IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
WTC discussion, split from ACARS thread in Latest News

SanderO
post Dec 18 2011, 07:02 AM
Post #1





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



QUOTE (Pointer @ Dec 11 2011, 12:41 AM) *
.... because I have detailed knowledge about construction and the physics of buildings.
Both towers were examples of over-engineering and could stand, remain stable, with the whole core removed, or instead remain stable with peripheral walls removed. That means that both structures on itself were strong enough to carry the whole load of the building.


What is the basis for you making this statement? No engineer, architect or physicist would make this statement.

What is your technical background?

Are you familiar with the 911 Free Forums?

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/index.php

If you've made some calculations or can point to the theory which explains the above statement I would like to read about it. Could you kindly send a PM to me.

Thanks

This post has been edited by SanderO: Dec 18 2011, 07:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pointer
post Dec 18 2011, 12:25 PM
Post #2





Group: Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 29-April 08
Member No.: 3,251



QUOTE (SanderO @ Dec 18 2011, 12:02 PM) *
What is the basis for you making this statement? No engineer, architect or physicist would make this statement.
What is your technical background?
Are you familiar with the 911 Free Forums?
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/index.php
If you've made some calculations or can point to the theory which explains the above statement I would like to read about it. Could you kindly send a PM to me.
Thanks

I'm an artist and designer. After finishing my study at the Academy of Fine Arts in Arnhem, the Netherlands, I studied architecture, especially focused on construction and physics. By that time the design of the Twintowers was in broad discussion among students and professors all over the world, new techniques and materials, and the huge logistic problems. By then the over-engineering was an issue already. Here you can find a set of the design drawings that makes the issue very clear. Additional and comprehensive information on this special topic, calculations included, is on the same site and here. Follow the links for specifications, quantities and qualities. The design of the Twintowers was broadly invoking a leap in architectural engineering, mostly more advanced than the towers, even out-dating them - like most revolutions - by the time the project was finished. It isn't speed skating, if you are the first you aren't and cannot be the best, as I personally experienced being a pioneer on computer aided design (CAD). So, over-engineering is common sense. The towers were indestructible without extremely powerful advanced explosives. Apart from the construction's specifics, the speed and heat, pulverizing or evaporating content and concrete, generating that huge cataclysmic cloud, setting nearby cars in fire, that's also part of the huge amount of evidence. Indeed, when buildings collapse, there will be produced by friction a large amount of heat too. But that same friction will slow down the collapses, so, that's not what happened. There was almost no friction, because the collapses took place with almost the speed of free fall.
The floors of a thin layer of light-weight concrete are of special interest against the pancake-theory. Approximately the same stuff is often used for working tops in kitchens. It wasn't massive reinforced concrete. Also some floors were fully constructed of steel.

I do have some difficulties with you saying "No engineer, architect or physicist would make this statement."
Isn't it very important that the "favored experts" never describe the specific kind of construction of the WTC-towers and building 7? Believing the official theory they fantasize about a structure that can make it possible. That's why the set of design-drawings was immediately declared top-secret by Bush43, but with the drawings and photographs distributed world-wide during the 60's and 70's you can't reverse public knowledge, but NIST could not adequately discuss the issue. What is the meaning of an investigation when researchers are banned from that knowledge? Can you imagine the investigation of a plane-crash, banned from knowing what type of a plane is was?
So, indeed no engineer, architect or physicist would make this statement, if they are not knowing what type of structure it was.

This post has been edited by Pointer: Dec 18 2011, 12:30 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Dec 18 2011, 12:46 PM
Post #3





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Pointer,

I happen to be an architect and I worked for the firm that produced the drawings you referenced. I was there as my first post graduate job in 1971.

I've been studying the structure of the twin towers and would suggest that you visit another site where very detailed analysis ... engineering and physics work is being and has been done on the twin towers and bldg 7.

After you have spent a few days reading the forums and discussions and looking over the data assembled including the debunking of a lot of what you wrote... come back and tell me what you think.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/index.php

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/part-3-f...ecord-t604.html

I think you will learn a lot of things and see this very differently... and not speak which such certainty about matters you likely have not carefully and scientifically studied.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Heiwa
post Dec 21 2011, 03:33 AM
Post #4





Group: Troll
Posts: 34
Joined: 5-November 11
Member No.: 6,445



QUOTE (SanderO @ Dec 18 2011, 07:02 AM) *
What is the basis for you making this statement? No engineer, architect or physicist would make this statement.

Thanks


I am an engineer/architect and I have analysed the WTC1/2 structures and found them very solid as explained at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . I have also examined 100's of structural failures and consequential damages.

It is easy to show that no structure of any kind can 'collapse' from top, i.e. local failure up top initiate weak top coming loose and crushing down the structure below by gravity alone as explained at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm .

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th July 2014 - 11:10 AM