LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 06-14-2016, 09:26 PM   #46
jefro
Moderator
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,686

Rep: Reputation: 3336Reputation: 3336Reputation: 3336Reputation: 3336Reputation: 3336Reputation: 3336Reputation: 3336Reputation: 3336Reputation: 3336Reputation: 3336Reputation: 3336

The design of the building made it fail. There basically was no inner support.
 
Old 06-15-2016, 06:44 PM   #47
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187
Quote:
Originally Posted by jefro View Post
The design of the building made it fail. There basically was no inner support.
Hogwash!!

First of all, "no one would design a building like that," least of all "the tallest buildings in the world at that time."

Second, there are an abundance of during-construction pictures which quite clearly show the design of the structure.

Third, even if(!) the structure was such an impossible house-of-cards, it would have fallen from the top down, encountering some amount of resistance on the way down, much like an accordion, and at some point it would have fallen to one side. Also, there is little doubt that members would be thrown this-way-or-that as the descending upper-level detritus collapsed onto "something that was still as strong as when it was built." And, probably, it would have stopped.

None of this happened.

To me, it is frankly insulting to "professional engineers," and to the governance of the City and State of New York, to suggest that the WTC 1&2 structures were incompetently designed.

. . . and then, we have the third building! The one which contained the "counter-terrorism command center" on its middle floors. The one that "abruptly collapsed, hours later, on television." Like the others, it dematerialized.

And there are plenty of reasons why, in a big "grand plan," this building (in particular) would be blown down, and that this demolition would happen many hours later.

"Grasping the full ramifications of this final event," in particular, is what transforms this from an act of terrorism into a re-definition of "world war."

I'm not being a "wing-nut" when I politely say that the "official explanation" does not withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny. Yes, it might be comforting, but it is certainly not true. (And "the truth," for what actually are very compelling reasons, might well remain "state secret" forever ... and probably should.)

My conjecture is that government security agencies did grasp this, and that they were not the slightest bit deceived as to what really happened "right under their noses." This is probably the reason why their responses "seemed more-than-a-little-bit odd," and also why their explanations "make no sense," and why probing questions are answered with official silence. There just might be a g-o-o-d reason for it, the details of which we may never "need to know.™"

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 06-15-2016 at 06:57 PM.
 
Old 06-15-2016, 07:01 PM   #48
dugan
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 9,985

Rep: Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569
Quote:
Originally Posted by jefro View Post
There have been a number of PBS shows on it. They documented the video footage of the buildings when under construction. They documented the fact that the fire proofing used back then was flawed. It could NOT support a jet liner, it might have supported a nearly empty WW2 bomber plane.
Are any of those shows available to watch online, or to buy?
 
Old 06-16-2016, 04:11 AM   #49
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 3,539

Rep: Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post

Third, even if(!) the structure was such an impossible house-of-cards, it would have fallen from the top down, encountering some amount of resistance on the way down, much like an accordion, and at some point it would have fallen to one side. Also, there is little doubt that members would be thrown this-way-or-that as the descending upper-level detritus collapsed onto "something that was still as strong as when it was built." And, probably, it would have stopped.

None of this happened.

To me, it is frankly insulting to "professional engineers," and to the governance of the City and State of New York, to suggest that the WTC 1&2 structures were incompetently designed.
I'm not being a "wing-nut" when I politely say that the "official explanation" does not withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny. Yes, it might be comforting, but it is certainly not true. (And "the truth," for what actually are very compelling reasons, might well remain "state secret" forever ... and probably should.)
Nowhere in the building code does it say a building must be proven to be able to resist an F5 Tornado, a bomb explosion or a nearly full 767 intentionally crashing into it at a high rate of speed. I think you vastly underestimate the kinetic energy of 10+ floors of concrete and steel weighing in at thousands of tons falling 12-30 feet. There is no guarantee of any sideways vector that could possibly compete with that downward force. I can't say with 100% certainty that your take is dead wrong but neither can you say the "official explanation does not withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny". The numbers are there. It most definitely could have happened just like the investigation concluded and why wouldn't it? Do you actually imagine an official explanation as cover story would be so flawed? That's patently absurd.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
My conjecture is that government security agencies did grasp this, and that they were not the slightest bit deceived as to what really happened "right under their noses." This is probably the reason why their responses "seemed more-than-a-little-bit odd," and also why their explanations "make no sense," and why probing questions are answered with official silence. There just might be a g-o-o-d reason for it, the details of which we may never "need to know."
This last part is pure speculation and continues to assume the findings make no sense when that is vastly overstating the case, at best. How can you believe this and expect others to be swayed by your conclusions when you simply ignore the numbers that prove it could have reasonably happened just as said? Your belief that it could not have possibly occurred as found is a fatal flaw since it is the premise and as a programmer you must know "Garbage in, Garbage out" If indeed it was a demo job along with that must be the recognition that it could have happened simply as a result of luck and Physics of the attack.
 
Old 06-16-2016, 06:35 AM   #50
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187
When you design "the tallest building in the world," y-e-s you design it to be struck by an airplane. The Empire State Building had an airplane sticking out of its side for many weeks. You design it for earthquakes, too.

All t-h-r-e-e structures ... disintegrated ... all at once ... poof ... and fell into their own footprint in the amount of time it takes for an object to free-fall from that height. The first two buildings did not "pancake" from top to bottom: suddenly, there was nothing holding any of it up. (The top of the second building can be briefly seen "tipping over" when, a split second later, it stopped doing that and just fell straight down.) The third building, which can be seen collapsing in the background of a reporter's presentation, was an even more obvious, classic, demolition, followed in each case by a pyroclastic flow. There was also known to be a rather tremendous amount of heat, and a few hundred gallons of kerosene can't do that.

And yes, absolutely, I do think that "the official explanation" is a cover ... and, should be. The actual, full, truth of this matter should remain a military secret. The perpetrators don't need a debriefing about what we do and don't know about what they did, and, I think, neither does the general public. If you "need to know" the full extent of it, you do. And if you don't, a cover story will have to do. (Hey, we put it in a really nice-looking book for you ...) There are tools and techniques, materials, and technical capabilities that John Q. Public doesn't need to know about. Many of those were apparently used here.

More than anything else, this was a complete lapse of security, especially in the case of the t-h-i-r-d building and the "anti-terrorist nerve center" that it was known to contain. Had officials rushed into that structure as the plan called for them to do, all of them would also have been killed. (And if they had started broadcasting "comforting messages to the public" from that location's TV studio that was designed for that purpose, their deaths would have also been "on TV.") It was a far-reaching and diabolical plan that made a complete mockery of well-laid plans to "be prepared." The level of knowledge, not to mention technical expertise, is extremely sobering. "How did they 'know everything,' and 'get everywhere,' for so long?" I don't know.

It's mind-boggling to put your head around that scenario, and infinitely more comforting to think that an engineer just screwed up. Go ahead and think that, just like you're supposed to. It is, in a way, much more comforting to blame it on "luck and physics." Part of me would love to do the same thing. Because, if you don't take solace in that, you're left with a military attack that was .... successfully(!) ... months and years in the making. And that should very rightly scare the hell out of you.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 06-16-2016 at 06:54 AM.
 
Old 06-16-2016, 12:09 PM   #51
dugan
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 9,985

Rep: Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
That's the internet. When they start in real life, their victims can shut them up by making an excuse and leaving, but here they can ramble on like the Ancient Mariner.
Honestly, the most likely factor I can think of for why we have so many conspiracy theorists is that our userbase is generally advanced in age. But it would obviously be a small factor if it even is one. We do, after all, have a lot of seniors here do not hold fringe beliefs.

Last edited by dugan; 06-16-2016 at 12:41 PM.
 
Old 06-16-2016, 12:16 PM   #52
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 3,539

Rep: Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424
@ sundialsvcs - Where do you keep getting this "few hundred gallons of kerosene"? Not only did each plane have well over 60,000 pounds of refined kerosene but it ignited several stories worth of natural and especially synthetic materials that burned at up to 1100 degrees for over an hour. A slight tilt shows that some sideways forces did transpire but physics reveals it was "spitting in the ocean" compared to the massive straight down kinetic energy. How can you not even stipulate that it is at least possible that it was not demo'd even if you conclude that it is more likely that it was?
 
Old 06-16-2016, 12:19 PM   #53
dugan
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 9,985

Rep: Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569Reputation: 4569
I wrote something here, but...

No. Addressing this is beneath me.

Last edited by dugan; 06-16-2016 at 12:40 PM.
 
Old 06-16-2016, 04:43 PM   #54
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187Reputation: 3187
I stand corrected, then, as to just how much kerosene an airplane carries.

And, if you're prepared to accept that <<anything>> in an office-building ... natural or not ... could subsequently "burn at more than 1,100 degrees for more than an hour," then please(!) remind me never to walk into such a building, nor to work there!

Even so, you are left with precisely two most-critical "flies in your ointment."
  1. The fire, however hot it might be, is still .. "up there." Eighty-odd stories above the street. If the official-story were correct, those fires ... after burning more than an hour before achieving anything ... would land on top of the (hitherto unaffected ...) stories immediately below. It is, shall we say, "rather difficult" to conceive that the impact of this debris would somehow be sufficient to collapse the entire structure beneath it, and to do so "in eight seconds flat."
  2. There is the pesky problem of that third building ... so-many hours later. (That p-a-r-t-i-c-u-l-a-r ... "third building.")

I'm going to "rest my case" with this final-to-me post, and not reply to this thread any more.
 
Old 06-16-2016, 08:48 PM   #55
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 3,539

Rep: Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424Reputation: 3424
OK so I won't direct this to sundialsvcs but to this thread. The point of the secondary fires is how much energy they could reasonably have produced nd whether or not that would be sufficient to weaken s load-bearing support beams allowing at least 1-3 stories to collapse UNDER the more intact 9-11 stories above.

From Modern Home and Office Fire Safety

Quote:
Originally Posted by From_Above_Link
Today's furniture is markedly improved in its resistance to the most common type of accidental ignition: the dropped cigarette, or other forms of glowing sources (electric heaters, glowing electrical connections, etc.) but the trade-off is much worse resistance (read: virtually none) to flaming sources.* Once alight, such furnishings can be completely involved in 3 to 5 minutes and be reduced to a charred frame in 10 minutes, while producing very high temperatures (in excess of 2000F in the flame plume) and enormous heat release rates (2 to 3 megawatts being common for a sofa or recliner today).
These are the numbers of which I speak and they are more than sufficient to cause the collapse of several support beams, initiating the collapse.
 
Old 06-16-2016, 09:53 PM   #56
alberich
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2016
Location: Bavaria
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 140

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
First of all, no one would design a building like that, least of all the tallest buildings in the world at that time.
... To me, it is frankly insulting to professional engineers and to the governance of the City and State of New York, to suggest that the WTC 1, 2 structures were incompetently designed.
That is wishful thinking and over-estimation. Of course anyone would build a building that stands passably. State-of-the-art of the early 70's (and it aged too). A successful decision maker has often even only a horizon of 50 more years. Do you have the slightes idea what the cost of excessively reinforcing buildings of that scale for most absurd events?

You asked why there was no support from the bottom, well, probably the structure has to be more stable at the base. But have you thought of the basement having to carry the complete weight of 110 stories? The question stands if the basement was actually accordingly relatively stronger compared to the top storiers. Basement is predestined to be the weakest link in a skyscraper. And why should it topple to a side. Gravitation goes directly donwards, not at any side, and the debris is heavy, pulverizing anything.

Also I find the thought that these airplane attacks were carried out, and that parallely demolition charges were attached (we have seen on tv what amount of work that is) highly improbable. I mean nobody would be so stupid to multiply two high 'risk' (of discovery) operations. That is like don't getting your mouth full. Any serious terrorist should be very, very happy and content to carry out one of these parts. Aiming at both would be (even more) fully retarded logically and logistically.

Maybe Bin Laden hat even planned this to happen, wasn't he in building business? Probably he had info about the structure, probably he did calculations. That can be expected.

I think you are still traumatized. I watched some news footage again these days. And when the planes hit there were at first words like 'amazing', 'what a sight' and stuff like this. When the first tower collapsed, the reporter almost started crying. Because that was obviously a very severe happening.

So you are searching for shady theories to rationalize this event. And the talk that the government knows stuff that it'd probably 'better never should tell', I don't think that is very rational or convincing at all.

Fact is from what I know the collapse is very plausible, demolition completely unrealistic. The only point is the third building collapsing. But have you forgot what happened that day? The twin towers right next to it collapsed! Probably tons of debris lay on top of it. It's wondrous it didn't collapsed right away. And it burned for hours. So nothing more happened there probably then the same as with the twin towers.

Last edited by alberich; 06-16-2016 at 10:16 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] Can anyone recommend a replacement RSS reader after google reader kicks the bucket H5X00R Linux - Mobile 6 06-11-2013 04:47 PM
problem with sim card reader/multicard reader ut0ugh1 Linux - Hardware 11 11-27-2012 09:04 AM
Need recommendation for RSS reader with Google Reader integration/sync TobiSGD Linux - Software 5 06-01-2012 09:00 PM
Slim free PDF Reader as alternative to Adobe Reader cccc Debian 6 10-14-2010 02:51 PM
HP Photosmart 7550 w/ Flash Card Reader on Suse 9.3. Card Reader and Print Sharing Desert Linux - Hardware 0 07-25-2005 08:25 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:59 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration