So I'm not an engineer but every steel building I've seen has fireproofing on it, say it was blown off by something like a freaking 787, wouldn't the steel start to deform after an hour or so? Also, if anyone remembers that line from "loose change" where they point out all the stop orders on airline related stocks the day earlier as proof of knowledge of the attacks. Well it was such an interesting argument that the CIA set up its own department looking for such stock trading to pin point future attacks. Don't think they'd do that if they were behind it. That department actually was the main intelligence behind the discovery of the guy who tried to make an explosive on the flight from UK to US, the reason you can only have small liquid carry-ons now. They found a similar huge spurt in stop orders on airline stocks and stopped it this time.
Blake... that number only grows if you include people like yourself who know literally nothing in the count. Open the floodgates and let all the crazies into the club why don't you.
How many people in the field of geology believe in a young-earth or in the field of medicine believe flu vaccines are evil? Probably thousands... tens of thousands perhaps. Every single one is both wrong and crazy. Every discipline has it's share of unstable people, you've chosen to buy stock in the architecture & engineering's version and for that, we ridicule you.
I know evidence is not something you understand but oh my... you've provided plenty to support my waste of air theory.
I still don't get what this has to do with architecture. say you're right and the building was blown up as part of a cia conspiracy. what's that have to do with anything? are you going to start designing buildings to prevent incendiary devices from blowing them up?
the initial basis of your argument "Shouldn't we be re-evaluating everything we know about structural engineering " as well as aia resolution 15-6 have nothing to do with the practice of architecture. or structural engineering. the building was investigated. load factors aren't changing. steel strength isn't different from what it used to be. nothing changes.
that suggests to me that initial precept of your query is flawed, and possibly even intended to be manipulative. if the initial precept is flawed and dishonest, then how much of you say can we trust? what credibility can you or any other 'truther' have if you won't even be honest about your intentions?
so what's the point? is this any different than the hillary-bengazi attacks or obama-birther conspiracies? what do you hope to accomplish? you want to have the same group of engineers say 'yup, what we said before is right'?
What does demo-ing a random smaller building get you? Why would anyone waste time to make sure that would go as well. So I'm going to go with a building landed on it.
I am implying that NIST isn't being honest in they're report on building 7.
the implications are that this is a rare opportunity for architects and engineers to get together at bring some clarity to a very mysterious situation that may well have a profoundly positive effect on the politics and economics of our age. we are part of the system of checks and balances. this is our problem.
if we don't have the truth, we cannot have a great culture. if we don't have a great culture we cannot have great architecture.
"It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved," stated actress and TV personality Rosie O'Donnell of ABC's The View in March 2007. "For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said.
For the FIRST time in history, steel was melted by fire. Genius. Don't know what that adds to the conversation, just thought it was important? And very very funny. And really not important at all. I don't think we'll ever really know what happened on 9/11, and to call for more investigation, at this point, is fruitless and a waste of time. Down the Memory Hole.
so we agree that the aia petition and your desire here has nothing to do with the design of buildings. this is a search for 'truth,' in the same way congress is searching for 'truth' in hillary clinton's email history and trying to find obama's birth certificate, right?
what if the 'truth' is that the building was not blown up?
regardless of 'the truth', there is no reason to reevaluate structural engineering. everything is working as intended. gravity still goes down. steel can still expand when heat is applied. it's nice to have working fire sprinklers if you're in a building that catches on fire. this conversation would still be more appropriate on 4chan.
curt, as absurd as this situation is, it does effect the design of buildings. NIST has determined that low level fires can cause total structural failure of steel buildings in ways we never though possible. this compromises much in the profession. the door for the exploitation of architects in many new ways is now open. that is why it is in the AIA's best interest to take a much more serious look at this.
for those new to the forum: NIST says that debris from WTC 1 caused sporadic fires on various levels of building 7 and damaged a column girder connection on a lower level which lead to symmetrical, free fall collapse of the building. straight down into itself. it is very important to the practice of architecture and culture at large that we understand exactly how this building fell down.
NIST's explanation isn't likely as the evidence we do have points to other causes, hence AIA Resolution 15:6:
The vehemence with which people defend the government's version of events without ever having seen facts or the complete report is extremely disturbing.
