Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Bin Laden told followers not to 'waste [their] effort' attacking the UK

Announcements Posted on
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Banishingboredom)
    Different sized planes and that was based on the mosquito net design which clearly didn't work as the plane penetrated the central steel structures. The designers said the Titanic was unsinkable.

    This guy is a hero don't mention him again.
    the titanic limits were exceeded, thats why it sank, the towers didn't exceed their limit, as it was multiple planes, not one.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    the titanic limits were exceeded, thats why it sank, the towers didn't exceed their limit, as it was multiple planes, not one.
    Read the description, he's talking about slow planes in fog, not planes gunning it at top speed. That's going to cause them to penetrate further into the building and damage more supports than it could handle. In other words, the towers exceeded their limits.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Banishingboredom)
    Well the Daily Mail so close
    please put that in OP then.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    Read the description, he's talking about slow planes in fog, not planes gunning it at top speed. That's going to cause them to penetrate further into the building and damage more supports than it could handle. In other words, the towers exceeded their limits.
    no, i posted the information in an earlier post, it could stand a plane traveling at 600 mph...

    so, no, limits were not exceeded.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    This always makes me laugh. You really think if OBL had been killed while Bush was in office that it'd be kept secret until his rival party were in the White House and let them take all the glory? You're crazy and know nothing about US politics.
    If you think the Democrat and the Republican parties are "rival parties", you're crazy and know nothing about US politics.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    the titanic limits were exceeded, thats why it sank, the towers didn't exceed their limit, as it was multiple planes, not one.
    The limits were exceeded in this case as well then in the size speed and force of the larger plane. You can never properly simulate these sorts of things anyway. The mosquito net design clearly didn't work so cannot be used as evidence that the buildings collapsed unnaturally.

    Also watch the collapse again. It starts from just under the crash site. If it were to have been brought down by explosives they would have had to have been planted in that exact location before the plane hit, and there was no way they could have predicted exactly where each plane would hit.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    no, i posted the information in an earlier post, it could stand a plane traveling at 600 mph...

    so, no, limits were not exceeded.
    It was built to withstand.

    It never said that, that would happen in practice. Was there an experiment/real-life simulation to hold such a claim as credible?

    NO.

    Ho hum.

    (Original post by King-Panther)
    exam monday, i'll be back at a later date.

    Get revising instead of fighting for a lost cause.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Banishingboredom)
    the limits were exceeded in this case as well then in the size speed and force of the larger plane. You can never properly simulate these sorts of things anyway. The mosquito net design clearly didn't work so cannot be used as evidence that the buildings collapsed unnaturally.
    no, there is only a fraction difference in weight and size between the planes, and remember, it was designed to withstand multiple planes, not one.

    Also watch the collapse again. It starts from just under the crash site. If it were to have been brought down by explosives they would have had to have been planted in that exact location before the plane hit, and there was no way they could have predicted exactly where each plane would hit.
    of course they could, have you not heard of drones?

    Fig. 8: Plane About to Hit South Tower

    The potential force of the impact from each plane can be approximately calculated and the figures are very large. The weight of each plane would have been approximately 150 tonnes, according to the media reports and Boeing data on this type of plane. The plane would have been traveling at around 800 kms/hour at impact. This gives a momentum of

    Momentum = 150 x 800/3.6 = 33,333 tonnes.m/sec.

    If the plane was arrested by the building in effectively 0.6 seconds, which is a reasonable estimate based on a linear deceleration over the 63.5 m width of the building, then the force exerted on the building is the momentum/effective time to arrest, i.e.,

    Force = 33,333/0.6 = 55,555 kN.

    To put that in perspective, the ultimate limit state design wind pressure over the entire height of the building is 220 kg/m2 (45 lb/ft2). This gives a ULS wind force on one face of the building of 58,400 kN.

    Wind Force = 220 x 63.5 x 411 = 5,741,670 kg-force = 5,741,670 x 9.8 N = 56,268,400 N = 56,268 kN

    Thus the potential force of impact from the plane is 95% of the design ultimate limit state wind load on the building!


    ttp://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/clifton.htm
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    If you think the Democrat and the Republican parties are "rival parties", you're crazy and know nothing about US politics.
    I'm pretty sure republicans would prefer a republican as president...sure, they're not a separate as 2 parties should be on a lot of issues, but they're hardly happy when the other has a guy in the white house.

