Just one sec...
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
Take our short survey, £100 of Amazon vouchers to be won! 23-09-2016
    Offline

    1
    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.
    Offline

    2
    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
    Offline

    0
    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.
    Offline

    2
    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
    Offline

    2
    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
    Offline

    2
    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..
    Offline

    0
    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?
    Offline

    2
    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..
    Offline

    2
    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
    Offline

    1
    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?
    Offline

    1
    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.
    Offline

    0
    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?
    Offline

    2
    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
    Offline

    2
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    nothing is more certain than mathematics.
    Not when it's a straw man argument
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    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..
    You're dodging the question and focusing on ad hominem attacks. Good try though. answer me this, why would they plan to attack them and demolish them if it were so easy to prove they couldn't have been destroyed by planes? Surely they would have accounted for this and therefore chosen a better target? The Empire State Building for example.

    no, thats why so many engineers and architects cant believe they fell because of how well they were designed.
    And so many more do believe that what happened, happened.

    indeed, they did survive but nothing can account for the collapse, the top should have toppled over and not collapsed on itself..
    Actually one of the towers, I think it was the first collapse, the top does start to topple as it collapses. The science of what happened is pretty well understood and has been verified by plenty of engineers. You're just choosing to ignore it as you see anything against your argument as coming from the Government and therefore untrustworthy. Do I trust the Government totally? Nope, but I sure as hell trust independent engineers and architects more than bloggers and people on youtube!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    yes, obviously, thats how the new ones are being designed also
    But they can't account for EVERY possible event. They can never be 100% perfect or account for every variable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    yes, the architects and engineers



    yes, obviously, thats how the new ones are being designed also
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    nothing is more certain than mathematics.

    Dear, oh dear.

    Do you actually have an exam to revise for, or were you bull crapping?

    Even though the towers were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner, they were not designed to withstand and remain standing during a fire of such great magnitude. The jet-fuel fire caused by the impact was impossible to contain in the Twin Towers. The World Trade Center had not been designed to fight hydrocarbon fires of such magnitude and high temperature – up to 1500 degrees Celsius. The fire-suppression system consisted of water sprinklers that were useless because water, at this temperature, would vaporize almost instantly. Instead, these fires had to be fought with chemical foam, which the Towers lacked (Ashley 2001).
    Another design shortcoming that made the ensuing fire even more destructive was the use of weak floor trusses which spanned abnormally long distances (Ashley 2001). In the Twin Towers the steel trusses spanned nearly sixty feet without any support and were only four inches thick (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). The extremely high-temperature fire heated the relatively thin floor rapidly, making the floor almost flexible because it lost most of its rigidity and consequently buckled. Since the floor buckled, the extra support needed to come from the remaining exterior perimeter columns, but many had been destroyed by the planes’ initial impact. But those columns also depended on the core steel columns for support, but these columns were being subjected to extremely harsh conditions of the fire and were failing themselves. The exterior columns began to buckle onto the floor which buckled on the floor beneath and started a gigantic domino effect of the plunging stories. So, in effect, the fire caused all structural supports to weaken and fail within the Twin Towers.
    Offline

    2
    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.
    They have exactly the same interests... funded by the same people.

    Dead or alive, Bush needed Osama to be the supervillain bogeyman to scare the average American and justify endless wars in the M.East to fight "Al Qaeda".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    But they can't account for EVERY possible event. They can never be 100% perfect or account for every variable.
    Don't worry.

    He's living in a dream land with such bogus claims.

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. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 19, 2012
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which would you rather be...?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22

Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.