Was it a conspiracy? I don't know, but I am in no hurry to endorse either side in this debate, and it is disingenuous to think that any of you can do more than take a leap of faith in order to do the same.
Those who oppose Blakes nonesense do so because we know better than him. Rational answers are available by the truck load it is just that their exists a loud minority of people who cannot "believe" anything unless it's the version they fabricated for themselves.
I'm not trying to get into "truther" territory, but I know I am not alone in being totally dissatisfied with the investigation and conclusions presented to the American people regarding this event. I am equally dissatisfied with those who immediately go to the other end of the spectrum, but that doesn't mean I am going to totally swallow the government's explanation, especially when the entire truth will never be known.
... we are still finding out details of Watergate, ffs, now THAT is some nonsense.
And as was said in the other thread, the reaction to this event was beyond shameful - that alone casts doubt on the events, regardless of what may have initially happened.
....and people still question the moon landing, JFK or believe that some ancient jew rose from the dead.
Some things never die no-matter how many times it's beaten to death. People love to insert fantasy when they are uncomfortable facing the unknown... some fantasies are just so ridiculous that their authors deserve public humiliation. There is an huge amount of great independent literature on everything mentioned above. Just a shame people rather ask for their version to be quantified rather than understand reality.
But I guess the old "when in doubt, blame X agent" work too.
You know how there was a dude on here a while back that said he posted a bunch of shit online using his real name and had to hire a PR manager at 30k to try to gain back some semblance of sanity for the poor chap? Take note.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
right, yes thousands. They're hoping that number will continue to grow as more information is made available.
So I'm not an engineer but every steel building I've seen has fireproofing on it, say it was blown off by something like a freaking 787, wouldn't the steel start to deform after an hour or so? Also, if anyone remembers that line from "loose change" where they point out all the stop orders on airline related stocks the day earlier as proof of knowledge of the attacks. Well it was such an interesting argument that the CIA set up its own department looking for such stock trading to pin point future attacks. Don't think they'd do that if they were behind it. That department actually was the main intelligence behind the discovery of the guy who tried to make an explosive on the flight from UK to US, the reason you can only have small liquid carry-ons now. They found a similar huge spurt in stop orders on airline stocks and stopped it this time.
Oh wait...
Blake... that number only grows if you include people like yourself who know literally nothing in the count. Open the floodgates and let all the crazies into the club why don't you.
How many people in the field of geology believe in a young-earth or in the field of medicine believe flu vaccines are evil? Probably thousands... tens of thousands perhaps. Every single one is both wrong and crazy. Every discipline has it's share of unstable people, you've chosen to buy stock in the architecture & engineering's version and for that, we ridicule you.
I know evidence is not something you understand but oh my... you've provided plenty to support my waste of air theory.
starchitect, we're looking at WTC building 7; it wasn't hit by any planes.
non, less credentialed people have signed the petition in addition to the thousands of architects and engineers who have signed.
I still don't get what this has to do with architecture. say you're right and the building was blown up as part of a cia conspiracy. what's that have to do with anything? are you going to start designing buildings to prevent incendiary devices from blowing them up?
the initial basis of your argument "Shouldn't we be re-evaluating everything we know about structural engineering " as well as aia resolution 15-6 have nothing to do with the practice of architecture. or structural engineering. the building was investigated. load factors aren't changing. steel strength isn't different from what it used to be. nothing changes.
that suggests to me that initial precept of your query is flawed, and possibly even intended to be manipulative. if the initial precept is flawed and dishonest, then how much of you say can we trust? what credibility can you or any other 'truther' have if you won't even be honest about your intentions?
so what's the point? is this any different than the hillary-bengazi attacks or obama-birther conspiracies? what do you hope to accomplish? you want to have the same group of engineers say 'yup, what we said before is right'?
What does demo-ing a random smaller building get you? Why would anyone waste time to make sure that would go as well. So I'm going to go with a building landed on it.
Blake, what time are your parents picking you up from school?
Make sure they speak with the teachers because statistic class is failing you.
Hi curt, I don't know who dunnit.
I am implying that NIST isn't being honest in they're report on building 7.
the implications are that this is a rare opportunity for architects and engineers to get together at bring some clarity to a very mysterious situation that may well have a profoundly positive effect on the politics and economics of our age. we are part of the system of checks and balances. this is our problem.
if we don't have the truth, we cannot have a great culture. if we don't have a great culture we cannot have great architecture.
Your diction changed, for the worse. Now it's a desperate appeal to emotion.
"It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved," stated actress and TV personality Rosie O'Donnell of ABC's The View in March 2007. "For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said.
For the FIRST time in history, steel was melted by fire. Genius. Don't know what that adds to the conversation, just thought it was important? And very very funny. And really not important at all. I don't think we'll ever really know what happened on 9/11, and to call for more investigation, at this point, is fruitless and a waste of time. Down the Memory Hole.
for those new to the discussion, I would recommend catching up on the actual premise of the conversation before commenting.
so we agree that the aia petition and your desire here has nothing to do with the design of buildings. this is a search for 'truth,' in the same way congress is searching for 'truth' in hillary clinton's email history and trying to find obama's birth certificate, right?
what if the 'truth' is that the building was not blown up?
regardless of 'the truth', there is no reason to reevaluate structural engineering. everything is working as intended. gravity still goes down. steel can still expand when heat is applied. it's nice to have working fire sprinklers if you're in a building that catches on fire. this conversation would still be more appropriate on 4chan.
Guys ... really ...
Was that Rosie pre-stroke? The fat blocking blood to the brains could explain such a claim.
curt, as absurd as this situation is, it does effect the design of buildings. NIST has determined that low level fires can cause total structural failure of steel buildings in ways we never though possible. this compromises much in the profession. the door for the exploitation of architects in many new ways is now open. that is why it is in the AIA's best interest to take a much more serious look at this.
for those new to the forum:
NIST says that debris from WTC 1 caused sporadic fires on various levels of building 7 and damaged a column girder connection on a lower level which lead to symmetrical, free fall collapse of the building. straight down into itself.
it is very important to the practice of architecture and culture at large that we understand exactly how this building fell down.
NIST's explanation isn't likely as the evidence we do have points to other causes, hence AIA Resolution 15:6:
http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiab105884.pdf
sponsored by Dan Barnum FAIA:
http://www.ae911truth.org/about/88-dan-barnum-faia-high-rise-architect-secretary.html
again ....
The vehemence with which people defend the government's version of events without ever having seen facts or the complete report is extremely disturbing.
Was it a conspiracy? I don't know, but I am in no hurry to endorse either side in this debate, and it is disingenuous to think that any of you can do more than take a leap of faith in order to do the same.
Archanonymous, don't defend ignorance.
Those who oppose Blakes nonesense do so because we know better than him. Rational answers are available by the truck load it is just that their exists a loud minority of people who cannot "believe" anything unless it's the version they fabricated for themselves.
I oppose all nonsense, regardless of the originator.
^ a fine moto to stand by.
I'm not trying to get into "truther" territory, but I know I am not alone in being totally dissatisfied with the investigation and conclusions presented to the American people regarding this event. I am equally dissatisfied with those who immediately go to the other end of the spectrum, but that doesn't mean I am going to totally swallow the government's explanation, especially when the entire truth will never be known.
... we are still finding out details of Watergate, ffs, now THAT is some nonsense.
And as was said in the other thread, the reaction to this event was beyond shameful - that alone casts doubt on the events, regardless of what may have initially happened.
....and people still question the moon landing, JFK or believe that some ancient jew rose from the dead.
Some things never die no-matter how many times it's beaten to death. People love to insert fantasy when they are uncomfortable facing the unknown... some fantasies are just so ridiculous that their authors deserve public humiliation. There is an huge amount of great independent literature on everything mentioned above. Just a shame people rather ask for their version to be quantified rather than understand reality.
But I guess the old "when in doubt, blame X agent" work too.
I would recommend catching up on the actual premise of the conversation before commenting.
One post is all it takes to catch up with stupidity. For most people, anyway.
You know how there was a dude on here a while back that said he posted a bunch of shit online using his real name and had to hire a PR manager at 30k to try to gain back some semblance of sanity for the poor chap? Take note.
fireproofing.
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.