Split Thread Was global collapse of WTC inevitable?

[ElMondoHummus]

Do you have a point, caller? Are you claiming that lay opinion and perceived common sense are to be preferred to analysis and professional opinion?

... to common sense and a growing body of analysis and professional opinion, yes I do.

I see. And what "growing" technical analysis and professional opinion are you referring to, that I should attach greater weight to it than (say) Arup?

I believe this growing technical field of expertise has been discussed in other threads more than I or you probably care to talk about here.

I only know that if you, Archtct, do not have any first-hand technical or scientific expertise of what you are talking about, then I will believe Professors Jones and Harrit rather than I will believe you, a barrage of lame ad-homs notwithstanding.

I don't know what or who is Arup.

1. Yes, the supposedly growing technical field of expertise has indeed been discussed, and found to be nothing more than a bunch of signatures - a great deal of which weren't even from engineers or architects - on a web form. And as has been paralleled in the thread with Mr. Deets, has shown to be nothing more than many people not applying their expertise to the topic but instead reciting the same truther misrepresentations over and over. So yes, that has been discussed and evaluated. That's why no one gives those groups - the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in this case - any credence.
2. Your problem is believing the people instead of studying the data. If you had looked over what data Jones and Harrit provided, you'd understand that it actually contradicts their conclusion. That discussion has been had in several different threads, but the point is that merely putting trust in names is erroneous and fallacious. Those names have to prove they're trustworthy. Jones and Harrit have proven the opposite.
3. Ove Arup was a, within his field, well known structural engineer who resided in the UK. His most famous work was the Sydney Opera House. Architect invokes Arup because his engineering firm - still in business decades after his death - has done some independent research into the Twin Towers collapses. And believe it or not, they differ with NIST. Yet, they differ in a way that's properly supported, and they confirm that whatever differences they have, that fires were responsible for the weakening of the structures to the point where the Twin Towers collapsed. Nobody expects you to have come into the 9/11 history knowing Arup, but it speaks volumes about your knowledge that, after supposedly learning enough to comment about the event, you still don't know what the Arup firm is. They're one of the major firms - outside the US, I may add - who's published research into the collapses. And the fact that you had to be told that, like I said, speaks volumes.

 

[Architect]

I believe this growing technical field of expertise has been discussed in other threads more than I or you probably care to talk about here.

Do you mean AE911Truth? Or do you have someone else in mind? Be specific, please.

I only know that if you, Archtct, do not have any first-hand technical or scientific expertise of what you are talking about...

I'm a chartered archtiect with 20 years of experience, of which a substantial part included commercial sector work such as tall buildings. A number of the posters here are familiar with my work and steps have been taken to display appropriate bona-fides to the mods.

... then I will believe Professors Jones and Harrit rather than I will believe you, a barrage of lame ad-homs notwithstanding.

Remind me of their experience in structural analysis or tall building design, please?

I don't know what or who is Arup.

It's an international engineering consultancy, head officed in the UK, with one of the best itnernational reputations in its field. They do tall buildings too. If you're familiar with the issues being discussed then you should already know this.

 

[Architect]

Ove Arup was a, within his field, well known structural engineer who resided in the UK. His most famous work was the Sydney Opera House. Architect invokes Arup because his engineering firm - still in business decades after his death - has done some independent research into the Twin Towers collapses. And believe it or not, they differ with NIST. Yet, they differ in a way that's properly supported, and they confirm that whatever differences they have, that fires were responsible for the weakening of the structures to the point where the Twin Towers collapsed.

Specifically, Arup argue - supported by detailed technical data - that the effects of fire alone would have been sufficient to cause collapse, without impact damage. It's a hypothesis supported by the University of Edinburgh too.¹



1. They're rather well-known too.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Specifically, Arup argue - supported by detailed technical data - that the effects of fire alone would have been sufficient to cause collapse, without impact damage. It's a hypothesis supported by the University of Edinburgh too.¹



1. They're rather well-known too.

Yes, Usmani's work, IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong; I'm not bothering to look this up right now). Usmani from U of Edinburgh. I remember reading that. It's a compelling proposition; unfortunately, I'm not versed enough to understand the totality of it's implications, but it's quite obvious that the U of Edinburgh team places great emphasis on the thermal effects.

Also, IIRC, they proposed that the effects would have been sufficient even had the SRFM been in place. Again, I can't judge the implications of that, but again, it's an interesting debate.

 

[Quiproquo]

I'm a chartered archtiect with 20 years of experience, of which a substantial part included commercial sector work such as tall buildings.

Archtct, I am talking about first-hand knowledge of the issue. Have you inspected steel from the WTC? Put your hands in WTC dust?

Why do you keep on stomping your appeal to authority argument on me and others?

 

[Quiproquo]

Specifically, Arup argue - supported by detailed technical data - that the effects of fire alone would have been sufficient to cause collapse, without impact damage. It's a hypothesis supported by the University of Edinburgh too.

Do you have a link to the paper arguing this thesis published by this Arup?

So, have we yet changed all national standards in architectural and engineering design in this country to accommodate for the new phenomenon of thermal expansion (is that what it is called?) generated high-rise structural collapse?

I mean, can't a fire now cause the collapse of any building? I fear for my life.

 

[triforcharity]

I have. Many times.

Does that mean that you know what you're looking at?

To quote the late Chris Farley "I can get a good look at a T-Bone by sticking my head up it's ass, but I would rather take the butcher's word for it."

You wouldn't know the difference between a piece of steel that had lost it's strength from heat, or from an outside mechanical force.

 

[triforcharity]

Do you have a link to the paper arguing this thesis published by this Arup?

So, have we yet changed all national standards in architectural and engineering design in this country to accommodate for the new phenomenon of thermal expansion (is that what it is called?) generated high-rise structural collapse?

I mean, can't a fire now cause the collapse of any building? I fear for my life.

Yes, And it wasn't just here in the US, it was worldwide. The UK, China, and IIRC even India changed some of their building codes.

And yes, just about any building can collapse from fire. Most do not. But, if you're dumb enough to stick around in a steel framed building that is on fire, for more than say, 2 hours, than yes, you should fear for your life.

 

[Quiproquo]

And yes, just about any building can collapse from fire.

Prove that a high-rise steel building, other than the WTC towers, can suffer a total, gravity-driven collapse from fire.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Prove that a high-rise steel building, other than the WTC towers, can suffer a total, gravity-driven collapse from fire.

Is there some reason it has to be a high-rise? Steel is steel. Fire is fire. They don't seem to care what altitude they interact at.

 

[triforcharity]

Prove that a high-rise steel building, other than the WTC towers, can suffer a total, gravity-driven collapse from fire.

Windsor Tower. The entire steel framed portion collapsed.

 

[Quiproquo]

Windsor Tower. The entire steel framed portion collapsed.

can suffer a total, gravity-driven collapse

Not proof.

 

[triforcharity]

The TOTAL building that was made of strictly STEEL, collapsed due to FIRE and Gravity.

Nice Dodge! You borrow that from WTC Dust? She's got one just like it. Her's has a Hemi though. Does your's?

 

[twinstead]

Not proof.

Frankly it doesn't matter if YOU don't think it's proof. It is a fine example where the part of a building built like the WTC collapsed, and the part that wasn't didn't. You don't need to understand it.

With respect, you are irrelevant.

 

[Quiproquo]

With respect, you are irrelevant.

Ad Hom noted.

Why are you talking to me if I am irrelevant?

 

[beachnut]

Prove that a high-rise steel building, other than the WTC towers, can suffer a total, gravity-driven collapse from fire.

It is known fact. You are the one with delusions. The Titanic can't sink has become for you, the towers can't collapse due to fire. Gee, why do we add insulation and fire systems to buildings since they can't collapse? You are full of lies and failed delusions on 911. You don't use evidence to prove your points, you think talk is enough.

Show us with differential equations why the WTC can't collapse due to fire. Prove it. What, no physics, no math? darn

 

[Furcifer]

Not proof.

Could you define "proof" then? I'm curious what constitutes "proof" in your mind.

 

[beachnut]

Could you define "proof" then? I'm curious what constitutes "proof" in your mind.

The moronic Proof will be a philosophical dissertation of BS. Coming in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, ....

 

[Architect]

Archtct, I am talking about first-hand knowledge of the issue. Have you inspected steel from the WTC? Put your hands in WTC dust?

Have you?

Why do you keep on stomping your appeal to authority argument on me and others?

Because when I (and others) point out that your attempts at analysis are fundamentally flawed, you claim expertise (or quote others you claim have that expertise).

 

[twinstead]

Ad Hom noted.

Why are you talking to me if I am irrelevant?

It's a slow news day.

Besides, if you could prove that 9-11 was an inside job, real whistle blowers started coming forward describing their role in the cover up, and you got all the experts that you appear to revile because they don't agree with you on your side, and there were demonstrations in the streets to bring Bush to justice, and all the respected engineering and scientific organizations from around the world petitioned for a new investigation and published peer-reviewed papers in respected journals showing their reasons that the collapses as described in the common narrative were impossible, yet I still believed that Al Queda was behind 9-11 I WOULD BE IRRELEVANT TOO.

That's how it works.


ETA: and I don't think you're PERSONALLY irrelevant, just about 9-11. I'm sure you're a delightful lad to talk to about the weather and such.