Free fall is a real thing, not sure what your point is. Of course steel is prone to weaken under fire, which is why it isn't simply there sitting unprotected. If your point is that fires collapse steel frames and all buildings collapse, then it doesn't hold up to the various buildings that have caught on fire but not fallen down.
Of maybe you want to know if there was a controlled demolition because WTC 7 shouldn't have collapsed. Get the point clear and direct instead of asking stupid-ass questions.
Same question I asked on the other thread about this: Is it also our responsibility to investigate haunted houses in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the public? Answer me that, Blake.
May 18, 15 9:19 am ·
·
spyingonmykeystrokes
Hey Donna, thanks to the power of Capitalism, that responsibility has been taken up by the Travel channel show, "Ghost Adventures," where, with no big camera crew, crew members lock themselves in haunted houses overnight and film with various lenses and video equipment.
what do you expect to find out? a need for better fireproofing material? more oversight in building inspections? more sprinkler heads or a need for more water pressure in the sprinkler system?
being crazy doesn't help your clients.
unless i missed something, didn't nist conduct an investigation? that was the right thing to do. the implications of conducting an investigation into failed structures is good for our profession.
the primary goal is to a) get people out safe; protect lives b) protect property c) keep normal daily activities going (that was on the are iirc). in that order. that's the thing to look at when considering changing the building code.
so, in the event of an earthquake, it's been pretty much decided that c) normal activity is not going to happen and b) protect property is just unlikely. so earthquake codes are focused almost entirely on keeping the structure safe long enough to keep people alive. there are codes to prevent the ceiling from collapsing on people and things like that. it's been fairly effective.
you're suggesting we rewrite building codes to address safety issues specific to the events that happened on 9/11. i think it's safe to say that protecting property is not going to happen when planes fly into a building, even if it's a neighboring building, right? so as with other significant natural disasters, the codes should be written to keep the occupants alive and get them out of the buildings to as safe of a place as possible.
it sounds like in building 7 the occupants were actually able to get out of the building right? if that's the case, the first lesson learned is to say the ICC has done a pretty good job of writing the codes.
what else do you want to do? do we need to mandate buildings be designed to remain structurally sound during catastrophic terrorist events? events like 9/11 happen far less frequently than tornadoes, and tornadoes still destroy structures, regardless of how well designed they are. it would be a significant cost increase to require every taco bell to be terrorist-proof. there are design standards for buildings in higher threat areas, such as state and military facilities. it's best if those standards are not adopted to all buildings.
if you're just a rambling mad man with crazy conspiracy theories, what if we did find out JFK came back from the dead to blow up this building? how would that change how you design buildings?
i think the premise of your argument, that building codes need to be changed based on what happened to building 7, is just plain wrong. if you have some other premise, then how does it fit within the aia or a forum frequented by architects?
"it would require a uniform liquification of all steel connections to achieve that."
You know this because you're a structural engineer or is that what these sites tell you is the reason? Look at the data first, it's all out there. Go run it through some programs. Steel does not have to melt to lose structural integrity. With a poor design such as the WTC 7, it can easily crumble much faster than expected
Don't bother confusing Blake with science. He has his agenda and is hell-bent on pursuing it regardless of actual facts. You know, sort of like the crazed religious fanatics who flew the planes into the towers in the first place because they thought they were doing God's will.
it wasn't necessarily designed all that bad. infrastructure was damaged due to the neighboring building's collapse, especially the sprinkler systems, and as i understand it they were able to evacuate the building in time right? sucks the building has to be rebuilt, but all things considered, this more an example of how to do it right rather what went wrong. 0 casualties, if that's right (it was mentioned in a previous post, other than i don't know), is a win. a terrorist attack is hard to predict, so it's hard to design a building around that sort of event.
The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.
Below are calculations from a physics blogger...
When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see, d = 1/2at^2 so t = (2d/a)^1/2 a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.] d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source) so t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough, v = at v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.
Let's see: KE = 1/2mv^2 The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be 208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft 50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be 450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor so the total mass would be 4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was 90.4m/s so our KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J So, divide by 2 and we get 10,362,544,260J OK, now let's try a floor halfway up: t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's 110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value) = 1,139,879,868,600J OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J? 1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t
Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.
Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. -Schneibster edited by Debunking 911
Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.
For more analysis of the building fall times, go to 911myths free fall page.
Please refer to Dr Frank Greening's paper for detailed calculations.
