Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[DGM]

I can, and I have, numerous times, and in this very thread.

The fact that you repeat the question reveals your total disinterest in my answer.

MM

You bolded the wrong part of my question. This is what I bolded.

The NIST made costly, previously 'not considered necessary' building construction safety recommendations based on their erroneous analysis of the cause of WTC7's collapse.

Why would you change my bold to this?

The NIST made costly, previously 'not considered necessary' building construction safety recommendations based on their erroneous analysis of the cause of WTC7's collapse.

It changes the whole meaning of what I asked.


I asked for which codes, not what you thought was "erroneous". This you have not addressed in this thread.

 

[NoahFence]

Where is the mature adult behavior in calling Chris a moron.

You have obviously not walked in his shoes, or studied his tireless work on the subject of WTC7.

He is so strongly disliked here in JREF because he stood long and fast against their constant onslaught of ignorant lies and abuse, resulting in probably the longest thread ever created here.

Try looking before you leap Noah.

MM

Would you rather I call him a liar? I've seen his work. And I find it lacking. For reasons already stated - his little MS Paint presentation you keep trotting out is a farce.

 

[NoahFence]

Please do your homework Noah.

The massive aircraft full of fuel slamming into the WTC Towers was engineered into the design. Yes the sheeple here will claim otherwise, but if you research the debate here in earlier threads, you will see the truth.

In no way, shape or form were those buildings designed to sustain what happened on 9/11. Period.
ETA - I should note right about here that the space shuttle was also not designed to blow up, and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was not designed to sway and buckle until it broke apart in 45mph winds, and...etc..etc..etc....

The 47-storey WTC7, was not "damaged beyond repair". But, quite possibly to the point where the insurance claim looked more inviting.

Looked like it was pretty much damaged beyond repair when it collapsed, didn't it? NO FIREFIGHTING EFFORTS. Doomed building. Didn't matter. It was an irrelevant casualty of the day, like the other buildings that were a total loss that you people ignore because acknowledging them is inconvienient.

The NIST said the secondary damage from the WTC1 collapse was not a factor in the cause of the WTC7 collapse.

If the damage to WTC 7 was limited to the damage from WTC 1 you'd have a point. But it wasn't limited to that, was it? It was allowed to burn for SEVEN HOURS unchecked.

There have been a lot worse fires than what WTC7 was exposed to that did not lead to collapse. Here, I expect the usual sheeple outcry of "different architecture" regardless of the length and breadth of those infernos. The majority of the WTC7 floors never suffered from fire and the fire burned itself out on many that did.

Based on Chris Sarns, right? Where was he on 9/11? Was he close enough to underhand toss a stone and hit WTC 7 as it burned for hours on end? Was he close enough to hear the creaking and moaning of the building as it swayed from the damage it sustained, and continued to sustain as the day progressed? Was he close enough to see fire coming out of damn near every window on the south side?

Because there is EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY from people who can claim to fall into all the above catagories. I'm going with their assesment before some dolt with an axe to grind.

Listen - 9/11 (this includes the pentagon and shanksville, which most truthers ignore btw) was the single most well documented event, and the largest subsequent investigation in US History, maybe the world. Yet you and your kind insist on allowing people like Richard Gage to be your experts? ARE YOU KIDDING?!?

 

[triforcharity]

What garbage. It never happened before and never happened since. Yet it happened 3 freaking times in 1/4 of a day.

So anyting that hasn't happened before, can't ever happen?

I think there's a few high profile cases that prove that wrong.

NASA x2 (O-Ring failure, and Ext. Foam hitting wing)
BP (Blowout preventer failure)
Katrina Disaster

etc. etc. etc.

The eye rolling by the IBC was likely staggering.

And yet, many of the codes were still adapted by the IBC. Imagine that....

 

[tfk]

Ahhh,

Thanks for demonstrating a couple of things...

How many personal attacks do I have to report?

And an intellectual coward comes into a discussion group, makes baseless assertions & then refuses to reply to pertinent questions that are asked of him.

1. That you don't know the meaning of "personal attack". My comment applies to anyone (including you & me) who sticks their head in the sand, & refuses to acknowledge pertinent replies to their comments. Not "personal" in the slightest.

2. that you HAVE been reading all those posts of mine, and

3. that you've chosen to stick your head in the sand & refused to reply to pertinent questions that I asked of you.

Suuu-weeet.

"Ready".
"Shoot"
"Draw."

 

[Justin39640]

They would have made a mockery of their WTC7 collapse analysis if they didn't produce building construction safety recommendations in response.

You do understand that that was the whole point of the study? To make recommendations.

Obviously, Richard Gage quite understood this, even if you do not.

MM

If the building collapses, even with these recommendations in place, it doesn't matter if all the occupants are evacuated. That, again, is the point of the study. To give occupants more time to evacuate. No one gives a **** about an empty building.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

If Gage were as concerned as he relayed to chris during their exchange I'd suspect he'd have gotten much more leverage for his investigation than trying to go at the public first, whom will have less qualifications to understand their implications. Apparently, he's not very pragmatic.

 

[twinstead]

If Gage were as concerned as he relayed to chris during their exchange I'd suspect he'd have gotten much more leverage for his investigation than trying to go at the public first, whom will have less qualifications to understand their implications. Apparently, he's not very pragmatic.

I'd be surprised if he could spell pragmatic

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Please do your homework Noah.

The massive aircraft full of fuel slamming into the WTC Towers was engineered into the design. Yes the sheeple here will claim otherwise, but if you research the debate here in earlier threads, you will see the truth.

Lie #1 The architect designed it for a low speed impact only and there was no account taken for fuel load.

The 47-storey WTC7, was not "damaged beyond repair". But, quite possibly to the point where the insurance claim looked more inviting.

Lie #2 The FDNY reported that it was failing after fires on many floors for 7 hours. They were proved right.

The NIST said the secondary damage from the WTC1 collapse was not a factor in the cause of the WTC7 collapse.

No quite true. The damage started the fires so it was 100% responsible for the collapse. They were talkng about Structural damageand since they did not have any solid data on what that damage was they designed the model around there being no serious structural damage.

There have been a lot worse fires than what WTC7 was exposed to that did not lead to collapse.

Lie #3 No comparable building has ever had an unfought fire like that at the WTC7. One Meridian Plaza was fought and still had to be demolished, And in the the Windsor Tower all steel above the fire level collapsed.

"Here, I expect the usual sheeple outcry of "different architecture" regardless of the length and breadth of those infernos.

Well we don't lie so what else is there to say on that?

The majority of the WTC7 floors never suffered from fire and the fire burned itself out on many that did.

Really? how do you know that? Were you there? Did you check every floor? In any case damage doesn't undo itself once the fire passes. A sagging truss does not make itself straight again
NIST never claimed the majority of the floors burned in their report so why do you think it important? The fires were continuous for 7 hours as there was still heavy smoke when it fell.


Well at least now we have cleared up the matter of whether you are a liar or not as you lied 3 times in just one post.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Lie #1 The architect designed it for a low speed impact only and there was no account taken for fuel load.

Actually, even that's an overstatement. Leslie Robertson made it perfectly clear that the possibility of an aircraft impact was never even considered in the original design. It was only when political opposition was mounted to the idea of building the Twin Towers, after the design was complete, that Robertson carried out some calculations to determine the effect of an airliner impact, and found that the impact alone would not be expected to cause the structure to collapse. So, even to say that the building was designed to survive a low speed impact is incorrect; all that can be said is that the design was believed to be capable of surviving a low speed impact.

But no doubt Miragememories will claim that there is no difference between a priori design specifications and a posteriori calculations, on the basis of his own inability to distinguish between the two.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

Actually, even that's an overstatement. Leslie Robertson made it perfectly clear that the possibility of an aircraft impact was never even considered in the original design. It was only when political opposition was mounted to the idea of building the Twin Towers, after the design was complete, that Robertson carried out some calculations to determine the effect of an airliner impact, and found that the impact alone would not be expected to cause the structure to collapse. So, even to say that the building was designed to survive a low speed impact is incorrect; all that can be said is that the design was believed to be capable of surviving a low speed impact.

But no doubt Miragememories will claim that there is no difference between a priori design specifications and a posteriori calculations, on the basis of his own inability to distinguish between the two.

Dave

It is also more than obvious to even the feeblest brains that both towers DID survive a plane crash each, even one much more energetic than what Robertson assumed. Survived long enough for people to escape, and probably would have survived indefinitely had it not been for the fires that Robertson did NOT calculate (it was impossible at the time to simulate that event and come to credible results; they didn't nearly have enough computing power back in the 60s).

 

[fitzgibbon]

So, even to say that the building was designed to survive a low speed impact is incorrect

Not to mention the type of airliners then in-service.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Not to mention the type of airliners then in-service.

Less of an issue, to be honest; the all-up weight and speed of a 707 probably isn't really sufficiently different to that of the 767's that actually hit the towers to be significant. But, as Oystein pointed out, the truther argument is wrong both ways, in that they claim it was designed to survive an airliner impact but didn't, when in reality it wasn't designed to survive an airliner crash but did.

