1,600 verified architectural and engineering professionals

It should be noted that no one from NIST has "whistleblown" regarding any supposed slanting or coverup.
Click to expand...

And this is also blatantly false. I guess there's no point reading the rest of your post.
 
ergo said:
And this is also blatantly false. I guess there's no point reading the rest of your post.
Click to expand...

Has anybody who was part of the NIST investigation come out and said their ultimate conclusion, that fire and damage brought the buildings down, was false?
 
Myriad said:
You (or ergo, I forget which) asked if I had clicked a certain link. I said I hadn't. That's called an honest answer.

(You did not ask whether I had read the papers of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. As it happens, I had. But you went ahead and assumed I had not. Why?)

So, can you match my honest answer with one of your own? If so, here's my question: why do you think 1.600 verified architectural and engineering professionals of AE911t have not taken advantage of their supposed architectural and engineering expertise to produce a professional quality paper that makes the case for Gage's claims using the engineering rigor their professional expertise should make not only possible, but routine?
Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

A lot of posts have been written since that question.

Has it been answered yet?
ETA: Question was directly addressed at Marokkaan, but afaics, Marokkaan has not replied to it. Could it be that Marokkaan is not interested in and refuses to giving honest answers?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Why do you keep flogging this? None of the code changes address the mechanics of the towers' collapses.
Click to expand...
Why would they? Do you think it would be economically feasible to build a building that could arrest a collapse once it started? What other code changes would you suggest in response to 9/11?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Why do you keep flogging this? None of the code changes address the mechanics of the towers' collapses.
Click to expand...

I've explained this to you already; the revisions to the Eurocodes include measures to limit the scope for disproportionate structural collapse.
 
Architect said:
I've explained this to you already; the revisions to the Eurocodes include measures to limit the scope for disproportionate structural collapse.
Click to expand...

And you did not source this. You are asking us to take your word for it.

As I mention here:

Here is one of the few publications on "disproportionate structural collapse" I could readily find:

http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/2262/49396/1/Disproportionate Collapse in Building Structures.pdf

Note that they don't even discuss the WTC disaster, even though it was obviously written after it. I also note that they consider the bomb damage at the Murrah building to be "disproportionate collapse" ... and their apparent definition of "progressive collapse" is what occurs from loss of lower building structure. This is not the kind of progressive collapse that NIST talks about. You are talking about something that has nothing to do with the WTC collapses.
 
Last edited:
Why do bedunkers need things repeated to them so many times?
 
ergo said:
And you did not source this. You are asking us to take your word for it.
Click to expand...

To be honest I find it amusing that you expect to be able to (a) fine expensive technical documents such as the Eurocodes available for free download online and (b) think that you would understand the criteria set out therein sufficiently to interpret their meaning.

Might I suggest that you avail yourself of EN1991-1-7 and then start working forward from there?

If you feel like some real research, IStructE publish a handy book called Practical guide to structural robustness and disproportionate collapse in buildings which I would commend to you.
 
Architect said:
To be honest I find it amusing that you expect to be able to (a) fine expensive technical documents such as the Eurocodes available for free download online and (b) think that you would understand the criteria set out therein sufficiently to interpret their meaning.

Might I suggest that you avail yourself of EN1991-1-7 and then start working forward from there?

If you feel like some real research, IStructE publish a handy book called Practical guide to structural robustness and disproportionate collapse in buildings which I would commend to you.
Click to expand...

Well, you know how troofers are.....if it is not on the internet (and mostly youtube) it cannot be true.
 
Architect said:
Might I suggest that you avail yourself of EN1991-1-7 and then start working forward from there?
Click to expand...

k.

EN 1991-1-7 does not specifically deal with accidental actions caused by external explosions, warfare and terrorist activities, or the residual stability of buildings or other civil engineering works damaged by seismic action or fire, etc.
Click to expand...


Which specific changes were made due to the events on 9/11 to this document which didn't exist in 2001 and deals with stuff like car and train accidents or internal explosions damaging bridges and tunnels?
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
k.




Which specific changes were made due to the events on 9/11 to this document which didn't exist in 2001 and deals with stuff like car and train accidents or internal explosions damaging bridges and tunnels?
Click to expand...
Hi Empress and all,

In my conversations with Michael Newman at NIST, he told me that the changes that are being implemented from their suggestions include but are not limited to:
Wider stairwells so firefighters can run up while occupants run down and out.
Reinforced and fireproofed elevators and shafts so people can use elevators to escape and not just stairwells.
More care in constructing wide open atriums and open spaces in general through the use of fewer long steel beams due to the now-proven dangers of thermal expansion of long steel beams.
I don't remember everything he said but I do remember these. They were taken up by engineering code groups within the U.S. ARUP set international standards which were used to design that Asian (Singapore??) tall building whose name I cannot remember. This building is used as a recent example of a steel-framed building that didn't collapse due to fire, but the reason it didn't collapse is because it was built according to new codes put into place by ARUP which followed NIST's suggestions.

Don't know how relevant this is to the specific discussion of the European building codes...
 
Architect said:
To be honest I find it amusing that you expect to be able to (a) fine expensive technical documents such as the Eurocodes available for free download online and (b) think that you would understand the criteria set out therein sufficiently to interpret their meaning.
Click to expand...

If you had read my post you would know I simply asked for the name of the publication. And you could have probably quoted an appropriate section from it, too. But you didn't. You haven't even given an example of one of these changes in current building design. I'm not doing your research for you. If you make a claim, back it up.

And why would I not understand the criteria? What's difficult to understand about "disproportionate structural collapse" and the code changes meant to address it? Why use the term "disproportionate collapse" in the first place, when "progressive collapse" is what was used in the NIST reports. You claim these changes were brought in to address that, but they don't even use the same term? Are you sure you even understand the question?

I think you're b.s.'ing. The only question is on how many items.
 
ergo said:
If you had read my post you would know I simply asked for the name of the publication. And you could have probably quoted an appropriate section from it, too. But you didn't. You haven't even given an example of one of these changes in current building design. I'm not doing your research for you. If you make a claim, back it up.

And why would I not understand the criteria? What's difficult to understand about "disproportionate structural collapse" and the code changes meant to address it? Why use the term "disproportionate collapse" in the first place, when "progressive collapse" is what was used in the NIST reports. You claim these changes were brought in to address that, but they don't even use the same term? Are you sure you even understand the question?

I think you're b.s.'ing. The only question is on how many items.
Click to expand...

Attack from a position of incredulity and failure to understand proper technical terminology noted, per your normal practice. I assume that you've not bothered ordering the book I referred you too or looking at the Eurocodes themselves.

I'll make life easy for you. Here's a quote I've typed in from my copy of NCE just a fortnight or so ago:

NCE said:

Confidential Reporting on Structural Safety director Alastair Soane adds that there have even been some changes to the Building Regulations as a result of 9/11. From December 2004, any designers of large and more complex Class 3 buildings have to undertake a “systematic risk assessment” that not only takes account of all normal events
that should be expected during the lifetime of the building, but also abnormal events. The same approach has been adopted in Eurocodes.
Click to expand...

Feel free to apologise for your claim that my statement was some sort of figment of my imagination. Mind you, you've still not done so from the time you got caught out on my professional qualifications so I'm probably expecting too much.....​
​
​
​
​
​
 
Architect said:
Attack from a position of incredulity and failure to understand proper technical terminology noted, per your normal practice. I assume that you've not bothered ordering the book I referred you too or looking at the Eurocodes themselves.

I'll make life easy for you. Here's a quote I've typed in from my copy of NCE just a fortnight or so ago:



Feel free to apologise for your claim that my statement was some sort of figment of my imagination. Mind you, you've still not done so from the time you got caught out on my professional qualifications so I'm probably expecting too much.....​
​
​
​
​
​
Click to expand...

But none of that is on Youtube, therefore it is inadmissable as evidence.

Right, ergo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom