Steel framed builing partially collapsed today

Firestone said:
Is it certain that the building in Delft was steel-framed?

In this article, faculty head Wytze Patijn says it had a concrete frame:
Translated (by me): The building is 40 years old and consists of 13 floors and has a concrete frame with elevator-shafts providing stability.
Click to expand...
Turns out I was wrong :o. I guess I got a little too exited yesterday when I heard bystanders making jokes about the burning building and WTC7.

The fire was finally contained at 6:00 AM this morning, you can see the concrete floor slabs hanging:

1566153+s(345!x243!)

1566155+s(345!x243!)


img_2111_c8ca522301873c4a117e5cddabdbe8ae53553a95.JPG
 
-hp- said:
Turns out I was wrong :o. I guess I got a little too exited yesterday when I heard bystanders making jokes about the burning building and WTC7.
Click to expand...

At least you had the integrity to admit you were wrong. Let's see how many people who also rushed to make an inaccurate comparison also admit their error.
 
metamars said:
When I read

All along 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.
Click to expand...

the question that arises in my mind is whether the author means

All along all 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.
Click to expand...

or

All along some 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.
Click to expand...

If the former, then the author is lying. At least in English....
Click to expand...


An alternative example may help to clarify the fact that there is, in fact, no ambiguity in this perfectly clear and common piece of English. If I say, "All day long seagulls have been flying over my house", do you take it as a claim that every seagull in the world has flown over my house in the last 24 hours? Personally, I wouldn't dream of interpreting it that way, and neither would anybody else who understands simple English.

Dave
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
At least you had the integrity to admit you were wrong. Let's see how many people who also rushed to make an inaccurate comparison also admit their error.
Click to expand...

What error? We were advised that it was a steel framed structure and, since the bit which collapsed isn't shown in any of the above pictures, I'm inclined to believe that it was indeed a steel frame.

Why? Well, reinforced concrete performs much better in fire than (even fireproofed) steel does, so for a RC frame structure to fail in this fire is very interesting and does make any sane person wonder just how sooner a steel framed version would have failed.

The fact that the floors are concrete does not mean that the whole structure would have been. Precast concrete floor slabs are not uncommon, but they have to be supported on something, and that something appears to have collapsed. What was it?

If it was concrete then that was a vicious fire.
 
gumboot said:
11 stories statically loaded or 6 stories dynamically loaded, according to NIST.
Click to expand...

I was obviously talking about the time it takes to heat quantities of steel not dynamic vs static loading. Dynamic loading isn't magic. Every static level overcome would still slow the mass down. Notice they don't advertise the quantity of steel and concrete on every level below the impact zone.

psik
 
psikeyhackr said:
Every static level overcome would still slow the mass down.
Click to expand...
And every 12 feet or so of falling between those levels speeds the mass up. And every level it overcomes adds additional falling mass.

Which is greater, the reduction in momentum from breaking through another floor, or the increase in momentum from falling farther and having mass added?
 
Well, let us just say that my plastic garden table never ever would have collapsed during the same circumstances.

Btw, I´m sure I see a pyroclastic flow in the video. Mininukes?
 
DGM,

I don't know the structure of the balconies, but yes I would agree with you that it looks like they also took with them their side walls.
 
RedIbis said:
What steel framework?
Click to expand...


Okay, for the time being let's assume that there was none.

That takes care of half of question 1. Any answers for the other half, and the other four questions?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Dictator Cheney said:
you like videos.

here a little video about the spire

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=nHxDdbdsCDY
Click to expand...

You know that feeling you have when you watch a YouTube video of some idiots doing something so stupid that after the video ends, you're sitting there speechless thinking, "What was the point of all that?" This is exactly the feeling I have after watching this video.

It's two minutes long, and doesn't even attempt to make a point. It just shows videos and photos of the cores and then says "maybe the core couldn't pancake itself". Well, that's exactly what I was saying in my initial post. The cores probably failed from falling debris crushing their base. Do you believe this "controlled demolition" initially set off charges on the perimeter columns and the people pushing the button forgot to set off the charges for the cores (and that they forgot this in BOTH cases), and then about 15 seconds later remembered to detonate the cores? What would be the point of this? Why not just demolish the building all at once?