    (Original post by King-Panther)
    no, i posted the information in an earlier post, it could stand a plane traveling at 600 mph...

    so, no, limits were not exceeded.
    So why post that video since it DOESN'T refer to high speed planes at all?

    Again I come back to how the CIA or whoever could both be smart enough to plan such an intricate plot but also be dumb enough to attack towers that were impervious to planes with...planes? It's much more logical to assume that the towers weren't as well designed as people thought and in actual fact under the right circumstances, they failed.

    In all fairness, they did survive the initial impacts pretty well considering what had happened, very little came off the buildings pre-collapse. It was only when the damage had time to increase that they failed.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    It was built to withstand.

    It never said that, that would happen in practice. Was there an experiment/real-life simulation to hold such a claim as credible?

    NO.

    Ho hum.




    Get revising instead of fighting for a lost cause.
    no, i have evidence for my claims, you have none..

    the mathematics supports impact, resistance and so forth..
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    no, i have evidence for my claims, you have none..

    the mathematics supports impact, resistance and so forth..
    There's nothing scientific about that evidence. It's a conspiracy website
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    I'm pretty sure republicans would prefer a republican as president...sure, they're not a separate as 2 parties should be on a lot of issues, but they're hardly happy when the other has a guy in the white house.



    So why post that video since it DOESN'T refer to high speed planes at all?

    Again I come back to how the CIA or whoever could both be smart enough to plan such an intricate plot but also be dumb enough to attack towers that were impervious to planes with...planes? It's much more logical to assume that the towers weren't as well designed as people thought and in actual fact under the right circumstances, they failed.

    In all fairness, they did survive the initial impacts pretty well considering what had happened, very little came off the buildings pre-collapse. It was only when the damage had time to increase that they failed.
    i posted the information before...

    No, they're not dumb enough, its because you're dumb enough to accept it even though they were designed to withstand the impact but still they fell and you just accept it..

    no, thats why so many engineers and architects cant believe they fell because of how well they were designed.

    indeed, they did survive but nothing can account for the collapse, the top should have toppled over and not collapsed on itself..
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    he's confirming the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of multiple planes!
    This has since found to be false. Even so, the claim only relates to the structural intregrity (multiple planes could have hit and the towers would have remained standing for the same length of time as they did on 9/11). This is the third time I've highlighted this to you. Do you need me to clarify it any further?
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Banishingboredom)
    There's nothing scientific about that evidence. It's a conspiracy website
    mathematics is mathematics.. i posted gages articles, he's an architect who specialises in steel constructions..
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swelshie)
    This has since found to be false. Even so, the claim only relates to the structural intregrity (multiple planes could have hit and the towers would have remained standing for the same length of time as they did on 9/11). This is the third time I've highlighted this to you. Do you need me to clarify it any further?
    no, it hasn't... thats why there are so many architects and engineers who cant believe what happened.

    yes they would stand, and wouldn't collapse
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    no, i have evidence for my claims, you have none..

    the mathematics supports impact, resistance and so forth..
    Do you have any evidence to refute my question?

    Nope.

    mathematics is mathematics..
    Do you seriously believe mathematical/computer simulations 100% account for the real world?
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    mathematics is mathematics..
    And I could say 1/0 =1

    Yeah, okay; that argument is bogus and you know it.
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Terrorists are wasting their effort wherever they try and carry out attacks. Do you really think the West will capitulate to your demands and allow a global caliphate just because you singed your pubes trying to blow up a Boeing 747?
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    Do you have any evidence to refute my question?

    Nope.
    yes, the architects and engineers

    Do you seriously believe mathematical/computer simulations account for the real world
    yes, obviously, thats how the new ones are being designed also
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    And I could say 1/0 =1

    Yeah, okay; that argument is bogus and you know it.
    nothing is more certain than mathematics.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 19, 2012
New on TSR

GCSE mocks revision

Talk study tips this weekend

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.