Dave

 

[tsig]

Not to mention the type of airliners then in-service.

Obviously the engineers should have whipped out their crystal balls and seen what kind of airliners would be in service therefore inside job.

 

[chrismohr]

If Gage were as concerned as he relayed to chris during their exchange I'd suspect he'd have gotten much more leverage for his investigation than trying to go at the public first, whom will have less qualifications to understand their implications. Apparently, he's not very pragmatic.

Richard Gage does not make a big issue out of the NIST recommendations for new buildings being a waste of money. I confronted him on the matter and asked him about it in the debate. Even though most of the 250 people in the room were his supporters, when he said the new building code recommendations were a waste of money and I said that scares me, I distinctly felt discomfort from the audience. I'm conjecturing that asserting that safety codes are a waste of money does not endear a speaker to the left-leaning members of his audience. If I were him I would consider it pragmatic NOT to talk about this too much. It makes people squirm.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Obviously the engineers should have whipped out their crystal balls and seen what kind of airliners would be in service therefore inside job.

The Boeing 747 was already in development by the time the towers were being designed so a 707 was not worst case even then. If there is any blame to be placed on the architects it was the lack of protection and close grouping of the exit stairs. Sure the planes did not bring down the towers on impact but they did block all escape and doomed those above the impact points.

If the stairs had been in the corners of the building most/all would have survived the impact and the death toll would have likely been much lower.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Richard Gage does not make a big issue out of the NIST recommendations for new buildings being a waste of money. I confronted him on the matter and asked him about it in the debate. Even though most of the 250 people in the room were his supporters, when he said the new building code recommendations were a waste of money and I said that scares me, I distinctly felt discomfort from the audience. I'm conjecturing that asserting that safety codes are a waste of money does not endear a speaker to the left-leaning members of his audience. If I were him I would consider it pragmatic NOT to talk about this too much. It makes people squirm.

I'm not trying to suggest that he should do so with his speaker audience where it wouldn't fit. Not sure if I was clear enough so I'll try to clarify; my opinion is if he wants to leverage impact and raise awareness, he'd be more successful tackling it with the architecture and engineering community directly rather than invest the vast majority of his time with a more "laymen"* audience. Recall, I said that the NIST report has a direct impact on the practice, he should use that to his advantage if his arguments can hold their own. I'm not as willing to give leeway to him as you are, personally; but if he's going to make his point I think it'd be pragmatic for him to also place resources in this approach as well.

I'm glad you brought it up to him because it answers my question over whether it's ever come to his mind, but unanswered AFAIK is whether he's acted on it. Judging by what you've told me so far I doubt he has, or at the very least I've seen nothing on his groups' website.

* laymen not necessarily meaning people aren't studied, but people who aren't involved in the professional practice

Lie #3 No comparable building has ever had an unfought fire like that at the WTC7. One Meridian Plaza was fought and still had to be demolished, And in the the Windsor Tower all steel above the fire level collapsed.

I'd like to see Gage or another truther to research why the other buildings stood while the WTC didn't. Doing the research reveals to any rational person how design differences and circumstantial differences can make the difference between badly damaged and collapsed, of course no conspiracy theorist seems interested in doing something relatively trivial to answer their own questions.

 

[tsig]

The Boeing 747 was already in development by the time the towers were being designed so a 707 was not worst case even then. If there is any blame to be placed on the architects it was the lack of protection and close grouping of the exit stairs. Sure the planes did not bring down the towers on impact but they did block all escape and doomed those above the impact points.

If the stairs had been in the corners of the building most/all would have survived the impact and the death toll would have likely been much lower.

I'm sure you would have walked into a meeting and said "You know we haven't accounted for the event that someone will fly a fully fueled plane into the building so we should move the stairs".

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I'm sure you would have walked into a meeting and said "You know we haven't accounted for the event that someone will fly a fully fueled plane into the building so we should move the stairs".

A fully fueled plane was a not an improbable event. Any airliner taking off from Newark, JFK or La Guardia is only a short distance from Manhattan.

Hindsight is always 20-20 but considering the impact and not fire and the affect on the fire escapes was an oversight. Perhaps it was considered but like the Lifeboats on the Titanic they would have taken up too much revenue earning space.

 

[DGM]

A fully fueled plane was a not an improbable event. Any airliner taking off from Newark, JFK or La Guardia is only a short distance from Manhattan.

.

It may be a short distance but, none of the runways line up in that direction. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a departure pattern that take a airliner directly over Manhattan.