9/11 #123: Wegspringende spatules

quote:

Op zondag 15 april 2018 20:24 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

tis 'n discussie forum waar we allemaal zelf mogen kiezen met wie we in discussie gaan en over welke discussie punten we gaan over speculeren.

quote:

Op maandag 16 april 2018 13:22 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

According to some posters here the 9/11 cartoon planes did nose-dives into the buildings.

quote:

Op maandag 16 april 2018 20:46 schreef Tingo het volgende:
Hier 'n interview (Sept.12,2001) met nog 'n WTC architect:

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/wtc.architect.cnna/

(CNN) -- When they were completed in the early 1970s, the Twin Towers of New York's World Trade Center were the tallest buildings in the world. That designation didn't last long -- Chicago's Sears Tower took the title in 1974, a year after Two World Trade Center was finished -- but the buildings' standing as a New York City landmark, anchors amid the office-tower canyons of Manhattan's financial district, remained unchallenged.
Tuesday, the buildings -- daytime home of more than 50,000 workers -- were destroyed when two hijacked passenger jets were flown into the structures.
CNN's Leon Harris spoke with Aaron Swirsky, part of the architectural team led by World Trade Center chief architect Minoru Yamasaki, on the way the building was designed.

LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: So many of us had thought for so long that the Twin Towers were invincible. We had heard for so many times over the years that the buildings have been built to withstand an impact from the crash of a plane.
Let's talk right now on the telephone with Aaron Swirsky. He's in Jerusalem. He was one of the original architects of the complex, as I understand it.

Is that the case, Mr. Swirsky?
AARON SWIRSKY, ARCHITECT: I was working with Minoru Yamasaki, who is the architect of the building. But I was one of the workers with him. We were a team of 14 architects, and I was one of the members of the team.
HARRIS: As a member of the team, and having such insight to how this building was constructed, could you believe that a plane could bring these buildings down?
SWIRSKY: No, as a matter of fact, one of the rationales of the structure of the building was that it would be built as a pipe. And that proved itself to work during the explosion of 1993, when a hole was brought into the building, and it survived. But somehow, nobody could foresee anything like (Tuesday's incident).
Also, at that time, the planes were not like these types of planes that we have now. I think the biggest plane was a 100-passenger plane, something like that, and the fuel capacity of those planes was not like they are today.
The criterion was that if a plane hits, it would go right through it. And nobody could foresee something like that. The tower was protected in such a way that the damage would be limited to one story, but it wouldn't travel to the other stories.
HARRIS: The planes that crashed yesterday were much bigger than that. They were 757s.
SWIRSKY: And also the fuel capacity is much more tremendous.
HARRIS: Exactly. That's what I want to ask you about. Which was it that made the biggest difference? Was it the impact felt from the larger plane, or was it the heat generated by the burning and that much fuel.
SWIRSKY: I imagine, when I saw the pictures of the implosion of the building, it looks like the fuel must have leaked right to the core of the building, and from there it was the massive explosion that caused the building to collapse. So it was something completely unforeseen, so far as the design criteria was (concerned).
HARRIS: Let me ask one final question, if I may. Considering what you know about the building -- you say it was constructed like a pipe, these two buildings -- and the manner in which we saw them collapse, does that give you any hope at all that the way it collapsed, there will be more packets inside, at the bottom, where survivors could be found?
SWIRSKY: Well, I sure hope so. We pray that there will be survivors and that this won't happen again. It's a terrible, terrible, incredible tragedy.

quote:

Op maandag 16 april 2018 20:46 schreef Tingo het volgende:
Hier 'n interview (Sept.12,2001) met nog 'n WTC architect:

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/wtc.architect.cnna/

(CNN) -- When they were completed in the early 1970s, the Twin Towers of New York's World Trade Center were the tallest buildings in the world. That designation didn't last long -- Chicago's Sears Tower took the title in 1974, a year after Two World Trade Center was finished -- but the buildings' standing as a New York City landmark, anchors amid the office-tower canyons of Manhattan's financial district, remained unchallenged.
Tuesday, the buildings -- daytime home of more than 50,000 workers -- were destroyed when two hijacked passenger jets were flown into the structures.
CNN's Leon Harris spoke with Aaron Swirsky, part of the architectural team led by World Trade Center chief architect Minoru Yamasaki, on the way the building was designed.

LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: So many of us had thought for so long that the Twin Towers were invincible. We had heard for so many times over the years that the buildings have been built to withstand an impact from the crash of a plane.
Let's talk right now on the telephone with Aaron Swirsky. He's in Jerusalem. He was one of the original architects of the complex, as I understand it.

Is that the case, Mr. Swirsky?
AARON SWIRSKY, ARCHITECT: I was working with Minoru Yamasaki, who is the architect of the building. But I was one of the workers with him. We were a team of 14 architects, and I was one of the members of the team.
HARRIS: As a member of the team, and having such insight to how this building was constructed, could you believe that a plane could bring these buildings down?
SWIRSKY: No, as a matter of fact, one of the rationales of the structure of the building was that it would be built as a pipe. And that proved itself to work during the explosion of 1993, when a hole was brought into the building, and it survived. But somehow, nobody could foresee anything like (Tuesday's incident).
Also, at that time, the planes were not like these types of planes that we have now. I think the biggest plane was a 100-passenger plane, something like that, and the fuel capacity of those planes was not like they are today.
The criterion was that if a plane hits, it would go right through it. And nobody could foresee something like that. The tower was protected in such a way that the damage would be limited to one story, but it wouldn't travel to the other stories.
HARRIS: The planes that crashed yesterday were much bigger than that. They were 757s.
SWIRSKY: And also the fuel capacity is much more tremendous.
HARRIS: Exactly. That's what I want to ask you about. Which was it that made the biggest difference? Was it the impact felt from the larger plane, or was it the heat generated by the burning and that much fuel.
SWIRSKY: I imagine, when I saw the pictures of the implosion of the building, it looks like the fuel must have leaked right to the core of the building, and from there it was the massive explosion that caused the building to collapse. So it was something completely unforeseen, so far as the design criteria was (concerned).
HARRIS: Let me ask one final question, if I may. Considering what you know about the building -- you say it was constructed like a pipe, these two buildings -- and the manner in which we saw them collapse, does that give you any hope at all that the way it collapsed, there will be more packets inside, at the bottom, where survivors could be found?
SWIRSKY: Well, I sure hope so. We pray that there will be survivors and that this won't happen again. It's a terrible, terrible, incredible tragedy.

quote:

Op zondag 15 april 2018 11:07 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

1.Onbekend
2.Onbekend
3.Onbekend

Speculatieve discussie heb ik niet zo veel zin in.

quote:

The criterion was that if a plane hits, it would go right through it.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2018 12:17 schreef tja77 het volgende:

[..]

Het kan gewoonweg niet en het gebeurde ook niet.
Het vliegtuig vloog niet dwars door het gebouw heen, want dan zou het gebouw meteen in elkaar zijn gestort.
Trouwens zijn architecten en constructeurs het heel vaak niet eens met elkaar. Architecten willen vaak iets, wat constructief niet eens mogelijk is. Kortom, een architect kan zoveel willen, de verantwoordelijkheid qua stabiliteit e.d. ligt bij de constructeur.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2018 08:36 schreef theguyver het volgende:

[..]

Gast BNW is juist een en al speculatie, want feiten worden constant weerlegt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2018 10:26 schreef ChrisCarter het volgende:

[..]

14 architecten die dus dit aangeven. Dan kan dat ene argument, dat een vliegtuig niet "door" het WTC kon omdat het WTC van staal is en een vliegtuig niet, het raam dus uit.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2018 12:54 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Volgens Tingo had het vliegtuig als een soort leeg bierblikje in elkaar moeten kreukelen tegen de gevel van het gebouw Dat is waar hij het over heeft.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2018 13:00 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk van niet.

Als je met de officiele verklaringen ben tevreden, hoef je geen speculeren te doen.
Speculatieve discussie kan interessant zijn, maar meestal met MSM’ers gewoonl tijdverspillend is.
Ach ja, who cares....BNW forum loopt toch dood.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2018 13:56 schreef tja77 het volgende:

[..]

Want snelheid en inhoud zijn natuurlijk allesbepalend?
Sla met je hand tegen een stalen kolom of doe het met 900 km.uur. De kolom zal heel blijven.
Heb jij een idee wat het volume/gewicht verhouding was van het vliegtuig? Het kreng kon vliegen, dus echt geen massief blok metaal.
Jij vindt het lachwekkend, dat wil niet zeggen dat het dat ook daadwerkelijk is.
Ik vind stalen kokers die als twijgjes bezwijken door holle aluminium vleugels juist lachwekkend.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2018 14:40 schreef tja77 het volgende:

[..]

Ah, jij betrekt massa erbij.
Inhoud staat gelijk aan volume (dat is iets anders dan massa).
Een massief blok staal van 1000 kg. met 900 km/uur tegen de stalen constructie heeft een heel ander effect dan een hol element van hetzelfde gewicht (dat dus feitelijk een veel groter volume heeft). Omdat het holle element ansich al heel veel kinetische energie absorbeert.
En dus zorgt een grote inhoud (dus volume) juist voor een afname in kinetische energie die uiteindelijk op de staalconstructie komt.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2018 14:49 schreef tja77 het volgende:

[..]

Er werd gesteld dat vanwege de snelheid en inhoud het lachwekkend zou zijn dat het vliegtuig tegen de gevel in elkaar zou kreukelen.
Juist de inhoud (die groot is) maakt het juist NIET lachwekkend.

quote:

Op maandag 16 april 2018 21:14 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Wat is je punt?

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2018 12:54 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:

[..]

Volgens Tingo had het vliegtuig als een soort leeg bierblikje in elkaar moeten kreukelen tegen de gevel van het gebouw Dat is waar hij het over heeft.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2018 22:14 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

Moet je zelf weten. I was only pointing out some ridiculous statements in the interview.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2018 22:14 schreef Tingo het volgende:

[..]

Moet je zelf weten. I was only pointing out some ridiculous statements in the interview.

quote:

Op dinsdag 17 april 2018 14:40 schreef tja77 het volgende:

[..]

Ah, jij betrekt massa erbij.
Inhoud staat gelijk aan volume (dat is iets anders dan massa).
Een massief blok staal van 1000 kg. met 900 km/uur tegen de stalen constructie heeft een heel ander effect dan een hol element van hetzelfde gewicht (dat dus feitelijk een veel groter volume heeft). Omdat het holle element ansich al heel veel kinetische energie absorbeert.
En dus zorgt een grote inhoud (dus volume) juist voor een afname in kinetische energie die uiteindelijk op de staalconstructie komt.