Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 SF Earthquake?

[chillzero]

You know Galileo's just making these threads as an excuse to repeatedly post that picture of Mr. Galilei's finger.

If that is the case, then I am certain he will shortly be receiving moderation attention for spamming.

Now - back to topic, and less personalised discussion, please.

 

[Confuseling]

What if Spiderman had been holding up WTC7's critical column, but instead of having been bitten by a radioactive spider, it was a possum? A possum on opium?

What then?

 

[Damien Evans]

Get Help. You're a sick man.

 

[Galileo]

You know Galileo's just making these threads as an excuse to repeatedly post that picture of Mr. Galilei's finger.

That's MY finger! Please don't make fun of my finger. That finger has gotten a good workout over the past four centuries, dealing with obstinate clerics, witch-hunters, drug warriors, DEA agents, and now JREFers & Archie Debunkers.

Please, everyone, focus on the specific topic, would WTC 7 have survived the '06 quake?

I have listed some pros and cons to help guide you in your search for the truth. That's the kind of guy I am.

 

[dtugg]

That's MY finger! Please don't make fun of my finger

So you confirm that you are either crazy or trolling (or both). Which one is it?

 

[Bell]

Some stood some fell. What's your point

Now what in blue hell does your question have any relevance to????

but instead ill just ask what is the point of this thread?

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

What the hell kind of point are you trying to make

What the hell is the point you are trying to make?

What's my point? I don't know. What's yours?

Got point???

 

[Smackety]

got my insane twoofer JREF fix for the day.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. “ - City in the Sky, p 131

The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers' calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. --City in the Sky, p 133

“I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like mosquito-netting on your screen door—this intense grid. And the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” - FRANK A. DeMARTINI, MANAGER, WTC CONSTRUCTION & PROJECT MANAGEMENT

THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ... --City in the Sky, p 134-6

"live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." --John Skilling, in Engineering News Record, 4/2/1964


Is it lying or denial that's going on here?


Oh I think I forgot one...

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, ... The building structure would still be there. - Skilling

 

[CptColumbo]

Would WTC 7 have survived being moved across the continent and back in time?

The difference between you and the actual Galileo: the actual Galileo was correct.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Is it lying or denial that's going on here?

I don't quite understand how you people managed to conflate comments directed at the twin towers and the design of WTC 7... I really hope you read Galileos' claim before trying to back him up...

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

I don't quite understand how you people managed to conflate comments directed at the twin towers and the design of WTC 7... I really hope you read Galileos' claim before trying to back him up...

Actually I was responding to posts like this...

WTC design was for a lost plane, in the weather (pilot can't see), low on fuel (cause if he was lost in the fog he would go where he would not be in the weather if he had lots of fuel), and landing, or lost trying to land. Landing speed is about 180 mph at 700 feet, and thus we have a low energy impact designed for in the WTC, and low fuel. However, the structural engineer for the WTC did say he did not plan for lots of fuel being injected (at high speed) into the WTC. He did not consider it, a slow speed aircraft impact low on fuel would not destroy the WTC, most the plane would fall to the ground and poke a few holes in the building, killing only those near the impact point.

The impact speed of the planes on 9/11 is what caused the damage and destroyed the fire systems in both towers. The fuel started fires on multiple floors.

Sorry, the design of the WTC was for a slow impact, and low fuel. Your point is lost on those who are not as smart as you are, or you say you are will all that common sense.

 

[DGM]

To answer the OP:
I see no reason to believe that the design of the building (even being over the substation) would have much problems with an earthquake.

Now the fires:
These fires were from the burning of buildings (from damage) that were mostly made from combustible materials (wooden structures and such). Now these fires spread from building to building because the combustibles were on the outside, this was not the case with building 7. Fires outside of the building should have little effect.

Building 7 (and the towers) would have swayed but most likely would have survived.

 

[tsig]

That's MY finger! Please don't make fun of my finger. That finger has gotten a good workout over the past four centuries, dealing with obstinate clerics, witch-hunters, drug warriors, DEA agents, and now JREFers & Archie Debunkers.

Please, everyone, focus on the specific topic, would WTC 7 have survived the '06 quake?

I have listed some pros and cons to help guide you in your search for the truth. That's the kind of guy I am.

It would have never survived the time-trip.

More importantly, would Godzilla beat Mothra in an all out match.

Godzilla has the fire but Mothra can fly.

I have listed some pros and cons to help guide you in your search for the truth. That's the kind of guy I am.

 

[Galileo]

What if Spiderman had been holding up WTC7's critical column, but instead of having been bitten by a radioactive spider, it was a possum? A possum on opium?

What then?

Perhaps Superman was hiding in the basement of WTC 7 (after turning off the fire alarms at 6:47 A.M.), then waited until 5:21 and then yanked down column # 79, bringing down the entire structure in a neat, managed and safe fashion.

 

[DGM]

Perhaps Superman was hiding in the basement of WTC 7 (after turning off the fire alarms at 6:47 A.M.), then waited until 5:21 and then yanked down column # 79, bringing down the entire structure in a neat, managed and safe fashion.

Turned to "test" is not turned off. Stop trying to deceive (remember "truth").

 

[Mancman]

We designed the towers to resist the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land. The impact of the Boeing 767s, commandeered by the terrorists, even though larger and flying much faster, was still unable to bring down the towers. The fire-resistive systems, however, did not and could not have contemplated the subsequent fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

 

[roundhead]

http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

A fully loaded 707 weighs as much as the partially fuel loaded 9/11 planes.

A 707 is actually faster as well.

 

[DGM]

A fully loaded 707 weighs as much as the partially fuel loaded 9/11 planes.

A 707 is actually faster as well.

What does this have to do with the OP? Stop trying to shift the argument and stay on topic (Sorry Chillzero I couldn't resist).

PS; The planes impact did not in fact knock the buildings down.

 

[eromitlab]

I don't quite understand how you people managed to conflate comments directed at the twin towers and the design of WTC 7... I really hope you read Galileos' claim before trying to back him up...

HI is just showing the same level of understanding about WTC7's design as Galileo.

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.

Which is to say, none.

Oh, and Galileo, you never did answer my question, which involves naming one building in San Francisco in 1906 that proves the following statement:

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

 

[TJM]

Oh, and Galileo, you never did answer my question, which involves naming one building in San Francisco in 1906 that proves the following statement:

Well, I do know the answer to that since I live in San Francisco, but that would be cheating to post it, I think. C'mon Galileo, what's the answer?