User talk:Gabrielx

Welcome!

Hello, Gabrielx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Kaasje 09:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Your recent editing history at September 11 attacks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Stop adding this. Toa Nidhiki05 13:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Nidhiki05: The phrase ("despite of being built to resist the impact of jet airliners") does not implies any conspiracy theory. It simple reflects the fact that the towers fell even though the architects and engineers built them to support crashes of that magnitude. It responds upfront the question of if the buildings shouldn't have withstand the impact of the jetliners. I intend to add this phrase again if you keep deleting it. 13:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you're factually incorrect. The engineers did a simple calculation to see if a 707 on approach to JFK would take it down, assuming it was effectively unfuelled and moving at less than 200 knots: normal approach speed. I don't think there was any actual design consideration given to this scenario: it was an engineering hypothesis, no more. The 767s were fully fuelled and moving at more than twice that speed. No calculations were done for such a scenario. Stop edit-warring. You've reverted three times: that's all you get (at the most). Acroterion (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion, please don't get me wrong, I definitely don't want to imply something that does not correspond with the truth. I will read more on the subject before continuing editing that line. One thing is not completely clear in what you are saying. You say "you're factually incorrect. The engineers did a simple calculation to see if a 707 on approach to JFK would take it down, assuming it was effectively unfuelled and moving at less than 200 knots". An then you add "I don't think there was any actual design consideration given to this [the actual] scenario" So is this what you think they calculated, or are you certain? Could you please show me the source of what you are affirming? Thanks. 14:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The onus is on you to find a reliable source as the one proposing the addition. However, see Collapse of the World Trade Center#Structural design#Safety concerns regarding aircraft impacts for referenced content. There was apparently another analysis of a high-speed impact, but nobody knows whether the buildings were projected to survive such an event. See Construction of the World Trade Center#Design#Aircraft impact. My other point is that as far as anyone has stated, the design was not changed by any such analysis to cope with crash effects, so it was not "designed to resist" impact: other factors dictated the design and a measure of resistance to being run into by airplanes was a byproduct of the basic design. Acroterion (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this article on The Seattle Times from 1993, with an interview to one of the engineers of the WTC. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698 Of course this is only the statement of and ingeneer, I would be curious to find out the actual studies. I wouldn't want to add that phrase and quote this article. Any thoughts? 15:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The headline is a newspaper editor's casual interpretation of the engineer's statement. In any case, the identical quote is discussed in the links I gave you above. The definitive document that discusses all this is the NIST study, given in the references. Specifically, see footnote 1 in Collapse of the World Trade Center. Acroterion (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not the editor's interpretation. The engineer in question, John Skilling, is clearly quoted saying that "'Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,' he said. 'The building structure would still be there.'" Here he clearly indicated that they counted on the possible effects of the fuel. As I said I will look further into it, and I will read the articles you mention. I just can't do that today, but in time I'll try to find out if I was right or not. 15:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

My point is that you're reversing the circumstances (and so was the headline): the analysis indicated that, as far as the not-very-detailed-analysis went, the building as designed was projected to stand. It was not specifically designed to resist, it was just expected to do so. You're making a leap from a short engineering analysis to a definitive statement of design intent. Acroterion (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry then, but it seems to me that you are simply adding your own assessment of the quoted statement, and you are doing the same when you affirm that the buildings were not 'designed' to resist, but simply 'expected' to do so. As I said, I will try to look into it. If I find sources that back my first correction, I will proceed to change that specific phrase. Have a good day! 15:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)