing what you continuously accuse others of doing: ignoring facts that are presented to you, because of your narrow world view. Please, try to keep up. You can easily hold a 10 pound weight on your head, with no real discomfort. Now, lets drop that same 10 pound weight onto your head from 15 feet up. You will most likely die. See the difference? Just in case you don't understand English measurements, I'll tell you the same thing with metric units. You could easily hold a 4.5 kilogram weight on your head, with no real discomfort. Now, lets drop that same 4.5 kilogram weight onto your head from 4.6 meters up. You will most likely die. Get it yet? Its all about static versus dynamic loading, not temperature. Is this clear enough, or should I dumb it down for you?
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat you would have to be more intelligent.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Yes, you most certainly would. What about that weight on your head? Do you claim that a weight you could easily and comfortably hold on your head wouldn't kill you if dropped from even a moderate height? Stop trying to divert my attention, and actually answer a question for a change.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat i would love to answer your question, but you've already signaled your desire to ignore facts, and therefore really have nothing further of value to say on the topic.  And no, your little scenarios aren't enough to make up for it, no matter what the answer you get.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior There's your fragile world view being threatened again! You've asked me to explain away some of your "theories", and I have done so, but then you refuse to even look at what I have said! Still want to claim that you're not a troll? Ok, fine, how about just "willfully ignorant"? Why is it that I can easily explain away your theories, yet, you won't even try to explain them, except by linking me to the same stupid websites over and over, instead of explaining it YOURSELF? Because you realize that your cause is lost, but are unwilling to admit it.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat You explained your reasons for assuming your fragile world-view, that it depends on the 'official report, which is now exposed as a fabrication.  Your explanations are based on that flawed report, which is why you can't get anywhere with them.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior No, my explanations are NOT based on the official reports. They are based on personal experience, education, and common sense, things you seem to have a SERIOUS lack of. Especially the last one. So, what explosives were used to bring down the WTC?
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat Your explanations are based on a combination of what the official report says, what the media says, and what society around you says.  You are too fearful to seek the facts which may have them target you as you are urged to target others (like you are doing here).

It makes you highly ridiculous, as several times i have told you already that a re-investigation could determine what, precisely, explosives were used to bring them down.  Yet you want to ignore like a petty troll.

The explosions were witnessed by many first responders, but ignored by the 'official report', and there's also evidence of them being scrubbed from media reports.  Yet your continued ignorance of the facts, not to mention the many times i've answered your question, shows your trolling nature.  
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Damnit, I forgot again that you're a mind reader, and you KNOW what I am thinking. How else would you be able to determine so certainly where I get my information? 

No, several times, you have asserted AS A FACT that explosives WERE used. Not that there MAY HAVE BEEN explosives, but that there WERE explosives used. How could you possibly KNOW that they were used, without knowing what type? This is a huge, gaping hole in YOUR reasoning, that you refuse to attempt to fill. The popular saying of PROOF OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN is actually VERY true. If there is no actual evidence, as opposed to hear-say, there were no explosives. You know, actually, now that I think about it, I've been to LOTS of fires where explosives MUST have been used, because I heard explosions! Never mind the fact that they were caused by the NORMAL CONTENTS OF THE INVOLVED STRUCTURE; I heard explosions, ergo, there MUST have been explosives involved, right?  Besides, by YOUR OWN REASONING, you weren't there, so there is no possible way YOU could know! Also, as to the "many times you have answered my questions", when did that happen? All you have done is parrot questionable sources at me. I've given you real-life examples to explain my side, while you REFUSE to do the same. Is this because you lack the needed education to do so, or the nutjob websites you get your information from don't have arguments against it? How do you explain away the FACT that the fires were hot enough to WEAKEN (not melt, as your idiot brethren keep harping on, but WEAKEN) steel? Yes, I know about the "molten metal" found at the scene after the fires were finally out. A vehicle on fire doesn't get anywhere NEAR hot enough to melt steel, but I have still PERSONALLY seen evidence of molten metal at vehicle fire scenes. Would you like to see pictures? I can certainly provide you with some. How do you explain away the FACT of static versus dynamic loading, and the FACT that the lower floors were subjected to DYNAMIC loading far in excess of the STATIC load they were designed to handle? Two HUGE holes in your so-called "theories" that you are UNABLE TO EXPLAIN AWAY.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat Keep talking out your butt, your opinion that the 'official report' is fact is just that.  Real facts, done by real scientists in real labs, has found that the 'official report' is full of fabrications and lies, and denial of facts.  I'm sorry you have such a hard time with facts, and have depended so heavily on the 'official report' that you now have to act so insecurely to foist it as fact even though it has already been shown to not be that.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Then why don't you refute any of what I've said? I've refuted, and proven wrong, your theories, several time over. Why are you so scared to challenge what I've said directly? I know, I know, you aren't challenging me because "the science is settled", and "I've proven you wrong many times (although you haven't; you haven't even tried), and you'll just continue to ignore the truth". All those tired old saws. Why don't you just admit that you can't provide answers to me?
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat Because you've shown yourself to be the kind of person who can't stand facts, and will argue against them to protect your fragile world view.  You don't want answers, because if you did you would have found what you wanted already with what i've provided. No, you want to find excuses to protect your fragile world view - excuses you are not going to find, nor help you if you ever do.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Then tell me what supposed "facts" I have ignored?
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat the facts put forth in the documentary "Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out", and more recently the findings of the Alaska University Fairbanks that has found out the official report is flawed, and that fires didn't bring down wtc7, as will be revealed in more depth here in the upcoming weeks: http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/

Just the usual facts that inconvenience your fragile world view.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior I didn't ask for more links to your lies; I asked for a list. Your failure to grasp even the most simple aspects of the English language are appalling. I'm done feeding the troll now. Fuck off.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat You've got what you're going to get. Why?  Because you want to call facts lies, all because they inconvenience your fragile world view.  Now you're butt hurt over the facts, and choosing to judge like trollish bully who doesn't get their way.  You've dug your own hole, I'm glad you realize your ignorance gets you nowhere and choose to stop. Maybe when you get over your fragile world view you won't be so emotional, and may be actually civil, sensible, and in control again.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior No, because I'm not wading through all that bullshit. You are so convinced of your being correct, but won't give anyone any actual information; just links to the same stupid bullshit, over and over. Why? Because you aren't intelligent enough to speak for yourself? Fuck off.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat I'm not convinced i'm correct at all.  You're convinced the 'official report' is correct with how you're defending its flawed fabrication.  The evidence is available, but the government, likely knowingly being implicit by its findings, is too afraid to face up, and open the re-investigation.

So thats why people are speaking up about the facts, and if you can't see the sensibility in that, then its just too bad.
0
Reply
Male 1,798
monkwarrior Just fuck off already. Troll.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
whosaidwhat if you're getting all upset maybe next time you should think before you start trolling?  Get well soon.
0
Reply
Male 25
monkwarrior 

Actually, Yamasaki was the architectectural designer of record along with Emery Roth.  There were a number of structural engineers involved in both the design phase and the construction phases.  Structural engineering was by Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson. Leslie Robertson is generally recognized as the lead engineer post construction, for the project.  A fair amount of work was done by him and his team to "document the undocumented" changes to the the original structural designs as a result of the implemented construction processes during the original construction, as well as some changes that resulted from changes after occupancy (some due to tenent fitouts, some due to construction deficiencies). 

The builder (general contractor really) was Tishman Construction Company.  It's my understanding that they hired literally hundreds of subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, and sub-sub-sub contractors.

Back in the mid nineties, I worked with an architect in Detroit that had worked with Yamasaki during the time that the construction was happening for the twin towers.  Boy did he have some stories...  typical construction stuff, but magnified in 110 stories x2.






1
Reply
Male 5,476
dwaterd Fair enough, my point was that David Childs, the designer of the new towers (as this video describes), didn't actually design WTC1 & 2 as the post implied here:

" The first one in particular is an in-depth interview with the designer of the World Trade Center\Twin Towers. He explains in detail the "flaws" in his design that caused the collapse...and by "flaws" it means unforeseen circumstances, IE: Planes flying into the building intentionally. 

The designer has lived with guilt since then, always questioning what he could have done to prevent the collapse.  "

(EMPHASIS ADDED BY MONKWARRIOR FOR CLARIFICATION OF REASONING)

Just to point out kalron27 was wrong from the get-go.  Personally i suspect Kalron27 was a bit upset over the videos posted earlier this week, and reached out to find anything to debunk them and came up with this poor result, and then made a write up that self-imploded under the evidence.  In addition to this, since kalron27 took a self-declared decision to never reply to my posts, i can understand their fustration of not replying there.  It must have driven them mad, further exposed in the poor quality of the write-up to this post.
0
Reply
Male 25
monkwarrior 

Hmm.  Well actually, it was a foreseen circumstance that a plane could be flown into a skyscraper (intentionally or not).   A B25 twin engine was flown into the Empire State Building (1945) killing a bunch of people and causing a fair amount of damage.   It is my understanding that the team did attempt to design a system that would survive the force of impact from a (then contemporary) commercial airliner.

I haven't watched the video, but if someone specifically said that planes flying into the buildings was an unforeseen circumstance from a design standpoint... that's hogwash.  

That being said:  Construction deficiencies because Joe had a bad day, design flaws, an incomplete understanding of the physical properties of materials, physics and/or fire flow, alien interference, Obama, the right to arm bears, and personal attacks all aside.... it's important to get the easily known facts correct.  If you don't, it undermines any argument you may have for anyone that thinks it's worthwhile to pay attention.
1
Reply
Male 3,447
dwaterd I agree and disagree with the planes being an unforeseen event.  While the impact was accounted for by design, as the towers take that force from winds alone on a daily basis, it was the resulting fuel and fire that was unaccounted for, which is what the links detail.

Apparently the links I added did not include the broadcast itself, but here around 8min mark they discuss just that.  If the planes were the only impact the towers would have stood.  The explosion and fire were the event that lead to the collapse:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcaz6N75mjM

The designer I was referring to (not Yamasaki) was the one who structurally designed the support floor beams what connected to the inner and outer structural beams that were not properly fireproofed to combat both the impact and intense heat of the fire.  The spray on foam used during construction is believed to have been knocked off by the impact, exposing the floor beams to the flames.  This was the unforeseen event discussed at the end of the video.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
kalron27 Unfortunately most of the fuel was gone in the initial fireball upon impact  But the remaining fuel (about a small back-yard inflatable pool's worth) was both, supposed to heat up to 1800 f mixed with office furniture (it doesn't burn that hot), and at the same time fall down 80 stories pool, and cause a fireball explosion (that small amount down such a shaft (which was on the other side of the building too) just doesn't happen over that distance), or so the 'official report' would have people believe.  It just doesn't work out either way.  Office fires don't cause steel to bend and collapse and compromise the integrity of beams in place many stories below it.  Looks like you bought into the lie the media told you.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
dwaterd exactly my point.
0
Reply
Male 5,028
I made it twenty minutes into part three of the 50 questions conspiracy series before I couldn't take the stupidity any longer. Listening to Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in six minutes destroy the main conspiracy theories about the WTC tower collapses was a breath of fresh air.
1
Reply
Male 5,476
markust123 Spoke too soon, huh?  Check my post with direct links to the times in question through that 50 questions investigation (which you need to call a conspiracy series).  It's no surprise that you just wanted to hear what you wanted to hear, thinking it was valid, when you just were trying to seek confirmation of your fragile world views.
0
Reply
Male 5,028
monkwarrior, "Spoken too soon." No, what I saw of your video was pure stupidity. Linking to your conspiracy videos and calling it debunking a post doesn't prove anything except that you are incredibly gullible and/or a huge troll that just likes to get people upset.
1
Reply
Male 5,476
markust123 Spoke too soon again huh?  All of your points were answered, showing you to be what you claim of me here.  Don't defend fragile world-views, man!  you'll only make your life worse!
1
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior stop trolling -- you had your chance.  Now your just being disrespectful.
0
Reply
Male 5,476
lockner01 keep trolling, it does you no good.
1
Reply
Male 1,082
monkwarrior I didn't mean disrespectful to me or anyone on IAB. I meant you're being disrepectful to the victums of 9/11 and their families.
1
Reply
Male 5,476
lockner01 It's more more respectful to the victims of 9/11 to let the truth of their deaths be known. If you want to foist a lie, your choice, but i have respect for the victims, as many others who know the truth do too.

Keep trolling, it does you no good, especially with a fragile world-view like your own.
1
Reply