Forum Thread

Trump made incredible predictions.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 7 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Trump named Osama Bin Laden along with predicting a huge terrorist attack in the USA. This was in a book he wrote prior to 911. He can back up his statement about W being president when 911 happened. There are a lot of loose ends that appear thoughtlessly blurted out by Trump. These loose ends are starting to appear like part of an incredible plan to construct a super hero. Not the work of enthused volunteers but best that money can buy strategists. Has Trump put together an incredibly planned and executed campaign? Is he actually buying his way ?
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Trump named Osama Bin Laden along with predicting a huge terrorist attack in the USA. This was in a book he wrote prior to 911. He can back up his statement about W being president when 911 happened. There are a lot of loose ends that appear thoughtlessly blurted out by Trump. These loose ends are starting to appear like part of an incredible plan to construct a super hero. Not the work of enthused volunteers but best that money can buy strategists. Has Trump put together an incredibly planned and executed campaign? Is he actually buying his way ?
    Chet, regardless of Trump; the US's record on foreign policies is so bad that the world already hated us way before 9/11; so that would have happened with or without Trump or Bush. Don't forget as well due to our own stupidity that the number of death would have been very small if these buildings were built the proper way; holding heavy floors with only 6 or so bolts of lousy quality caused the collapse not the plane caused damage. Thus 9/11 was totally caused by our own doing.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There are too many things wrong with modern construction innovations. The extra skeletal design of the trade centers was a liability as well as the fire insulation on the beams. Modern bridges are failing but the 120 plus year old Brooklyn Bridge still stands.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: There are too many things wrong with modern construction innovations. The extra skeletal design of the trade centers was a liability as well as the fire insulation on the beams. Modern bridges are failing but the 120 plus year old Brooklyn Bridge still stands.
    Chet, since these were then the tallest buildings in N.Y, then at least they should have built it such way that perhaps in a "fog" situation also a plane from J.F.K or LaGuardia could have flown into it by accident. So to allow such building to be built without that in mind is kind of an self inflicted wound.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Don't forget as well due to our own stupidity that the number of death would have been very small if these buildings were built the proper way; holding heavy floors with only 6 or so bolts of lousy quality caused the collapse not the plane caused damage. Thus 9/11 was totally caused by our own doing.

    Scientific American, August 31, 2011: Twin Towers Forensic Investigation Helps Revise Building Codes, Despite Critics

    This is an extract from the above article:

    "It turns out that even a combination of high-speed collisions by two airliners and fires across multiple floors would not have destroyed the Twin Towers, according to NIST's final 2005 report on their collapse. The robustness and size of the structures helped them withstand the hits, and in the absence of damage, fires as intense as the ones the towers faced would likely not have led to collapse.

    "Unfortunately, the impacts dislodged fireproofing insulation that coated steel in the floors and columns, leaving the metal vulnerable to weakening under fire. The ceiling sprinklers also did not work, because the water supplying them was cut off by the collisions."

    -------------------------------------------------------------

    The forensic investigation made recommendations on the fire insulation as well as other changes to building codes. But I would push back on your "proper way" to build buildings. Small planes have crashed into high rise buildings all over the world, but the chances of a major airline with all the sophisticated radar and telemetry hitting one of the Twin Towers was not considered a likely event in the 1970s when the towers were constructed. And in any case, the towers withstood those crashes. What apparently wasn't considered is the indirect impact of the crashes on the insulation and sprinklers.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote: Don't forget as well due to our own stupidity that the number of death would have been very small if these buildings were built the proper way; holding heavy floors with only 6 or so bolts of lousy quality caused the collapse not the plane caused damage. Thus 9/11 was totally caused by our own doing.

    Scientific American, August 31, 2011: Twin Towers Forensic Investigation Helps Revise Building Codes, Despite Critics

    This is an extract from the above article:

    "It turns out that even a combination of high-speed collisions by two airliners and fires across multiple floors would not have destroyed the Twin Towers, according to NIST's final 2005 report on their collapse. The robustness and size of the structures helped them withstand the hits, and in the absence of damage, fires as intense as the ones the towers faced would likely not have led to collapse.

    "Unfortunately, the impacts dislodged fireproofing insulation that coated steel in the floors and columns, leaving the metal vulnerable to weakening under fire. The ceiling sprinklers also did not work, because the water supplying them was cut off by the collisions."

    -------------------------------------------------------------

    The forensic investigation made recommendations on the fire insulation as well as other changes to building codes. But I would push back on your "proper way" to build buildings. Small planes have crashed into high rise buildings all over the world, but the chances of a major airline with all the sophisticated radar and telemetry hitting one of the Twin Towers was not considered a likely event in the 1970s when the towers were constructed. And in any case, the towers withstood those crashes. What apparently wasn't considered is the indirect impact of the crashes on the insulation and sprinklers.

    Thanks Schmidt; What I was informed of that the FLOORS were the cause of the collapse; they were held in place by only very few bolts; some of these bolts snapped because of heat the remainder could not hold the floor with all its office equipment and additional plane weight; the one floor dropped on the other etc. so a "chain reaction" came about; result known. May be as you said if sprinklers would have cooled these bolts then the chain reaction may not have happened. However in a report it was also said that the quality (and quantity) of these bolts should have been of a higher strength standard
  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Steel in refineries and petrochemical plants are protected with a couple of different fireproofing materials. The first is a cementitious type. This type can have problems with corrosion from water getting behind the fireproofing and attacking the steel. The second is intumescent fireproofing that is generally epoxy based. These materials are resistant to hydrocarbon fires including jet fuels. One wonders if the fireproofing in the towers was designed to be resistant to hydrocarbon fire as well as cellulosic fire.