In the 1980′s I recorded a BBC documentary about sky scraper history in the USA. I recently re-discovered the tape. After what happened on 9/11 this clip must surely add some weight to the conspiracy theory. Does anybody know who this structural engineer is and if he has made any comments after the collapse to explain why his calculations were completely wrong. (Unless the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition charges)
![[Google]]( http://www.autobodyshoptoronto.com/wp-content/plugins/easy-adsenser/google-light.gif)
We do not call “birds”. What are you talking Vogel? Without war conspiracies never happen.
When there is not even an error? The bird is given to these conspiracy theorists are wrong!
@ MatthewIII back to reality does not seem to decrease the speed of free fall due to air being expelled from the structure, standing in a subway station and wait for a train, you will realize that being hit with a air jet / wind around 20 seconds before the train arrived. It should also be noted that this building was very unconventional as a tubular structure, the structure of the outside world has taken a lot of force and the load of the building, while most of the buildings are based solely on the inner core / columns.
@ DJDaveT23 I do not think that you are factoring in the fact that steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so that the lights of 400-500 F (not hot at all could) easily dispersed whole tower. Not to mention that they fell at freefall speed. This means that 10 per second floors collapsed. This seems a little impossible without the help of an external force (explosives).
Many people assume that the main structure of the buildings were exterior columns. This is a false assumption proposed several “official” documentaires.Les exterior columns were there to keep the pot soil, the major structural support was provided by interior columns, which very few have been damaged by impact on both the reason cas.C by construction remained stable until just before failure (ie, not fail in sequence).
@ DJDaveT23 You’re right, but that only makes it the most likely scenario thermate moins.Le no major problem with this theory is the lack of sound from a consignment of explosives and the issue of logistics to get things in place. His proposal means that you have not had that relationship much, just placés.Par adequately to this theory of fire that the empirical support whatsoever. They literally adds the amount needed in the calculations, contrary to their own tests and observation.
@ Rolg3 speaks pretty impressive tower, an opinion that said the plan would impact the “local” damage, maybe take a column,,,, of course 9 / 11 is what s increase, except that there was a column made, was at the top of the spread of damage in several plants
Any right-thinking human being over five years to see the movie should know that Building 7 did not cause a fire. If more than five years and I think you should re-evaluate the critical thinking .. . . . . . . . Hell reevaluate your sanity! Google: PNAC
not his fault that the information on the World Trade Center that was given was false
This man is an idiot!
Oh pardon me wrong, I thought it meant that the plane 747 tours.Je guess toppled even greater importance because the towers are not there
Video of a 747 to regularly and said, “(they) are designed to be able to survive a 747 HIT!”. They are designed to withstand a 707 or something. ‘S largest airliner of the time. I mean a 747 in this context. So if people say the building can withstand a 747, then hit his argument is to be able to bear the brunt of half plane of its size.
That’s all very well, but a 747 is not lit, it was a Boeing 767-200ER is not, and wern’t 2767, even at full load, the first plane, a 767-200ER has only 92 people aboard , and the plane was a Boeing 767-200 seconds is not fully charged, there were 65 people bord.Maintenant a full load 767 has a maximum takeoff weight of 395,000 pounds, or 179. 1 ton, and that at full load, full fuel, passengers, cargo, so now let’s assume we have 92 people on board, not full of fuel and not a large amount of cargo. . . .
What?
U.S. whho can not accept
Heres a valid argument. . . 747 was the first flight on February 9, 1969 and was designed and built in less than 16 months! now building the first tower of the World Trade Center began in 1966 (not to mention the extensive design phase). ae911truth for. . . lets just say that I would be worried if I leave everything in the design of a house em never mind a skyscraper (especially because most are not structural engineers) point. . . “design” to strike against an aircraft has been very Flawed
In fact, I’ll make it easy for everyone reading this, go to ae911truth-org, where more than 640 architects and engineers to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all the characteristics of a controlled demolition, and if anyone One you are too ignorant to believe that these engineers, because you are “studying engineering, then **** you, kid, sheep insignificant ****. I’m out, I can not view this page, no” expected answers for the delay and fuel waste it makes no sense.
Coolio wrong, there is another video (I bet it’s on youtube, but I head to work and have no time to investigate) the chief engineer of the World Trade Center said he conceived to be able to survive a HIT 747! He described how the columns in the middle to make sure nothing was going to happen even if the world’s largest airline has been hitting the towers.
This guy does
I do not agree with his plan for evaluating the likely local damage would do well. Obviously, it can be perceived as more important than “could hit a column. Also the calculation of the force of 747 is invalid. A 747-ton, apparently 970,000 pounds or 433 (google it). But also exert the energy that travels 200, 300 or even 400 mph would be much more than its static weight.
The weight of a building is a very important factor in the resistance to overturning. Obviously, the CALC ignore the timetable for such a horizontal force (23 140 nm), but resistance to the overthrow of the 110 floors (assuming a lever arm 30. 5m) is MNM 59 920> 23 140 MNM and ignores the effect foundations and severely underestimate the weight of buildings. The engineer’s point is not to fall (or turn around the base). . . That’s it. The plane can not
Hey smart kids in class? I will work in SI units, if the conversions are necessary. 100 lbs / ft = 4. 79 KN / m ^ 2domaine construction side = 1300×200 = 260 000 m ^ 2 = 24 154 m ^ 2ainsi wind power total = 4. 79×24154 = 115. 7 mnMaintenant take a look at the base of the vertical loads. Di conc. slab thickness = 61 m = tan = 200mm200 surface feet 3721 m ^ 2conc. = 24 kN / m ^ 3 (in general) Thus, the total burden of conc from 1 st floor ignoring everything else = 3721×0. 2×24 = 17. 86 Mni. e. 6. Horizontal = total of 5 floors. force
great video. I am an engineering student and everything this guy says it! but this does not mean PPL should take this out of context. refers to the overturning moment of construction, not their ability to take the vertical load. And as you see the planes crash World Trade Center did not hit the building. Damaged and combined with light and protection against fire caused the collapse invested sequencal
The best way to think about compressed air, you can imagine you’re on a subway platform with a train coming towards you, what you feel or on the platform when the train is 1 minute, and a strong gust of wind and air , which comes from the compression station / pushing air against it. So if that is the force of a train can provide a system that you had to multiply this force by a factor when you have a history of building 110 as a strength and therefore break the force Windows with ease.
I’m not familiar with conspiracy theories. So I’m not 100% sure what we’re talking about, but I think he’s talking about how debris can break windows on several floors below, where the explosion / collapse. The reason is that the air is compressed, but I will explain in the post below.