As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let's review the evidence...
What we do have for sure.
1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".
2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".
3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."
4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".
5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.
6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.
7) The collapse happened from the bottom.
8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.
9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"
12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
What we don't have...
1) Clear view of the large hole
2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact
3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side
4) Any sign of an actual explosive.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?
There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the firemen out.
Uncomfortable Questions about the Death Star Attack
1) Why were a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the defenses of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an entire planetand the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle ships?
The above photos show Death Star defenses. Did they stand down?
2) Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to deploy the station’s large fleet of TIE Fighters until it was too late? Was he acting on orders from somebody to not shoot down the rebel attack force? If so, who, and why?
3) Why was the rebel pilot who supposedly destroyed the Death Star reported to be on the Death Star days, maybe hours, prior to its destruction? Why was he allowed to escape, and why were several individuals dressed in Stormtrooper uniforms seen helping him?
4) Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that Darth Vader, the second-ranking member of the Imperial Government, is in fact the father of the pilot who allegedly destroyed the Death Star?
Why didn't he arrest this rebel when he had the chance?
5) Why did Lord Vader decide to break all protocols and personally pilot a lightly armored TIE Fighter? Conveniently, this placed Lord Vader outside of the Death Star when it was destroyed, where he was also conveniently able to escape from a large-sized rebel fleet that had just routed the Imperial forces. Why would Lord Vader, one of the highest ranking members of the Imperial Government, suddenly decide to fly away from the Death Star in the middle of a battle? Did he know something that the rest of the Imperial Navy didn’t?
In the video of the Death Star’s destruction, Lord Vader clearly exclaims “I have you now” then fires two shots. Those shots never impact — anywhere. Were they merely “added” to the “official” video after the event to make it appear that Lord Vader had at least attempted to fight off his alleged son?
Onboard Camera shows the lone rebel in Vader's sights but doesn't pull the trigger.
6) Nerf-Herders defy the laws of physics? How could any pilot shoot a missile into a 2 meter-wide exhaust port, let alone a pilot with no formal training, whose only claim to fame was his ability to “bullseye womprats” on Tatooine? This shot, according to one pilot, would be“impossible, even for a computer.” Yet, according to additional evidence, the pilot who allegedly fired the missile turned off his targeting computer when he was supposedly firing the shot that destroyed the Death Star. How did the missile make a right angle turn after entering the exhaust port? How could a missile shot in the vacuum of space–that would tend to keep going in the same direction as it was released, according to the laws of physics–be *sucked* into an *exhaust* pipe? "Exhaust" means to exhale or blow out... Wouldn’t the missiles have been blown awry of their target rather than sucked in? If it had been an intake pipe, then the “bending” path of the missiles could be plausible. Why have these discrepancies never been investigated, let alone explained?
Actual tactical computer recording.
The Magic Missile Theory
7) Why has their been no investigation into evidence that the droids who provided the rebels with the Death Star plans were once owned by none other than Lord Vader himself, and were found, conveniently, by the pilot who destroyed the Death Star, and who is also believed to be Lord Vader’s son? Evidence also shows that the droids were brought to one Ben Kenobi, who, records indicate, was Darth Vader’s teacher many years earlier! Are all these personal connections between the conspirators and a key figure in the Imperial government supposed to be coincidences?
8) How could a single missile destroy a battle station the size of a moon? No records, anywhere, show that any battle station or capital ship has ever been destroyed by a single missile. Furthermore, analysis of the tape of the last moments of the Death Star show numerous small explosions along its surface, prior to it exploding completely! Why does all evidence indicate that strategically placed explosives, not a single missile, is what destroyed the Death Star?
How could this small missile create an explosion this big?
9) Prior to the destruction of the Death Star a smuggler named Captain Solo was reportedly given a large sum of money. At a crucial point in the battle, Captain Solo had an unobstructed shot on his choice of the fighters pursuing Skywalker, yet Solo did not take advantage of this opportunity to kill Darth Vader. Although Vader was in the process of firing upon Skywalker’s X-wing, Solo attacked the defensive fighter instead. In the aftermath, Vader escaped, while Solo still had crates of money in his cargo hold. Captain Solo eventually made his way to the Bespin system, where he was seen dining with none other than Vader, who was reportedly obsessed with obtaining Captain Solo’s ship (and the money contained therein). Solo’s ship was then seen flying into the super-structure of the second Death Star, destroying it just after Vader was able to get out (he was seen leaving a shuttle piloted by none other than Luke Skywalker). Yet through this whole sequence of events, the money was never seen removed from Solo’s ship. Was it used to bribe Darth Vader, who (allegedly) assassinated Palpatine? Did anyone other than Vader and Skywalker actually see Emperor Palpatine die?
10 ) During pilot debriefing we leaned that Obi Wan was the one who told Luke to turn off his targeting computer. He said he was told by Obi Wan to "Let go" and "Trust me". This is the same Obi Wan who was, according to the official story, killed after sabotaging the Death Star by none other than Darth Vader BEFORE speaking to Luke. His convenient death places him inside the Death Star just before the explosions on the surface occur. By faking his death Vader would have given Obi Wan time to plant explosives. The only evidence of his death is his Jedi robe on surveillance cameras. And even that can't be found because they decided to conveniently let the evidence burn in the planet atmosphere. Also, why are there reports from Endor that Lord Vader, Obi Wan and Yoda were seen together AFTER their deaths? And who other than the Empire has the capacity to fake their deaths?
11) Lord Vader executed an officer for incompetence by allowing the rebels to escape. He then orders another officer to disable the Millennium Falcon's hyper drive. The rebels once again escape using the disabled hyper drive. Why was the officer responsible for caring out Lord Vader's order to disable the hyper drive not executed? Why was he in fact given NO disciplinary action what so ever? Why did Lord Vader only disable the hyper drive? If Lord Vader didn't want the rebels to escape, why didn't he disable the ship entirely?
12) Why did the captain of the Imperial Stardestroyer not fire upon the lifepod with the droids carrying Death Star plans? The "official story" says he didn't find the any signs of life. He said "Hold your fire. There are no life forms. It must have been short-circuited." Why would he be looking for life when it was electronic plans he should have been looking for. Why did he jump to the conclusion it was "short-circuited". Is he a lifepod engineer?
How can all this be just incompetence and coincidence? IMPOSSIBLE!
The most important question of all is why would a shadowy group in the Empire want to destroy such a technological wonder? Is it an excuse to invade Hoth and steal their oil; a planet which didn’t have anything to do with the attacks. Or is it to take away your religious freedoms to practice the dark side of the force? As incredible as this sounds it makes more sense than the official story.
The only way we will ever get answers to these and other troubling questions is by voting into the office those who will make an investigation into the official story a priority. Listen to the "Bombad General" of Gungan. A whistleblower with connections to Emperor Palpatine.
Heyo-dalee, mesa yous humble servaunt culled Jaja Binkss. Mesa wanna spake at yous bout tis a long tale toll by dissa big bosses.
Mesa day starten pitty okeyday witda brisky morning munchen. Den boom.... before mesa knowen it...pow! Mesa runnin tada senate. Nosir, nosir. Mesa hate da senate. Dat's da last ting mesa wanten. Wit no-nutten mula to campaignin wit.
Trooperz do die'n without a fight? Trooperz isa warriors! Dead Sta gotta grand army. Dare-sa nobody dare. All gone. Some kinda fight? Sorry, no trooperz...no trooperz. Dissen all pitty odd to my... Wierdind... Mesa tink dissa nutsen!
Mesa need mooie mooie yousa mula ta fightin wit da big bosses, okeyday?
Donate now to the "Jar Jar Binkss for Senator" campaign and the "Galaxy for Death Star Truth". May the dark side of the force be with you.
Also buy Darth Ray Jones "The Truth about the Death Star" Now sold in paperback
"Mesa need mooie, mooie mula!"
"Debunking Death Star" debunks itself!
Says that Luke was born with the force then says he was trained in the force. Which one is it? Was he trained or was he born with it?
the thing is blake, you've been responded to by people a lot smarter than me. people who are not architects, but rather people who make a living off the sort of forensic investigation you're asking for.
i understand you don't agree with them, but asking them to repeat themselves over and over isn't going to give you a different answer. the answer just isn't what you want it to be.
they did the investigation you're asking for. you can read it online, they responded to your concerns. it's done. you can design buildings the way your supposed to and everything will be alright.
3,892 to 160, that's how the AIA vote against the resolution went. I had to pull (heh) that figure from the conspiracy sites because apparently the AIA doesn't want to waste even one more second of time on these clowns; I haven't found any info on the AIA site.
Your argument makes no sense. You're arguing for a re-evaluation of structural engineering laws, by making a fuss over "The First and Only Steel Skyscraper in the World to Have Collapsed Due To Fire". It is the ONLY steel skyscraper to collapse due to fire, AND it was the result of fires caused by terrorists. For one, I would understand if this was a recurring thing, but it isn't. For two, these weren't normal circumstances.
However, I digress. If you want to fight for the good cause of "re-evaluation terrorist attacks causing fires that burned down a total of ONE building", then by all means go for it.
What do you for a living, Blake? I cannot imagine you would be any use in architecture or engineering or any field where critical thinking is a requirement if you're so easily swayed by a website that has a clear agenda. Well, maybe not so clear to you. And hell, Youtube as evidence? At least with Wikipedia they have obsessive mods.
Building codes do change. When earthquakes strike, when that small car bomb blew up in the Trade Tower before, when Oklahoma City Murrah was bombed, and when the Towers went down. It's interesting how smart people actually do learn from the past and you can see for yourself in plans and documentaries of more recent buildings. Best example: the Freedom Tower.
Maybe in your neck of the woods people are still building with mud and sticks but regular folk are not quite so regressive and afraid of improving upon the past.
What is your profession? With today's programs, you can simulate the disaster and present an argument which many would listen to if it weren't shrouded in conspiracy paranoia. The thing with bullshit is that the evidence often fails in unbiased repeat experiments.
And c'mon, you're not a martyr, more like a patsy. Your logic is fucked, don't use that word again.
The assertion is that the majority does not see the need for additional research into the collapse of WTC 7 because:
1. The collapse has been thoroughly analyzed by NIST to the satisfaction of the majority of architects (based on the results of the AIA vote).
2. To a majority of the architects on this forum, there is a reasonable explanation for the collapse of the structure, one that was detailed on the NIST report.
3. There is no clear reason or motive for anyone to demolish an empty building in the vicinity of the two towers that were brought down that day, except as a consequence of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.
So, you are welcome to continue to believe or disbelieve in any conclusion that NIST came to. You are welcome to request that the AIA adopt a position that requests that the findings be reviewed. This position was requested by some members and rejected by the majority.
You are welcome to think that current standards are not adequate to protect the health, safety, and welfare of building users. You are welcome to exceed the standards in your design as long as they follow the minimum requirements of the applicable codes. You are welcome to request changes to the applicable codes based on your belief that the standards are inadequate.
You are welcome to personally fund further research on the findings of the NIST report on WTC 7. And you are very welcome to share the findings of your research as long as you can publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
You can actually share whatever you want, but if you think that I am going to waste my time watching a one-hour video of suspicions and innuendo, you are insulting my intelligence.
A one-sided Youtube video is not a scientific paper.
And Cheney, while he's probably diabolical enough, he is still a moron who shot an old guy in the face by accident...Not exactly the Joker from batman...
The Harrit paper was not peer reviewed and has since been debunked by Dr. James Millette. Apparently, elemental aluminum was not present in the red/gray chips. Furthermore, one of the samples was collected before the collapse of WTC 7 and could not be representative of any findings related to that building. The Harrit paper purported to find thermite in the WTC 1 and 2 dust, not related to building 7.
so the building was blown up. by aliens. or 'birthers.' or terrorists. whoever did it, we probably found them and dropped a bomb on them from an unmanned aerial vehicle at 30,000 feet and fixed the problem. blake smith didn't get the memo because targeted assassinations are questionably legal, and congress was too busy investigating monica lewinsky's blue dress to notice. we can move on now.
Also, Blake a word of advice... if you're going to start sprouting crazy nonsense on the interwebs, don't use your real name along with your job. You would not want your fellow brotherhood at the classy Association of Science and Engineering Technology Professionals of Alberta know you're dragging their names through the mud.
Your 'peer-reviewed paper' is a sham, published in a journal that has no credibility due to their non-existent vetting process clearly set up solely for financial reasons - academic rigor be damned. No legitimate peer-reviewed journal would publish any of the same articles.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. While you certainly have the right to free speech, we have no obligation to listen.
" The First and Only Steel Skyscraper in the World to Have Collapsed Due To Fire"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
Shouldn't we be re-evaluating everything we know about structural engineering over this one?
don't see too many jumbojets flown into buildings where i am. but maybe i live in a small town.
Free fall is a real thing, not sure what your point is. Of course steel is prone to weaken under fire, which is why it isn't simply there sitting unprotected. If your point is that fires collapse steel frames and all buildings collapse, then it doesn't hold up to the various buildings that have caught on fire but not fallen down.
Of maybe you want to know if there was a controlled demolition because WTC 7 shouldn't have collapsed. Get the point clear and direct instead of asking stupid-ass questions.
its called fireproofing. now what was the question?
Bullshit. Steel is molten - liquid - at 2500 F. Normal working temperature is around 1350 F and structural integrity starts to degrade around 830 F.
That being said, 9/11 is the equivalent of the Kennedy assassination, we will never know the truth.
Same question I asked on the other thread about this: Is it also our responsibility to investigate haunted houses in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the public? Answer me that, Blake.
Hey Donna, thanks to the power of Capitalism, that responsibility has been taken up by the Travel channel show, "Ghost Adventures," where, with no big camera crew, crew members lock themselves in haunted houses overnight and film with various lenses and video equipment.
What about the twin towers and the Pentagon?
what do you expect to find out? a need for better fireproofing material? more oversight in building inspections? more sprinkler heads or a need for more water pressure in the sprinkler system?
being crazy doesn't help your clients.
unless i missed something, didn't nist conduct an investigation? that was the right thing to do. the implications of conducting an investigation into failed structures is good for our profession.
A reasonable standard of care has been established: the NIST report.
the primary goal is to a) get people out safe; protect lives b) protect property c) keep normal daily activities going (that was on the are iirc). in that order. that's the thing to look at when considering changing the building code.
so, in the event of an earthquake, it's been pretty much decided that c) normal activity is not going to happen and b) protect property is just unlikely. so earthquake codes are focused almost entirely on keeping the structure safe long enough to keep people alive. there are codes to prevent the ceiling from collapsing on people and things like that. it's been fairly effective.
you're suggesting we rewrite building codes to address safety issues specific to the events that happened on 9/11. i think it's safe to say that protecting property is not going to happen when planes fly into a building, even if it's a neighboring building, right? so as with other significant natural disasters, the codes should be written to keep the occupants alive and get them out of the buildings to as safe of a place as possible.
it sounds like in building 7 the occupants were actually able to get out of the building right? if that's the case, the first lesson learned is to say the ICC has done a pretty good job of writing the codes.
what else do you want to do? do we need to mandate buildings be designed to remain structurally sound during catastrophic terrorist events? events like 9/11 happen far less frequently than tornadoes, and tornadoes still destroy structures, regardless of how well designed they are. it would be a significant cost increase to require every taco bell to be terrorist-proof. there are design standards for buildings in higher threat areas, such as state and military facilities. it's best if those standards are not adopted to all buildings.
if you're just a rambling mad man with crazy conspiracy theories, what if we did find out JFK came back from the dead to blow up this building? how would that change how you design buildings?
i think the premise of your argument, that building codes need to be changed based on what happened to building 7, is just plain wrong. if you have some other premise, then how does it fit within the aia or a forum frequented by architects?
what does 'move forward' mean? you can't practice architecture until someone tells you what you want to hear?
"it would require a uniform liquification of all steel connections to achieve that."
You know this because you're a structural engineer or is that what these sites tell you is the reason? Look at the data first, it's all out there. Go run it through some programs. Steel does not have to melt to lose structural integrity. With a poor design such as the WTC 7, it can easily crumble much faster than expected
Don't bother confusing Blake with science. He has his agenda and is hell-bent on pursuing it regardless of actual facts. You know, sort of like the crazed religious fanatics who flew the planes into the towers in the first place because they thought they were doing God's will.
it wasn't necessarily designed all that bad. infrastructure was damaged due to the neighboring building's collapse, especially the sprinkler systems, and as i understand it they were able to evacuate the building in time right? sucks the building has to be rebuilt, but all things considered, this more an example of how to do it right rather what went wrong. 0 casualties, if that's right (it was mentioned in a previous post, other than i don't know), is a win. a terrorist attack is hard to predict, so it's hard to design a building around that sort of event.
Truthers Debunked
The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.
Below are calculations from a physics blogger...
When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.
Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t
Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.
Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. -Schneibster edited by Debunking 911
Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.
For more analysis of the building fall times, go to 911myths free fall page.
