Wouldn't they want to ensure that, in future, buildings that failed didn't completely collapse? I mean that's kind of important if they are full of people
Some simple Tower 7 questions
- Thread starter Submersible
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 911 conspiracy theory wtc wtc7
Wouldn't they want to ensure that, in future, buildings that failed didn't completely collapse? I mean that's kind of important if they are full of people
Did you miss my first post on this page? Thats only compiled from two sites, I didnt even touch Google from Chrissakes!
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
how about forgetting about the collapse and keeping them from failing at all?
What useful information can be gained from studying the collapse after initiation?
What does a lack of studies prove?
asmodean
Turing Complete
- Joined
- May 23, 2005
- Messages
- 797
Considering the recepient of your question seems to be a troofer, I'd have to say yes; he'd need to be told.
Very persuasive.
Remember, you're in the minority, both on this board and in the world.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
maccy; How do you account for the gash in the side of the building? Surely that was an earlier damage to the external load bearing structure.
To the sw corner and the s side
Also the kink and the descending east penthouse, as well as the damage to the windows below it indicated structural damage to the exterior 5-6s before the global collapse.
Kink consistant with a CD, ext damage to s side.
WTC7 started down even ie: all exterior supports failled at the same time - not a 'progressive' failure, the kink developed as it fell
The load of the building was supported by interior and exterior supports.
Yes
Once sufficient interior supports fail, all other supports with fail, including the exterior ones.
NIST could not confirm this
crossbracing [in all directions] prevents that from happening.
Edited to Add: Your answer of "No" to the questions "So that if enough of the columns fail, all the remaining columns will fail simultaneously?" shows that you don't understand the principle of a global collapse.
You dont understand the purpose and value of cross bracing
Nor do you know what could cause all the exterior supports to fail at the same time, other than a CD, or you would have said so by now.
To the sw corner and the s side
Also the kink and the descending east penthouse, as well as the damage to the windows below it indicated structural damage to the exterior 5-6s before the global collapse.
Kink consistant with a CD, ext damage to s side.
WTC7 started down even ie: all exterior supports failled at the same time - not a 'progressive' failure, the kink developed as it fell
The load of the building was supported by interior and exterior supports.
Yes
Once sufficient interior supports fail, all other supports with fail, including the exterior ones.
NIST could not confirm this
crossbracing [in all directions] prevents that from happening.
Edited to Add: Your answer of "No" to the questions "So that if enough of the columns fail, all the remaining columns will fail simultaneously?" shows that you don't understand the principle of a global collapse.
You dont understand the purpose and value of cross bracing
Nor do you know what could cause all the exterior supports to fail at the same time, other than a CD, or you would have said so by now.
Last edited:
Jings, Crivens, Help Ma Boab
Dearie, dearie me. Wiz and Chris7. You've not really researched your comments about the engineering and archtiectural establishment views of the collapse, have you.
Let me first be clear; I'm a UK chartered architect who's just finished a contract with one of our leading firms doing tall buildings. If, like, Christophera, you doubt this then Gravy has all my registration details and should be able to give you the nod.
The first thing you have to appreciate is that building design, structural engineering, and fire engineering are necessarily complex issues. It takes a minimum of 5 years of university study to qualify in any of them, followed by several years of practical experience, and those of us who move into specialisms such as tall buildings then do a lot of "on the job" training.
So any suggestion that a comparable level of understanding sufficiently from googling the web, reading the odd book, or having a degree in a largely unrelated area such as physics is just not going to hold water.
Where people do attempt to argue alternative theories regarding the collapse it simply will not hold to make generalisms or talk about lay interpretation of photographic evidence. To be frank, professions will expect the kind of robust and proper analysis that we ourselves use to design and understand the structures.
Such informed papers are simply not available from the CT community; those few engineers (Pegelow, for example) who have weighed in on your side have wholly failed to provide any full written analysis that we can properly consider. Others who claim to have relevant experience (and a few are named by previous posters) clearly have no such thing. I would not employ an expert on low rise structures on my team because he would be of only limited use to my team.
A British analogy (or is it a metaphor?); who would you trust for a medical diagnosis - your consultant surgeon, with all his years of experience and training, or some bloke round the pub who watches Casualty on the telly and browsed google?
Now the fact is that the NIST/FEMA reports and collapses have been widely circulated in the construction community. There is debate around the fringes - for example Arup and Edinburgh University have made well reasoned arguments that fire alone might have induced collapse - however the underlying findings of the report are accepted universally. Let me be clear. UNIVERSALLY.
And I don't just mean in the US. I mean everywhere. The UK and Europe, where we have some of the leading universities in the world and (shock horror) also build tall buildings. Countries opposed to the US. Hell, countries who are close to War with the US.
But no, not a whimper.
Now what conclusion do you expect us to draw from this? You can't argue that we've not thought about it, because I can post you links to a ridiculous number of worldwide learned articles and lectures on the subject. You can't claim that we've been bought off, or are scared, because there's simply too many of us - especially outwith the US. And you can't claim that we're incompetent or sheeple because, frankly, we all hold postgraduate qualifications and have shown that we can cut it academically.
So why, oh why, do you keep trying to resort to this dead end? Get us qualified people! Get us proper structural and fire engineering calculations (I can give you examples, if you want). Don't rely on crappy videos and photographs when we all know that these only form one strand of any evidencial review.
Rant over. For now.
Dearie, dearie me. Wiz and Chris7. You've not really researched your comments about the engineering and archtiectural establishment views of the collapse, have you.
Let me first be clear; I'm a UK chartered architect who's just finished a contract with one of our leading firms doing tall buildings. If, like, Christophera, you doubt this then Gravy has all my registration details and should be able to give you the nod.
The first thing you have to appreciate is that building design, structural engineering, and fire engineering are necessarily complex issues. It takes a minimum of 5 years of university study to qualify in any of them, followed by several years of practical experience, and those of us who move into specialisms such as tall buildings then do a lot of "on the job" training.
So any suggestion that a comparable level of understanding sufficiently from googling the web, reading the odd book, or having a degree in a largely unrelated area such as physics is just not going to hold water.
Where people do attempt to argue alternative theories regarding the collapse it simply will not hold to make generalisms or talk about lay interpretation of photographic evidence. To be frank, professions will expect the kind of robust and proper analysis that we ourselves use to design and understand the structures.
Such informed papers are simply not available from the CT community; those few engineers (Pegelow, for example) who have weighed in on your side have wholly failed to provide any full written analysis that we can properly consider. Others who claim to have relevant experience (and a few are named by previous posters) clearly have no such thing. I would not employ an expert on low rise structures on my team because he would be of only limited use to my team.
A British analogy (or is it a metaphor?); who would you trust for a medical diagnosis - your consultant surgeon, with all his years of experience and training, or some bloke round the pub who watches Casualty on the telly and browsed google?
Now the fact is that the NIST/FEMA reports and collapses have been widely circulated in the construction community. There is debate around the fringes - for example Arup and Edinburgh University have made well reasoned arguments that fire alone might have induced collapse - however the underlying findings of the report are accepted universally. Let me be clear. UNIVERSALLY.
And I don't just mean in the US. I mean everywhere. The UK and Europe, where we have some of the leading universities in the world and (shock horror) also build tall buildings. Countries opposed to the US. Hell, countries who are close to War with the US.
But no, not a whimper.
Now what conclusion do you expect us to draw from this? You can't argue that we've not thought about it, because I can post you links to a ridiculous number of worldwide learned articles and lectures on the subject. You can't claim that we've been bought off, or are scared, because there's simply too many of us - especially outwith the US. And you can't claim that we're incompetent or sheeple because, frankly, we all hold postgraduate qualifications and have shown that we can cut it academically.
So why, oh why, do you keep trying to resort to this dead end? Get us qualified people! Get us proper structural and fire engineering calculations (I can give you examples, if you want). Don't rely on crappy videos and photographs when we all know that these only form one strand of any evidencial review.
Rant over. For now.
Last edited:
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Check those credentials! I believe Phelps is the only engineer in that bunch, and he's an 82-year-old who runs a golf course in Florida. I forget if he was one of those enrolled without their knowledge, per that ST office worker's complaint.
Not true. The kink developed 5-6s before the global collapse initiation.
It is their working hypothesis. The draft of the final report is not yet published.
Please provide evidence of this crossbracing. And your calculations of how the external structure was able to support the whole building.
Please provide evidence of what you are talking about.
I've already said: the load transferred to them was too great so they failed.
Regarding CD:
Why are there no flashes and loud explosions before the collapse, like in a normal CD?
How was the building prepared for CD when it was in use 24 hours a day?
How did the CD explosives survive several hours of fire?
Why did the FDNY evacuate the area around WTC7 hours in advance of tis collapse (and, by doing so, abandon the search for survivors in that area) if the didn't think the building was going to collapse?
In the video of the collapse, can you see the lower floors of the building?
Why would anybody want to demolish WTC7 anyway?
Last edited:
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Please explain the east mechanical penthouse collapse, "all failed at the same time" boy.
Well, we're waiting....
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
One of the reasons, structual code changes have not been made is because the Towers design was decidedly odd to begin with. Moden skyscrapers dont use external facade as a support device for the building. In fact walls in buildings dont do much of anything.
However, a number of countries have introduced codes involving the speed at which people can be exacuated. I believe as a result of 911 the Petronas Towers were retrofited with a larger cross over bridge than was originally built to try and meet the new code for a maximum 25 minutes to evacuate the whole building.
I guess the other issue to consider. Can a building be constructed to withstand or even repell a hit from a modern jet airliner
Yes. They're called bunkers.
I mean I can answer that question seriously, but do you really need me to? I think you know the answer.
asmodean
Turing Complete
- Joined
- May 23, 2005
- Messages
- 797
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
The larger the scale of an event, the more symmetrical it looks from a distance. Imagine, for instance, you are out in space, observing a mile-wide asteroid hitting the Earth. You would see a flash of light, then a rapidly growing, perfectly symmetrical dome of energized material raising from the surface (in perfect silence, of course). After the site cooled, you would probably see a very neat, circular crater where the asteroid landed.
Now imagine what it would look like if observed from the surface. You would be in the middle of hell.
Take what you've learned here and apply it to the collapse of WTC7. It looks pretty smooth from a distance. How would it look if you were standing in the street beneath it?