• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 SF Earthquake?

Galileo

Illuminator
Galileo
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
3,368
OK guys and gals, here is today's thought question!

Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the ensuing three-day fire?

Pros:

WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes, had fire-proofing, a water sprinkler system, and a fire alarm system to to quickly alert firemen.

On top of that, other tall steel-framed buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake and three-day fire, and still stand today.

Cons:

WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11. Surely the wallop of the 8.3 richter quake and three-day inferno would have taken Building 7 out.

Thoughts?

sfingerzg2.jpg


:jaw-dropp
 
Galileo said:
OK guys and gals, here is today's thought question!

Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the ensuing three-day fire?

Pros:

WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes, had fire-proofing, a water sprinkler system, and a fire alarm system to to quickly alert firemen.

On top of that, other tall steel-framed buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake and three-day fire, and still stand today.

Cons:

WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11. Surely the wallop of the 8.3 richter quake and three-day inferno would have taken Building 7 out.

Thoughts?

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2550/sfingerzg2.jpg

:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

Thoughts?

Sure, 2009 as come with a bang and you started the most pointless thread with the most ridiculous comparison/senario I have seen this year.

Well done, I am sure 2009 will bring you continuing success.
 
Last edited:
Some stood some fell. What's your point?



I wonder how many of these buildings were built over a ConEd substation and shared the some of the same construction attributes with WTC7.
 
[content rearranged for clarity]
Galileo said:
WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes
Click to expand...
It was? :eye-poppi
Where is this mentioned???

Galileo said:
On top of that, other tall steel-framed buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake and three-day fire, and still stand today.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously trying to compare the designs of buildings constructed one hundred years ago with absolutely no differentiation between the specifications of them individually? IIRC didn't predominantly steel framed construction become common practice until much later?


Galileo said:
Cons:
WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11. Surely the wallop of the 8.3 richter quake and three-day inferno would have taken Building 7 out.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Manhattan is not located in a designated earthquake zone and the codes applied for earthquake resistant design are not implemented there like they are in San Francisco today. If it were required to follow the same codes it would receive a failing grade. The question as to whether it could survive an earthquake would be immensely reliant upon the magnitude, and the frame's ability to withstand the forced applied to it.



Galileo said:
OK guys and gals, here is today's thought question!

Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the ensuing three-day fire?
Click to expand...

The severity of an earthquake rises exponentially with each increase in magnitude so without considering earthquake resistant design, a building like WTC 7 would in all likelihood have suffered the same fate in an earthquake of similar magnitude to the 1906 event or greater.

Now what in blue hell does your question have any relevance to????
 
id ask if the WTC was designed to withstand earthquakes (seeing as NYC is seismically stable) but instead ill just ask what is the point of this thread?
 
Another one of those threads where the analogy is completely irrelevant to the the event it's being compared to?
 
Galileo said:
WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes
Click to expand...
Just the facts. WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand an accidental airplane crash with nothing figured in for the fuel. A smaller jet going in at slower speeds than what occurred on 9/11. WTC 7 was not designed to withstand any such event.
 
If a steel framed skyscraper falls in the forest, does anybody here it fall.


TAM:)
 
Nevermind your "small office fire" was a conflagration on multiple floors.

Nevermind that it had been impacted by falling debris with a force orders of magnitude above TNT.

Nevermind that the FDNY pulled the firefighting effort for fear of losing more precious personnel.

Your argument, like Galileo's finger, is withered, old, and not really relevant to anything.
 
Galileo said:
...

Cons:

WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11. Surely the wallop of the 8.3 richter quake and three-day inferno would have taken Building 7 out.

Thoughts?

:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...
What a false statement. Was there a massive release of truthers for the holidays? How many fell off the wagon? This is weird, there is not even a full moon.

There were office fires not fought, and the building was expected to fail or suffer damage that would be dangerous to people. Just like other buildings. There was no water for the sprinklers systems.

Oh, please tell me which 47 story steel building that burned in SF in 1906 is still standing. Go ahead, make my day.
 
Galileo said:
...
WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes, had fire-proofing, a water sprinkler system, and a fire alarm system to to quickly alert firemen.
Click to expand...

Prove WTC7 was designed for an aircraft impact; show me.

OOPS, the water sprinkler system did not work on 9/11! Do you know why?

You threw in the fire alarm for what reason? What a great 9/11 truth post. wow
 
I think this can only be properly examined in one way.




























This just cries out, of course, for MORE PIZZA BOXES!
And you could stack 'em on your old Norge washing machine, set on Spin, to get the vibrations right. I'm not sure if Galileo's up to it, but I'm sure someone around here would be.
 
UPDATE!

Pro:

If WTC 7 were in San Fran, it would NOT have been built upon a ConEd substation, and thus would have survived the ordeal.

Con:

The thermal expansion caused by the three-day inferno in SF would probably have exceeded the thermal expansion caused by the small office fire on 9/11.

Just some additional facts for ya to chew on and throw into the mix.

"Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the ensuing three-day fire?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom