Reply With Quote
How may buildings bombed in WWII were constructed like the WTC towers?
I'd like a list, please.
How many were struck by giant bombs during WWII?
LOADS OF THEM.
How stupid are you?
How may buildings bombed in WWII were constructed like the WTC towers?
I'd like a list, please.
There were thousands of steel-framed building struck by bombs during WWII.
Unlike the WTC, most of these weren't specially designed to withstand airplane attacks.
Did thousands of them have the core design of the WTC towers?
Yes or no.
The WTC wasn't designed to withstand an airplane attack.
Yes it was. The building designers say so.
Nobody ever expected a deliberate suicide attack with a fully fueled jet flying at close to full speed. No designer ever said that.
It doesn't matter if the plane is piloted by a suicide pilot, or if the plane just flys into the WTC.
The designers did expect the planes to have a load of jet fuel in them at cruising speed, how could a plane with no jet fuel fly?
The thousands steel-framed buildings in Europe that were bombed during WWII were not designed with these protections like the WTC. Yet no steel-framed building in Europe suffered global collapse from either the bombs or the ensuing fires.
You are up against a brick wall Chump Dumper.
Sure it does.It doesn't matter if the plane is piloted by a suicide pilot, or if the plane just flys into the WTC.What plane cruises at 1000 feet?The designers did expect the planes to have a load of jet fuel in them at cruising speedAgain, how many had the core construction of the WTC?The thousands steel-framed buildings in Europe that were bombed during WWII were not designed with these protections like the WTC. Yet no steel-framed building in Europe suffered global collapse from either the bombs or the ensuing fires.Nah. You're the one doing nothing about what you perceive as the largest betrayal ever of the US people by its government.You are up against a brick wall Chump Dumper.
The scenario used by the designers was for a plane that was smaller, flying slower, and with less fuel than what happened on 9-11.
At the time of construction of the towers, jets were overall not as large.
The specific scenario they did some ROUGH calculations, not detailed computer modeling mind you but sliderule calculations, on was an average jet at the time (727?) flying slowly around 200 mph.
Remember from the kinetic energy calculations, that when you double the speed of an object, the kinetic energy goes up by a factor of 4.
It wasn't "designed" to withstand the full speed impact of a large modern jet, it was "calculated" to be able to withstand the low speed impact of a smaller 60's era jet.
There is a huge difference.
ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?
11th time this question has been asked of Galileo and not given a straight answer. Is your case so weak that you can't answer ONE yes or no question?
the WTC did survive the plane flying at cruising speed.
not true.
Just look at the detailed crime scene report made by investigators immediately after 9/11. Show me where it says no explosive devices were found.
If you could actually back up any of your dumbassical assertions I might give a rat's ass about your opinion.
You state that the buildings were designed to withstand jet impacts.
Prove that, and we will go from there.
ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?
12th time this question has been asked of Galileo and not given a straight answer. Is your case so weak that you can't answer ONE yes or no question?
What happened?
The World Trade Center towers "were indeed designed to withstand the impact of a large commercial aircraft," wrote Professors Oral Buyukozturk and Franz-Josef Ulm of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. "They were not, however, designed to withstand the prolonged effect of fire resulting from a bomb in the guise of a fully fueled aircraft." As a result, "a building designed to rocket toward the sky, imploded into the ground."
CEE Professor Eduardo Kausel agrees. "Both buildings survived the initial assault, and did not give way for a remarkably long period of time after the crash. This extraordinary capability allowed many lives to be saved, and is a major credit to the designers. Ultimately, however, the intense fire heated the structural steel elements well beyond the thermal limit of some 800 degrees Fahrenheit, which caused the steel to lose resistance or even melt, and as supporting members gave way, the final failure of the building was initiated."
"At that point, the upper floors began to fall wholesale onto the structure below, and as they gained momentum, their crushing descent became unstoppable.
Via two simple models, Kausel was able to determine that the fall of the upper building portion down onto a single floor must have caused dynamic forces exceeding the buildings' design loads by at least an order of magnitude (i.e. more than 10 times the weight of the upper floors).
"There was no way in the world that the columns below could have taken this large overload, and as these failed in turn and collapsed, a domino-effect down the building ensued."
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/wtc-cee.html
, I'll even concede the point to you.
The plane and resulting initial fuel fire didn't bring down either tower.
No official account has ever claimed that.
The WTC did withstand the jet impacts, dumb .
Didn't you read his previous post, dumbass?
ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?
13th time this question has been asked of Galileo and not given a straight answer. Is your case so weak that you can't answer ONE yes or no question?
13 times and counting. We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to say it...
yes, cables and wiring were seen in the WTC before it collapsed, by several hundred witnesses.
Cables and wiring are not explosive devices. They are cables and wiring, Sir Fails-alot, no more no less. If that is all it takes to "prove" explosive devices, you will have to explain why cables and wiring in the WTC is different than any other modern office building.
All you need is one person who says they saw an explosive device attached to any structural member. Just. One.
The question was not "ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF CABLES AND WIRING?" is it?
You do not get to pick and choose what questions to answer in a real court. You must answer the question as asked.
I ask yet again, for the 14th time.
ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?
We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.
[QUOTE=RandomGuy]Cables and wiring are not explosive devices.
[QUOTE]
yes they are. They are used to line buildings in controlled demolitions.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions