Blake, seriously: the AIA voted down Resolution 15-6 because it is based in nothing.
Please stop trying to use AIA membership as a reason to "continue to examine" questions that have been thoroughly resolved.
Do you think AIA also has a responsibility to open an investigation into haunted houses to ensure the life, safety, and welfare of residential occupants?
when buildings fail, they should be studied so we can learn why and, if necessary, modify model codes to address any problems discovered. in the case of the world trade center building 7, there was an investigation. no need to keep investigating until you find whatever answer you want to find. you don't start an investigation with the answer, that defeats the purpose.
yes, haunted houses should be investigated, and if model codes can be modified to protect public health and safety as a result of those investigations, they should be. sometimes you need asbestos mitigation, sometimes you need spirit mitigation.
Someone watch this footage of building 7 falling in real time, and then explain to me how that was caused by an office fire (a fire not hot enough to cause that kind of collapse):
pancake collapse (successive floor plates/ building driving through floors below) doesn't happen at free fall, and tends to result in a shearing away of the failed structure as falling straight into the intact structure below is not the path of least resistance.
Real engineers who have looked at it and commented for the record tend to say things like: "that's a classic implosion".
It wasn't caused by an "office fire". It was caused by burning debris and jet fuel raining down upon and into the building from the neighboring 1 and 2 WTC towers. The fires inside 7 WTC remained burning for so long because all the firefighters in the area were either dead or had evacuated the area.
These are basic facts that aren't in dispute except by mouth-breathing sociopaths who look at the horror of that day and think, "You know what? What happened that morning just isn't horrific enough. I should make it worse by making up a bunch of horseshit about it being an inside job and get a bunch of gullible morons on the internet to believe me."
Finding out the truth is the way to honor those who suffer.
Most of the jet fuel burned up in the initial fireball when the planes impacted the buildings. Building 7 was a awful long way away from building 1 for any stray jet fuel to have made it over. It is a very curious circumstance that 4 ton pieces of debris were hurled into building 7, which many engineers and physicists say would only be possible with secondary explosions in addition to the planes. We have no believable answer for how building 7 fell, which is why we need an investigation, no?
Or, I need to tell my structural engineers to take another look at their safety factors.
In any case, I am trying to respectfully engage in professional conversation about a serious topic. I respect your views and beliefs about what happened that day. I am professionally obliged remain open minded about those goings on as this effects how I do my job.
I think it would be a good idea to carefully and respectfully engage this topic of convo in any forum relating to architecture as a means of exercising the reasonable standard of care, until such a time as we have an actual investigation of the collapse of WTC 7.
NIST did not search the debris for evidence of additional explosive devices or residue because "we did not expect to find any".
The investigation was already performed by people with far more expertise than you, and your crackpot conspiracy theories have been repeatedly debunked. You don't know shit about structures, you don't know shit about the basic facts of that day, and you don't know shit about the layout of the original WTC complex. Further "discussion" with you is a pointless waste of energy.
By the way, it is the families and friends of those who lost people in 9/11 who started and continue to spearhead the 9/11 truth movement. They still don't feel like they have good answers.
Also, as mentioned, I am somewhat professionally obliged to get to the bottom of NIST's late breaking assertion that low temperature office fires can cause uniform free fall collapse of conventional steel high rise structures.
Someone, quick, check if there's ever been an investigation that's started with a conclusion, in order to justify a re-investigation?
This "group" has been stealing from the families of the dead for the past 20 years, stealing money and promising something that they can never deliver; justice and peace of mind for families that were killed in 9/11. No one died at WTC 7. They, and anyone associated with this group are first class charlatans and should be held criminally responsible for fraud, and maybe when that happens the FAIA associated with this resolution, and the fifty anonymous signatories associated with resolution 15-6 will be booted from the AIA.
At the very least, I fault the AIA, I fault them for one reason, while I am for these idiots the right to bring this resolution, they do not have a right to have a booth in the expo floor, or have a right to have present continuing education session, as they did in 2009. If our profession needs the money that bad, perhaps next time we can invite NAMBLA, and they can have a booth and CEU on live work spaces for men and boys to gather.
Yes. I am going to AIA Philadelphia next year, and I'm going to get a resolution passed to censure him, and all other signatories to these baseless resolutions, that do nothing to benefit the membership, and only seek to do harm to the members, organization, and the families of the dead.