The pancaking of the floors explains why the cores initially remained standing (don't confuse this as the initial, rejected pancake theory...the floors did pancake once the collapse began though). A controlled demolition does not. Can you provide me with a link to a website or video on a controlled demolition where a building has ever been taken down and the core remained standing, only to be taken down about 15 seconds later? I thought they took out the core first. Guess the standing cores shows that "all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition" is wrong from the very beginning.
 
Last edited:
RKOwens4 said:
You know that feeling you have when you watch a YouTube video of some idiots doing something so stupid that after the video ends, you're sitting there speechless thinking, "What was the point of all that?" This is exactly the feeling I have after watching this video.

It's two minutes long, and doesn't even attempt to make a point. It just shows videos and photos of the cores and then says "maybe the core couldn't pancake itself". Well, that's exactly what I was saying in my initial post. The cores probably failed from falling debris crushing their base. Do you believe this "controlled demolition" initially set off charges on the perimeter columns and the people pushing the button forgot to set off the charges for the cores (and that they forgot this in BOTH cases), and then about 15 seconds later remembered to detonate the cores? What would be the point of this? Why not just demolish the building all at once?

The pancaking of the floors explains why the cores initially remained standing (don't confuse this as the initial, rejected pancake theory...the floors did pancake once the collapse began though). A controlled demolition does not. Can you provide me with a link to a website or video on a controlled demolition where a building has ever been taken down and the core remained standing, only to be taken down about 15 seconds later? I thought they took out the core first. Guess the standing cores shows that "all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition" is wrong from the very beginning.
Click to expand...

achim spok videos and calculations are ways better than your wannabe debunking videos :)

try harder
 
Dave Rogers said:
An alternative example may help to clarify the fact that there is, in fact, no ambiguity in this perfectly clear and common piece of English. If I say, "All day long seagulls have been flying over my house", do you take it as a claim that every seagull in the world has flown over my house in the last 24 hours? Personally, I wouldn't dream of interpreting it that way, and neither would anybody else who understands simple English.

Dave
Click to expand...

No, and neither would I interpret it as meaning that, over a 24 hour period, there was always at least a part of a seagull intersecting an imaginary, vertical structure rising from your house's footprint.
 
Myriad is correct. If we assume this was a concrete-framed building, Truthers still have to answer:

1. Why didn't the intact unburned floors below the collapsing sections "arrest" the collapse?

2. How could it fall at near free-fall speed? What destroyed the "resistance" of the floors below the collapse initiation zone?

3. If the collapse was driven by gravity, how could all that debris have been ejected horizontally?

4. Since one column or another must have been the first to fail, how could the falling section remain nearly horizontal along the left-right axis as it fell? We can see at about 0:44 of the first video, all the front columns giving way almost simultaneously. Are we supposed to believe all those columns just happened to fail at the same moment?

5. And yet, it's also clear from the video that the columns on the wall nearer the camera failed first, with the center and rear layers of the wing falling later. Since the foreground columns gave way first, how come the whole upper section ended up falling straight down instead of toppling forward?
Click to expand...

Remember, Truthers, you claim that the collapse of the WTC buildings defied the laws of physics. Are concrete structures somehow immune to the laws of physics?

Back up your claims, please.
 
Last edited:
1337m4n said:
Remember, Truthers, you claim that the collapse of the WTC buildings defied the laws of physics. Are concrete structures somehow immune to the laws of physics?

Back up your claims, please.
Click to expand...

Would that be "all truthers"? ;)
 
1337m4n said:
This is incredible.

It is amazing that people like theauthor would rather nitpick at inconsequential details than accept the obvious reality.

What's wrong with them? Do they WANT 9/11 to be an inside job? Does that thought actually make them HAPPY?
Click to expand...

Is it nitpicking to point out the inconsequential detail that bldg is not steel framed?

I don't see in this thread where you admit you're wrong and there's very little reason to compare the two.
 
RedIbis said:
At least you had the integrity to admit you were wrong. Let's see how many people who also rushed to make an inaccurate comparison also admit their error.
Click to expand...

"Inaccurate"?

Tell me, what holds up better in fires: a concrete framed structure or a steel framed structure?

(Hint: look at the Windsor building)

If this building is concrete, that changes nothing. You Truthers still have quite a bit of explaining (away) to do.
 
uk_dave said:
Would that be "all truthers"? ;)
Click to expand...

Well, most. Max Photon is at least one exception; he pretty much agrees that fire brought down the Towers, except that they were thermite-assisted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom