"1271 architectural and engineering professionals"
that's kind of a lot.
yeah, it sounds like a lot. and it is 1,271 too many but there are approximately 100,000 architects in the u.s. according to ncarb and if we roughly add the same number of engineers then:
1,271/200,000 = 0.006355 = 0.64%
so it's actually a very small percentage (about 1 out of 200 professionals is totally nutty)
I think its pretty obvious to the people on Archinect that George Bush and Dick Cheney did 911, as well as killed Biggie, 2-Pac and broke up the Beatles.
bullshit, all of it. the architect fronting this thing is a fucking idiot of biblical proportions. the fact that the aia gives these assholes any space to glory-hole their message makes me want to go dahmer on my "peers".
maybe I shouldnt have added that...
I knew someone would do the "math problem"
I dont think that mean that there are 99+% saying the opposite.
the ncarb is pretty standard...the science does not vary based on political beliefs...
I think it is a very important issue on a lot of levels
and deserves another look.
Why would anyone disagee with their opinions, observations and analysis??
Do you think it is possible for 3 skyscrapers to collapse evenly and smoothly EXACTLY like a controlled demolition?
I looked at the arguments they made so I am a little biased and it's hard for me to call them crazy..
I am curious why people think that the 3 buildings could have 'self destructed' like that...
or maybe you don't know...I think it's interesting and was surprised that so many people signed the petition...
(and ties into the mosque debate, the glenn beck debate, the iraq war, etc.. and everything that America has done in the last 9 years and probably will do into the future)
Not really interested in devoting a whole lot of time to refuting cockamimi nonsense, but if you think the way the towers came down looked anything like a "controlled demolition" you should probably not be practicing architecture. Yea. They came strait down. Thats which way gravity goes. They also mushroomed out in a fashion that in no way resembles any controlled demolition thats ever been conducted.
IMO, there is nothing in the way the buildings came down that was inconsistent with the event being the result of the aircraft hitting the towers, and the resulting fires.
I've spent a lot of time looking at all the evidence and material I could find, and that's my conclusion.
considering that controlled demolition capitalizes on gravity and progressive failure to bring down structures, why would anyone expect any other progressive failure to look different?
Started making trouble in my archinect-hood
I posted one little comment and my Paul got scared
And said 'you're getting banned along with puddles in Bel-Air'
If you look at the side-by-side video of the 3 WTC building compared with other controlled demolitions it is the exact same thing---I'm talkin' exact...(all of this is on youtube)
If the official reason that the 3 buildings collapsed is 'due to fire'...if you look at the OMA building that burned or any other skyscraper that has sustained fire there was no indication of collapse at all...
(also on youtube)
And if you look at the structure (imagine it as a scale model) and did the same amount of damage to it, I dont think this model is going to collapse and crush and pulverize everything underneath...especially when the original planners designed for that...I'm talking about the real structure not the PBS animation...
and
The building 7 thing makes no sense...
Louis Kahn said "Architecture is the reaching out for the truth."
I think that's all that website is trying to do...
The 'offical story' is full of a lot of holes
I dont have an answer but I think the whole think is interesting if you have 30 mins to hear their argument...
Im going to go ahead and guess that most (all) of the "truth seekers" here have probably watched 'Loose Change' and taken it for fact rather than speculation, which is what it actually is. I'd encourage you to please take the time to also watch the counter-video to that 'Screw Loose Change'; while the name isn't very subtle, it does essentially debunk every "fact" that Dylan Avery has compiled.
In my eyes, anyone who campaigns for this cause is simply looking for personal attention, which as far as I am concerned is the ultimate insult to all victims of 9/11.
The WTC Twin Towers were not typical steel framed buildings, and were really unique structurally. Understanding those differences is key to an understanding of why the building failed the way it did. There is plenty of material on the web that explains it well.
Regarding the visual similarity to controlled demo, the collapses actually didn't look like CD at all. In a controlled demo of a highrise building, the bottom supports of a building are usually taken out first, and the top of the building is allowed to collapse due to gravity alone. No controlled demos rely on progressively detonated charges going from the top down.
Here's a good report on the collapses from an expert in controlled building demolition:
also.. a cursory examination suggests a lot of very very old people on that list. One of the Yalies there claims a graduate degree Yale hasn't actually offered since 1960.
<img src="http://911review.org/Storage/Http/www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/wtc7-demolition.gif">
the 3rd wtc tower
Why does it bother anyone to ask questions? That's the part that worries me about this whole thing.
some quotes from the architects/PEs:
"The free-fall collapse of the fire protected steel-frame structure of World Trade Center #7 could not have been caused by the limited structural damage and office fires which were observed prior to collapse. The actual scientific/forensic evidence (i.e. Thermate particles in the dust and molten steel during debris extraction), calls into question the official 911 commission report (NIST) and points to a professionally controlled demolition by incendiary devices."
"The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the damage. A new investigation is needed."
"the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse."
"Based on my knowledge of building structures, physics and chemistry, it simply does not make sense that events which occurred on 9/11 were as our media/government have proclaimed."
" would really like to know why complete collapse of the twin towers "became inevitable" as expressed by NIST without any scientific analysis to substantiate it. Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing most of the contents into dust and ash - twice? Why would WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire."
"The symmetrical "collapse" due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics."
"Many of the facts and theories that engineers have learned in such courses as structures, physics, chemistry, metallurgy, etc., have held true for longer than the hundred-year history of structural-steel-framed high-rise buildings and they held true on 9/11/01. Only controlled demolition could have provided the types of building collapses displayed three times on that fateful day."
as oe said these guys should have their licenses revoked but especially whoever said this:
"the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse."
The only thing this showed was that the facade became distorted hinting at the possibility that the concrete core had lost structural integrity before the facade.
If anything, this video actually disproved its intended point.
In the Controllota demolition close up of the deformed facade, it was obvious that the pressure differentials cause by a concussive force (i.e. an explosion) caused debris to fly out the windows.
In the WTC 7 building, only glass is seen falling from the structure. The glass does not have enough lateral movement to be caused by anything other than the panes breaking from torsion.
(I'm not sure if you've even try to bend a piece of glass (or even plexiglass)-- the result is not pretty.)
Wow, I thought this topic would have died off by now...sigh...
Ok... even if for some reason, you think the physics could only be done with controlled demolition...
Think about the fact that they estimated the dozens/hundreds of people who would have to be in on it to place the explosives...none of them would speak out afterward...really? No paper trail?
Furthermore I have seen numerous sources that have proved the rationality of the buildings falling from the collision and the numerous holes in the conspiracy theories...
"If the official reason that the 3 buildings collapsed is 'due to fire'...if you look at the OMA building that burned or any other skyscraper that has sustained fire there was no indication of collapse at all..."
You are comparing apples to oranges... Different construction types/ methodologies/damage. The OMA building was started by a small firework igniting the bamboo scafolding I believe...the WTC had a massive collision with JET fuel blow away all fireproofing leaving only the bare steel skeleton and extremely high temperatures.
I would compare the AIA/engineering professionals buying into this to the environmental scientists that are against global warming...
As for all the talk of the World Trade Center itself-- does anyone remember how for the longest time since the early 1980s to the late 1990s... all anyone talked about was how shitty this building was built?
It was constructed, despite public outcry, by union workers during a big period of civil unrest and labor strikes in the U.S.
This thing had probably the worst fire supression system for a building of its size, it was lacking many features common seen in much older buildings and it was considered a potential hazard to human safety because it was discovered that half of it wasn't even bolted together right?
I mean... yeah, if it was built to plan I'm sure it would be a lot stronger. Was it actually built to plan?
And if it wasn't built to plan, was decrepit and should have been demolished after 30 years.... doesn't that technically mean the Port Authority and Vornado are financially and legally responsibly for the damages?
the only thing that puzzles me is the pentagon. does that look like the impact an airplane would make. even if it does, it's the most monitored building on earth- why wouldn't they release a real tape of the plane to shut up all the people like me?
I suppose these jokers either don't know or don't care that the towers were structurally a bundled tube of envelope supports surrounding a concrete core? - an unusual form that pretty much precluded "toppling" in the classic sense.
Is anyone that has commented (either way) a forensic Architect? A friend of mine is about to start at UPENN's Historic Preservation Program and he mentioned a conversation with a couple individuals there that did a good bit of analysis on the WTC. My understanding is that the forensic evidence was not consistent with a controlled explosion at all. Anyone else know anything about this?
fuuuuuuuuckkkkkk. saw another one of these stupid ass Richard Gage events, one he was supposed to attend, but because of mechanical issues with his planes - oooo conspiracy - was not able to attend. still no explanation on how much thermite it would take, and how many men/women it would take to set all of these controlled charges in a city of 7 mil, where before 9/11, giuliani had locked down tighter than a nun's knees, and where WTC 93 made any suspicious activity insanely suspicious. but hey, when science doesn't do it for you, bring in the psychologists and therapists, and let them say; "don't the families deserve to hear the truth?"
the guy asked me for $10 at the door, and i told him it was a suggested donation, and i refused to contribute, and asked for my ticket.
Why did Building 7 fall? As more facts are presented to credentialed professionals, we have more credentialed professionals (architects and engineers) asking the question.
To AIA members who voted down AIA Resolution 15-6: Why wouldn't you investigate a circumstance indicating that current best practices in steel building construction are endangering the lives of everyone in and around the building? How could you assert that you are upholding the reasonable standard of care if NIST says that low temperature fires in steel buildings can and do lead to free fall collapse scenarios as seen in Building 7?
While some of you may suspect that NIST is being deceptive, you may view the incidents of 9/11 as disconnected with your own life and practice. If so, you're wrong there. If you let building 7 go uninvestigated, you set the stage for a repeat scenario (and in so doing fail to uphold the professional standard of care), as it could be your building next.
We don't know how to safeguard against the real threat until we investigate the circumstance and determine the real cause. Anyone with university level education in architecture in the U.S. has no excuse for not demanding an investigation into the collapse of WTC 7 in the interest of improving design factors and codes for steel construction.
Anthropogenic climate change resulting in net global warming? - A serious threat deserving a serious conversation. I'm actually more concerned about that topic, but I think an explanation for nist insisting that low temperature fires can bring down a steel building is a close second.
I was hoping I could find some professional discourse around this and the AIA resolution 15-6:
A basic understanding of the facts of 9/11 and a 100-level structures class are sufficient to know what happened to 7WTC. The crackpot conspiracy theories posed by 9/11 truthers like you are so ridiculous they don't deserve a "serious conversation," only mockery and ridicule.
Here's a link in case you haven't mastered Google yet (only took me about five seconds to find):
Living In Gin, a basic understanding of 9/11 and a 100 level structures class show me that the arguments on that page you link don't explain the collapse of building 7.
1) a girder/ column failure on a lower level cannot cause a building like this to free fall symmetrically into it's own footprint, which is also what NIST would have us believe.
2) Steel melts at ~ 2700 degrees. Office fires don't get that hot.
Which leads me back to: why is Building 7 the "first and only steel building in the world to have collapsed due to fire"
To AIA members who voted down AIA Resolution 15-6: Why wouldn't you investigate a circumstance indicating that current best practices in steel building construction are endangering the lives of everyone in and around the building? How could you assert that you are upholding the reasonable standard of care if NIST says that low temperature fires in steel buildings can and do lead to free fall collapse scenarios as seen in Building 7?
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
I found each person's comment interesting and I was surprised by the response from those in the AEC profession
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
"1271 architectural and engineering professionals"
that's kind of a lot.
this country is screwed.
Yea probably most of those people should have their licences revoked.
that's kind of a lot.
yeah, it sounds like a lot. and it is 1,271 too many but there are approximately 100,000 architects in the u.s. according to ncarb and if we roughly add the same number of engineers then:
1,271/200,000 = 0.006355 = 0.64%
so it's actually a very small percentage (about 1 out of 200 professionals is totally nutty)
I think its pretty obvious to the people on Archinect that George Bush and Dick Cheney did 911, as well as killed Biggie, 2-Pac and broke up the Beatles.
Man....... Do we need more crazies out there?
I have to wonder which side of the political aisle these prefessionals fall on percentage wise? More righties? More lefties?
bullshit, all of it. the architect fronting this thing is a fucking idiot of biblical proportions. the fact that the aia gives these assholes any space to glory-hole their message makes me want to go dahmer on my "peers".
maybe I shouldnt have added that...
I knew someone would do the "math problem"
I dont think that mean that there are 99+% saying the opposite.
the ncarb is pretty standard...the science does not vary based on political beliefs...
I think it is a very important issue on a lot of levels
and deserves another look.
Why would anyone disagee with their opinions, observations and analysis??
Do you think it is possible for 3 skyscrapers to collapse evenly and smoothly EXACTLY like a controlled demolition?
I looked at the arguments they made so I am a little biased and it's hard for me to call them crazy..
I am curious why people think that the 3 buildings could have 'self destructed' like that...
or maybe you don't know...I think it's interesting and was surprised that so many people signed the petition...
(and ties into the mosque debate, the glenn beck debate, the iraq war, etc.. and everything that America has done in the last 9 years and probably will do into the future)
Not really interested in devoting a whole lot of time to refuting cockamimi nonsense, but if you think the way the towers came down looked anything like a "controlled demolition" you should probably not be practicing architecture. Yea. They came strait down. Thats which way gravity goes. They also mushroomed out in a fashion that in no way resembles any controlled demolition thats ever been conducted.
aliens
IMO, there is nothing in the way the buildings came down that was inconsistent with the event being the result of the aircraft hitting the towers, and the resulting fires.
I've spent a lot of time looking at all the evidence and material I could find, and that's my conclusion.
I HAVE DISCOVERED THE 9/11 TRUTH!
considering that controlled demolition capitalizes on gravity and progressive failure to bring down structures, why would anyone expect any other progressive failure to look different?
Started making trouble in my archinect-hood
I posted one little comment and my Paul got scared
And said 'you're getting banned along with puddles in Bel-Air'
If you look at the side-by-side video of the 3 WTC building compared with other controlled demolitions it is the exact same thing---I'm talkin' exact...(all of this is on youtube)
If the official reason that the 3 buildings collapsed is 'due to fire'...if you look at the OMA building that burned or any other skyscraper that has sustained fire there was no indication of collapse at all...
(also on youtube)
And if you look at the structure (imagine it as a scale model) and did the same amount of damage to it, I dont think this model is going to collapse and crush and pulverize everything underneath...especially when the original planners designed for that...I'm talking about the real structure not the PBS animation...
and
The building 7 thing makes no sense...
Louis Kahn said "Architecture is the reaching out for the truth."
I think that's all that website is trying to do...
The 'offical story' is full of a lot of holes
I dont have an answer but I think the whole think is interesting if you have 30 mins to hear their argument...
Im going to go ahead and guess that most (all) of the "truth seekers" here have probably watched 'Loose Change' and taken it for fact rather than speculation, which is what it actually is. I'd encourage you to please take the time to also watch the counter-video to that 'Screw Loose Change'; while the name isn't very subtle, it does essentially debunk every "fact" that Dylan Avery has compiled.
In my eyes, anyone who campaigns for this cause is simply looking for personal attention, which as far as I am concerned is the ultimate insult to all victims of 9/11.
If you look at the OMA building there is no evidence of an airplane taking out a few of its structural columns before the fire started, either.
Conspiracies are really interesting...
The WTC Twin Towers were not typical steel framed buildings, and were really unique structurally. Understanding those differences is key to an understanding of why the building failed the way it did. There is plenty of material on the web that explains it well.
Regarding the visual similarity to controlled demo, the collapses actually didn't look like CD at all. In a controlled demo of a highrise building, the bottom supports of a building are usually taken out first, and the top of the building is allowed to collapse due to gravity alone. No controlled demos rely on progressively detonated charges going from the top down.
Here's a good report on the collapses from an expert in controlled building demolition:
paper by Brent Blanchard
And...a great general debunking of the collapse conspiracies:
Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories
seriously? 4 FAIA, 1 FAICP signed this thing?
also.. a cursory examination suggests a lot of very very old people on that list. One of the Yalies there claims a graduate degree Yale hasn't actually offered since 1960.
<img src="http://911review.org/Storage/Http/www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/wtc7-demolition.gif">
the 3rd wtc tower
Why does it bother anyone to ask questions? That's the part that worries me about this whole thing.
some quotes from the architects/PEs:
"The free-fall collapse of the fire protected steel-frame structure of World Trade Center #7 could not have been caused by the limited structural damage and office fires which were observed prior to collapse. The actual scientific/forensic evidence (i.e. Thermate particles in the dust and molten steel during debris extraction), calls into question the official 911 commission report (NIST) and points to a professionally controlled demolition by incendiary devices."
"The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the damage. A new investigation is needed."
"the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse."
"Based on my knowledge of building structures, physics and chemistry, it simply does not make sense that events which occurred on 9/11 were as our media/government have proclaimed."
" would really like to know why complete collapse of the twin towers "became inevitable" as expressed by NIST without any scientific analysis to substantiate it. Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing most of the contents into dust and ash - twice? Why would WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire."
"The symmetrical "collapse" due to asymmetrical damage is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics."
"Many of the facts and theories that engineers have learned in such courses as structures, physics, chemistry, metallurgy, etc., have held true for longer than the hundred-year history of structural-steel-framed high-rise buildings and they held true on 9/11/01. Only controlled demolition could have provided the types of building collapses displayed three times on that fateful day."
http://911review.org/Storage/Http/www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/wtc7-demolition.gif
forgot which tags
That is the 3rd tower that collapsed after that apparently some people don't know about
LOL, buildings pancake and fall straight down all the time.
Only post-and-beam or true masonry buildings "topple over."
as oe said these guys should have their licenses revoked but especially whoever said this:
"the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse."
i mean, come ON !!
this is the side-by-side i referenced earlier
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwFAnP7_RtY
And this is an excellent ArchViz animation if you are interested in the structure ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HOTAUy_mrQ&feature=related
this building looked like a solid block
damage to only one corner does not seem like it would bring the whole thing straight down--
or maybe it would
I am imagining an accurate physical model
WTC7 controlled demolition, side-by-side video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo
The only thing this showed was that the facade became distorted hinting at the possibility that the concrete core had lost structural integrity before the facade.
If anything, this video actually disproved its intended point.
In the Controllota demolition close up of the deformed facade, it was obvious that the pressure differentials cause by a concussive force (i.e. an explosion) caused debris to fly out the windows.
In the WTC 7 building, only glass is seen falling from the structure. The glass does not have enough lateral movement to be caused by anything other than the panes breaking from torsion.
(I'm not sure if you've even try to bend a piece of glass (or even plexiglass)-- the result is not pretty.)
Wow, I thought this topic would have died off by now...sigh...
Ok... even if for some reason, you think the physics could only be done with controlled demolition...
Think about the fact that they estimated the dozens/hundreds of people who would have to be in on it to place the explosives...none of them would speak out afterward...really? No paper trail?
Furthermore I have seen numerous sources that have proved the rationality of the buildings falling from the collision and the numerous holes in the conspiracy theories...
"If the official reason that the 3 buildings collapsed is 'due to fire'...if you look at the OMA building that burned or any other skyscraper that has sustained fire there was no indication of collapse at all..."
You are comparing apples to oranges... Different construction types/ methodologies/damage. The OMA building was started by a small firework igniting the bamboo scafolding I believe...the WTC had a massive collision with JET fuel blow away all fireproofing leaving only the bare steel skeleton and extremely high temperatures.
I would compare the AIA/engineering professionals buying into this to the environmental scientists that are against global warming...
As for all the talk of the World Trade Center itself-- does anyone remember how for the longest time since the early 1980s to the late 1990s... all anyone talked about was how shitty this building was built?
It was constructed, despite public outcry, by union workers during a big period of civil unrest and labor strikes in the U.S.
This thing had probably the worst fire supression system for a building of its size, it was lacking many features common seen in much older buildings and it was considered a potential hazard to human safety because it was discovered that half of it wasn't even bolted together right?
I mean... yeah, if it was built to plan I'm sure it would be a lot stronger. Was it actually built to plan?
And if it wasn't built to plan, was decrepit and should have been demolished after 30 years.... doesn't that technically mean the Port Authority and Vornado are financially and legally responsibly for the damages?
maybe this animation is better
they even shout out raytracing
yes i understand the difference between the situation and china and nyc...
i just think its curious, its rare to see architects agree on anything, I was a little taken aback by 1200...
I have no problem with another investigation if that is what they want-
It wont hurt and If anything they will arrive at the same conclusions-
hey cryz, what is in for you? what do you have to gain by pumping this asinine shit?
the only thing that puzzles me is the pentagon. does that look like the impact an airplane would make. even if it does, it's the most monitored building on earth- why wouldn't they release a real tape of the plane to shut up all the people like me?
cryz?.... dont think so...
I suppose these jokers either don't know or don't care that the towers were structurally a bundled tube of envelope supports surrounding a concrete core? - an unusual form that pretty much precluded "toppling" in the classic sense.
I'm more impressed by the other 98,800 or so who think these 1,200 are jackasses.
Is anyone that has commented (either way) a forensic Architect? A friend of mine is about to start at UPENN's Historic Preservation Program and he mentioned a conversation with a couple individuals there that did a good bit of analysis on the WTC. My understanding is that the forensic evidence was not consistent with a controlled explosion at all. Anyone else know anything about this?
watched the whole thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ&feature=digest_refresh_thu
fuuuuuuuuckkkkkk. saw another one of these stupid ass Richard Gage events, one he was supposed to attend, but because of mechanical issues with his planes - oooo conspiracy - was not able to attend. still no explanation on how much thermite it would take, and how many men/women it would take to set all of these controlled charges in a city of 7 mil, where before 9/11, giuliani had locked down tighter than a nun's knees, and where WTC 93 made any suspicious activity insanely suspicious. but hey, when science doesn't do it for you, bring in the psychologists and therapists, and let them say; "don't the families deserve to hear the truth?"
the guy asked me for $10 at the door, and i told him it was a suggested donation, and i refused to contribute, and asked for my ticket.
Why did Building 7 fall? As more facts are presented to credentialed professionals, we have more credentialed professionals (architects and engineers) asking the question.
http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html
To AIA members who voted down AIA Resolution 15-6: Why wouldn't you investigate a circumstance indicating that current best practices in steel building construction are endangering the lives of everyone in and around the building? How could you assert that you are upholding the reasonable standard of care if NIST says that low temperature fires in steel buildings can and do lead to free fall collapse scenarios as seen in Building 7?
While some of you may suspect that NIST is being deceptive, you may view the incidents of 9/11 as disconnected with your own life and practice. If so, you're wrong there. If you let building 7 go uninvestigated, you set the stage for a repeat scenario (and in so doing fail to uphold the professional standard of care), as it could be your building next.
We don't know how to safeguard against the real threat until we investigate the circumstance and determine the real cause. Anyone with university level education in architecture in the U.S. has no excuse for not demanding an investigation into the collapse of WTC 7 in the interest of improving design factors and codes for steel construction.
This video is a bit old now, but still helpful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
Oh, how cute. Another 9/11 conspiracy crackpot.
I'm a project designer at an architecture and planning firm. Been doing this for over a decade.
Enough about me though, what about this guy:
http://www.ae911truth.org/about/88-dan-barnum-faia-high-rise-architect-secretary.html
and the 1000's of other architects and engineers petitioning for an investigation?
Thousands of morons also think climate change is fake and that Obama is from Kenya. Go find some other board to spam with your bullshit.
Whoa, easy, living in gin! We got a namecaller.
Anthropogenic climate change resulting in net global warming? - A serious threat deserving a serious conversation. I'm actually more concerned about that topic, but I think an explanation for nist insisting that low temperature fires can bring down a steel building is a close second.
I was hoping I could find some professional discourse around this and the AIA resolution 15-6:
http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiab105884.pdf
A basic understanding of the facts of 9/11 and a 100-level structures class are sufficient to know what happened to 7WTC. The crackpot conspiracy theories posed by 9/11 truthers like you are so ridiculous they don't deserve a "serious conversation," only mockery and ridicule.
Here's a link in case you haven't mastered Google yet (only took me about five seconds to find):
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Living In Gin, a basic understanding of 9/11 and a 100 level structures class show me that the arguments on that page you link don't explain the collapse of building 7.
1) a girder/ column failure on a lower level cannot cause a building like this to free fall symmetrically into it's own footprint, which is also what NIST would have us believe.
2) Steel melts at ~ 2700 degrees. Office fires don't get that hot.
Which leads me back to: why is Building 7 the "first and only steel building in the world to have collapsed due to fire"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
To AIA members who voted down AIA Resolution 15-6: Why wouldn't you investigate a circumstance indicating that current best practices in steel building construction are endangering the lives of everyone in and around the building? How could you assert that you are upholding the reasonable standard of care if NIST says that low temperature fires in steel buildings can and do lead to free fall collapse scenarios as seen in Building 7?
In reference to that last post here is a link to AIA Resolution 15-6 Sponsored by Dan Barnum FAIA:
http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiab105884.pdf
+++ Non
1. You can't prove a negative.
2. Steel is a liquid at 2700 F.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.