On his retirement the chief pilot of American Airlines said there was no way he, personally, had the skills it would have taken to make the 757 flight into the Pentagon the first time given the flight path it was said to have taken. I think he should be censored by the AIA also.
What I rather enjoy is this idea that a building, where no one actually perished, is now the key focus of "some" families that had loved ones die in the buildings that are not the focus of this supposed "investigation".
Ridiculous hardly begins to describe these efforts at "truth".
Ken, as amused as I am with the accusations (libel?) I see before me and your vow to take down thousands of FAIA and AIA members over an issue which is of legitimate concern to them, I'm also sadly reflective on where this attempt to silence and censure voices you do not wish to hear ends?
Dan Barnum and a number of other highly reputable architects and engineers have a scientific basis for their concern over the validity of NIST's findings. The more credentialed individuals who hear all the facts we have at present, the louder their collective voice will grow in asking: how did building 7 actually fall down?
Sanity is on the side of those who want a scientific investigation of the building 7 collapse, and that investigation is also how we truly honor those who suffer.
The official story from NIST is: low temperature office fires created by projectile debris from the collapse of building 1 created a uniform free fall collapse of building 7 right into it's own footprint at free fall rate (approx 6 seconds).
Dan Barnum and many other very competent building industry professionals see the problem with that story and need a better answer to move forward.
I hope other people on this forum might begin to look at building 7 and begin to question that story as well.
The official story from NIST is: low temperature office fires created by projectile debris from the collapse of building 1 created a uniform free fall collapse of building 7 right into it's own footprint at free fall rate (approx 6 seconds).
Dan Barnum and many other very competent building industry professionals see the problem with that story and need a better answer to move forward.
Blake, Dan and you and your cohorts are a TINY MINORITY of the profession. What was the percentage on the first page of this thread? Something like 0.64%, not even one percent? The majority of AIA members looked at your resolution and voted it down. The vast majority of architects and other building professionals have looked closely at your concerns and consider them bullshit.
Every profession has a few incompetents that sneak through. You guys are doing a great job of making sure we all recognize you.
torture, iraq, oil pipelines, goldman sachs, Halliburton, blackwater, stolen elections...I think its even worse that all of this happened opportunistically vs strategically...It reveals something very ugly about the vulnerability of this country to slip into madness at the hands of the average man...and while it would take a one-off super villain to pull off such a conspiracy, opportunistic villains are a dime a dozen...no need for conspiracy theories...the truth is worse and even more frightening.
^ Bingo. The established facts of 9/11 and everything that happened since then are far more disturbing than the prospect of some super-villain in a hollowed-out volcano orchestrating some grand conspiracy. There's no secret conspiracy; the real villains are on Fox News every day bragging about what they're up to.
Guys... debating a tool like Blake only gives him the illusion that his argument is worthy of debate. Best to do what his mother could not 16 years ago and abort him painlessly.
Blake, if you want to do something proactive about 9/11, work on getting the complete 9/11 Commission Report declassified. There are a lot of things we don't know including who profited from shorting airline stocks, why the Bin Laden family was flown out of the US despite the no-fly order, why specific warnings from foreign governments were ignored, etc., etc.
The conspiracy here isn't WTC7, it's the entire 9/11 event.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11, it was all coincidentally innocuous and not the result of insider trading by parties with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks:
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines onSeptember 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.
Miles, jla-x, I agree, would love to have the 28 pages from the report de-classified and so on, I just think that's all simply much too much at once for most people to engage and beyond the scope of my professional interest.
I'm professionally concerned with building 7. I view that part of the puzzle as something which rests largely on the architecture and engineering community to get to the bottom of.
if we can better understand why that building actually fell down, we might then be able to address some overlapping concerns with buildings 1 and 2.
there was a fire in the building. fire burns things. sometimes buildings fall down.
what is the answer you're looking for? the relationship between steel size and temperature? the steel composition? do you think the building was intentionally demolished by explosives placed at designed points?
incendiaries placed throughout the building would help to explain what we see, and there is some evidence for that which is covered in the documentary below:
Blake, it must be the fluoride in the water. I read somewhere that is interacts badly with the wifi signals and power lines... but most people don't know that. I Speak the troooooths!
Non, Sequitur (and others). Think about what you are typing. You're probably a very bright person who designs buildings for people.
I don't know how I would design for my fellow human beings if I had that kind of anger coursing through my veins. If you want to be a good architect or designer, you must have a compassion for people. I don't normally preach, but I've noticed in this thread that yourself and several others chiming in have a way of expressing their disagreement with another individual's stance by hurling vociferous language at the individual. That is not the behavior of an educated person. You must unlearn that behavior if you want to become truly great at what you do.
May 18, 15 1:47 pm ·
·
Building 7... that the one that the CIA used for storing documents (which they have copies of elsewhere). High power, high temperature explosive and detonation probably to destroy the records stored there.
CIA type stuff, they rig their buildings for demolition on a short notice. They operate that way.
Just like how we rig our helicopters and all.
Good reason for it to be detonated quickly. If you want your building to survive don't have CIA as a tenant.
Yes indeed, most here are very bright and design buildings for many people. I just so happen to design tall buildings... and unlike yourself, am not a complete fool. If you had a position worthy of debate, I would consider it worthy of my time and respect. But, as it's been demonstrated to you here, you're a complete waste of time.
I will repeat again and try and read it slowly so that you grasp the words:
Your hyperbole is well documented that there aren't "thousands", and only a handful voted for your resolution. Hardly a measure of interest from a responsible professional organization.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
1) The building didn't free-fall.
2) Steel doesn't need to melt in order to lose its strength.
Again, this is basic 100-level structures stuff. Now go away, idiot.
Hey, crackpot, are you one of those tin-hatted conspiracy theorists that I wanted to put a chokehold on, at the convention?
I'll come back later, after you're finished with your Kool-aid, you disgrace to the profession.
Blake, seriously: the AIA voted down Resolution 15-6 because it is based in nothing.
Please stop trying to use AIA membership as a reason to "continue to examine" questions that have been thoroughly resolved.
Do you think AIA also has a responsibility to open an investigation into haunted houses to ensure the life, safety, and welfare of residential occupants?
Please. Go away before it gets messy.
this has nothing to do with 9/11
when buildings fail, they should be studied so we can learn why and, if necessary, modify model codes to address any problems discovered. in the case of the world trade center building 7, there was an investigation. no need to keep investigating until you find whatever answer you want to find. you don't start an investigation with the answer, that defeats the purpose.
yes, haunted houses should be investigated, and if model codes can be modified to protect public health and safety as a result of those investigations, they should be. sometimes you need asbestos mitigation, sometimes you need spirit mitigation.
Ok let's back up.
Someone watch this footage of building 7 falling in real time, and then explain to me how that was caused by an office fire (a fire not hot enough to cause that kind of collapse):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg
floor plates falling on top of each other. real engineers have already looked at it.
pancake collapse (successive floor plates/ building driving through floors below) doesn't happen at free fall, and tends to result in a shearing away of the failed structure as falling straight into the intact structure below is not the path of least resistance.
Real engineers who have looked at it and commented for the record tend to say things like: "that's a classic implosion".
a fire not hot enough to cause that kind of collapse
More like a brain not sharp enough to understand basic physics and material properties.
It wasn't caused by an "office fire". It was caused by burning debris and jet fuel raining down upon and into the building from the neighboring 1 and 2 WTC towers. The fires inside 7 WTC remained burning for so long because all the firefighters in the area were either dead or had evacuated the area.
These are basic facts that aren't in dispute except by mouth-breathing sociopaths who look at the horror of that day and think, "You know what? What happened that morning just isn't horrific enough. I should make it worse by making up a bunch of horseshit about it being an inside job and get a bunch of gullible morons on the internet to believe me."
Miles,
have you seen this footage?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg
7 falls at free fall rate.That isn't a pancake collapse.
+++Living in Gin. It's indeed sociopathic to keep spouting this crap in the face of the thousands of people who actually lost loved ones that day.
Living in Gin,
Finding out the truth is the way to honor those who suffer.
Most of the jet fuel burned up in the initial fireball when the planes impacted the buildings. Building 7 was a awful long way away from building 1 for any stray jet fuel to have made it over. It is a very curious circumstance that 4 ton pieces of debris were hurled into building 7, which many engineers and physicists say would only be possible with secondary explosions in addition to the planes. We have no believable answer for how building 7 fell, which is why we need an investigation, no?
Or, I need to tell my structural engineers to take another look at their safety factors.
In any case, I am trying to respectfully engage in professional conversation about a serious topic. I respect your views and beliefs about what happened that day. I am professionally obliged remain open minded about those goings on as this effects how I do my job.
I think it would be a good idea to carefully and respectfully engage this topic of convo in any forum relating to architecture as a means of exercising the reasonable standard of care, until such a time as we have an actual investigation of the collapse of WTC 7.
NIST did not search the debris for evidence of additional explosive devices or residue because "we did not expect to find any".
The investigation was already performed by people with far more expertise than you, and your crackpot conspiracy theories have been repeatedly debunked. You don't know shit about structures, you don't know shit about the basic facts of that day, and you don't know shit about the layout of the original WTC complex. Further "discussion" with you is a pointless waste of energy.
Here is an interesting film put together by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth full of un-refuted facts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
By the way, it is the families and friends of those who lost people in 9/11 who started and continue to spearhead the 9/11 truth movement. They still don't feel like they have good answers.
Also, as mentioned, I am somewhat professionally obliged to get to the bottom of NIST's late breaking assertion that low temperature office fires can cause uniform free fall collapse of conventional steel high rise structures.
This "group" has been stealing from the families of the dead for the past 20 years, stealing money and promising something that they can never deliver; justice and peace of mind for families that were killed in 9/11. No one died at WTC 7. They, and anyone associated with this group are first class charlatans and should be held criminally responsible for fraud, and maybe when that happens the FAIA associated with this resolution, and the fifty anonymous signatories associated with resolution 15-6 will be booted from the AIA.
At the very least, I fault the AIA, I fault them for one reason, while I am for these idiots the right to bring this resolution, they do not have a right to have a booth in the expo floor, or have a right to have present continuing education session, as they did in 2009. If our profession needs the money that bad, perhaps next time we can invite NAMBLA, and they can have a booth and CEU on live work spaces for men and boys to gather.
^ Agree 100%. IMO, the behavior of these crackpots borders on professional misconduct.
The behavior of Dan Barnum FAIA borders on professional misconduct?
http://www.ae911truth.org/about/88-dan-barnum-faia-high-rise-architect-secretary.html
Actually many of the families of the 911 victims want answers. Perhaps a special AIA censorship of those families is in order also?
On his retirement the chief pilot of American Airlines said there was no way he, personally, had the skills it would have taken to make the 757 flight into the Pentagon the first time given the flight path it was said to have taken. I think he should be censored by the AIA also.
Ridiculous hardly begins to describe these efforts at "truth".
Joining the AIA should not be a prerequisite. Just censor the fuck out of everyone who has a question.
Ken, as amused as I am with the accusations (libel?) I see before me and your vow to take down thousands of FAIA and AIA members over an issue which is of legitimate concern to them, I'm also sadly reflective on where this attempt to silence and censure voices you do not wish to hear ends?
Dan Barnum and a number of other highly reputable architects and engineers have a scientific basis for their concern over the validity of NIST's findings. The more credentialed individuals who hear all the facts we have at present, the louder their collective voice will grow in asking: how did building 7 actually fall down?
Sanity is on the side of those who want a scientific investigation of the building 7 collapse, and that investigation is also how we truly honor those who suffer.
The official story from NIST is: low temperature office fires created by projectile debris from the collapse of building 1 created a uniform free fall collapse of building 7 right into it's own footprint at free fall rate (approx 6 seconds).
Dan Barnum and many other very competent building industry professionals see the problem with that story and need a better answer to move forward.
I hope other people on this forum might begin to look at building 7 and begin to question that story as well.
what does that have to do with the aia volunteer? what does it have to do with architecture?
there is a forum for that:
4chan.org
polluting other spaces with their /b is not neccessary.
curtkram: I'll say it again:
The official story from NIST is: low temperature office fires created by projectile debris from the collapse of building 1 created a uniform free fall collapse of building 7 right into it's own footprint at free fall rate (approx 6 seconds).
Dan Barnum and many other very competent building industry professionals see the problem with that story and need a better answer to move forward.
what does 'move forward' mean? you can't practice architecture until someone tells you what you want to hear?
Blake, Dan and you and your cohorts are a TINY MINORITY of the profession. What was the percentage on the first page of this thread? Something like 0.64%, not even one percent? The majority of AIA members looked at your resolution and voted it down. The vast majority of architects and other building professionals have looked closely at your concerns and consider them bullshit.
Every profession has a few incompetents that sneak through. You guys are doing a great job of making sure we all recognize you.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
hey, can we discontinue posting in this thread and continue the pummeling in the newer thread, over here?
http://archinect.com/forum/thread/127485298/the-first-and-only-steel-skyscraper-in-the-world-to-have-collapsed-due-to-fire
i thought we were supposed to double-post each time?
The real crimes happened after 9-11.
torture, iraq, oil pipelines, goldman sachs, Halliburton, blackwater, stolen elections...I think its even worse that all of this happened opportunistically vs strategically...It reveals something very ugly about the vulnerability of this country to slip into madness at the hands of the average man...and while it would take a one-off super villain to pull off such a conspiracy, opportunistic villains are a dime a dozen...no need for conspiracy theories...the truth is worse and even more frightening.
^ Bingo. The established facts of 9/11 and everything that happened since then are far more disturbing than the prospect of some super-villain in a hollowed-out volcano orchestrating some grand conspiracy. There's no secret conspiracy; the real villains are on Fox News every day bragging about what they're up to.
Guys... debating a tool like Blake only gives him the illusion that his argument is worthy of debate. Best to do what his mother could not 16 years ago and abort him painlessly.
Blake, if you want to do something proactive about 9/11, work on getting the complete 9/11 Commission Report declassified. There are a lot of things we don't know including who profited from shorting airline stocks, why the Bin Laden family was flown out of the US despite the no-fly order, why specific warnings from foreign governments were ignored, etc., etc.
The conspiracy here isn't WTC7, it's the entire 9/11 event.
Shorts?
Shorts 2?
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11, it was all coincidentally innocuous and not the result of insider trading by parties with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks:
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines onSeptember 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.
Miles, jla-x, I agree, would love to have the 28 pages from the report de-classified and so on, I just think that's all simply much too much at once for most people to engage and beyond the scope of my professional interest.
I'm professionally concerned with building 7. I view that part of the puzzle as something which rests largely on the architecture and engineering community to get to the bottom of.
if we can better understand why that building actually fell down, we might then be able to address some overlapping concerns with buildings 1 and 2.
what do you mean 'what happened?'
there was a fire in the building. fire burns things. sometimes buildings fall down.
what is the answer you're looking for? the relationship between steel size and temperature? the steel composition? do you think the building was intentionally demolished by explosives placed at designed points?
curtkram:
incendiaries placed throughout the building would help to explain what we see, and there is some evidence for that which is covered in the documentary below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
this is part of why I think we need a better investigation. sometimes, investigations are wrong and they need to be improved upon.
Blake, it must be the fluoride in the water. I read somewhere that is interacts badly with the wifi signals and power lines... but most people don't know that. I Speak the troooooths!
Fucking waste of air you are.
Non, Sequitur (and others). Think about what you are typing. You're probably a very bright person who designs buildings for people.
I don't know how I would design for my fellow human beings if I had that kind of anger coursing through my veins. If you want to be a good architect or designer, you must have a compassion for people. I don't normally preach, but I've noticed in this thread that yourself and several others chiming in have a way of expressing their disagreement with another individual's stance by hurling vociferous language at the individual. That is not the behavior of an educated person. You must unlearn that behavior if you want to become truly great at what you do.
Building 7... that the one that the CIA used for storing documents (which they have copies of elsewhere). High power, high temperature explosive and detonation probably to destroy the records stored there.
CIA type stuff, they rig their buildings for demolition on a short notice. They operate that way.
Just like how we rig our helicopters and all.
Good reason for it to be detonated quickly. If you want your building to survive don't have CIA as a tenant.
Blake.
Yes indeed, most here are very bright and design buildings for many people. I just so happen to design tall buildings... and unlike yourself, am not a complete fool. If you had a position worthy of debate, I would consider it worthy of my time and respect. But, as it's been demonstrated to you here, you're a complete waste of time.
I will repeat again and try and read it slowly so that you grasp the words:
You are a fucking waste of time.
stop following popular paranoia culture.
anyhow, I remain professionally concerned over the unanswered arguments against the official story by NIST as outlined at links below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
http://www.ae911truth.org/about/88-dan-barnum-faia-high-rise-architect-secretary.html
always interested in thoughts for and against on the story provided by NIST.
Your hyperbole is well documented that there aren't "thousands", and only a handful voted for your resolution. Hardly a measure of interest from a responsible professional organization.
thousands refers to the Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth petition signators:
http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html
including Dan Barnum FAIA:
http://www.ae911truth.org/about/88-dan-barnum-faia-high-rise-architect-secretary.html
"Thousands" meaning still barely above half of one percent of total practitioners, as stated on the first page.
Donna, I can't believe you're surprised that Math, like reason, is not one of Blake's strong suits.
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.