Please refer to Dr Frank Greening's paper for detailed calculations.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Italian debunker shows us more than 16 seconds to collapse. That's almost twice free fall speed from the 110th floor.
Debunking Stupid
As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let's review the evidence...
What we do have for sure.
1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".
2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".
3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."
4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".
5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.
6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.
7) The collapse happened from the bottom.
8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.
9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"
12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.
What we don't have...
1) Clear view of the large hole
2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact
3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side
4) Any sign of an actual explosive.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.
9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?
There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the firemen out.
Holy Crap, or and this happened!
Uncomfortable Questions about the Death Star Attack
1) Why were a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the defenses of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an entire planetand the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle ships?
The above photos show Death Star defenses. Did they stand down?
2) Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to deploy the station’s large fleet of TIE Fighters until it was too late? Was he acting on orders from somebody to not shoot down the rebel attack force? If so, who, and why?
3) Why was the rebel pilot who supposedly destroyed the Death Star reported to be on the Death Star days, maybe hours, prior to its destruction? Why was he allowed to escape, and why were several individuals dressed in Stormtrooper uniforms seen helping him?
4) Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that Darth Vader, the second-ranking member of the Imperial Government, is in fact the father of the pilot who allegedly destroyed the Death Star?
Why didn't he arrest this rebel when he had the chance?
5) Why did Lord Vader decide to break all protocols and personally pilot a lightly armored TIE Fighter? Conveniently, this placed Lord Vader outside of the Death Star when it was destroyed, where he was also conveniently able to escape from a large-sized rebel fleet that had just routed the Imperial forces. Why would Lord Vader, one of the highest ranking members of the Imperial Government, suddenly decide to fly away from the Death Star in the middle of a battle? Did he know something that the rest of the Imperial Navy didn’t?
In the video of the Death Star’s destruction, Lord Vader clearly exclaims “I have you now” then fires two shots. Those shots never impact — anywhere. Were they merely “added” to the “official” video after the event to make it appear that Lord Vader had at least attempted to fight off his alleged son?
Onboard Camera shows the lone rebel in Vader's sights but doesn't pull the trigger.
6) Nerf-Herders defy the laws of physics? How could any pilot shoot a missile into a 2 meter-wide exhaust port, let alone a pilot with no formal training, whose only claim to fame was his ability to “bullseye womprats” on Tatooine? This shot, according to one pilot, would be“impossible, even for a computer.” Yet, according to additional evidence, the pilot who allegedly fired the missile turned off his targeting computer when he was supposedly firing the shot that destroyed the Death Star. How did the missile make a right angle turn after entering the exhaust port? How could a missile shot in the vacuum of space–that would tend to keep going in the same direction as it was released, according to the laws of physics–be *sucked* into an *exhaust* pipe? "Exhaust" means to exhale or blow out... Wouldn’t the missiles have been blown awry of their target rather than sucked in? If it had been an intake pipe, then the “bending” path of the missiles could be plausible. Why have these discrepancies never been investigated, let alone explained?
Actual tactical computer recording.
The Magic Missile Theory
7) Why has their been no investigation into evidence that the droids who provided the rebels with the Death Star plans were once owned by none other than Lord Vader himself, and were found, conveniently, by the pilot who destroyed the Death Star, and who is also believed to be Lord Vader’s son? Evidence also shows that the droids were brought to one Ben Kenobi, who, records indicate, was Darth Vader’s teacher many years earlier! Are all these personal connections between the conspirators and a key figure in the Imperial government supposed to be coincidences?
8) How could a single missile destroy a battle station the size of a moon? No records, anywhere, show that any battle station or capital ship has ever been destroyed by a single missile. Furthermore, analysis of the tape of the last moments of the Death Star show numerous small explosions along its surface, prior to it exploding completely! Why does all evidence indicate that strategically placed explosives, not a single missile, is what destroyed the Death Star?
How could this small missile create an explosion this big?
9) Prior to the destruction of the Death Star a smuggler named Captain Solo was reportedly given a large sum of money. At a crucial point in the battle, Captain Solo had an unobstructed shot on his choice of the fighters pursuing Skywalker, yet Solo did not take advantage of this opportunity to kill Darth Vader. Although Vader was in the process of firing upon Skywalker’s X-wing, Solo attacked the defensive fighter instead. In the aftermath, Vader escaped, while Solo still had crates of money in his cargo hold. Captain Solo eventually made his way to the Bespin system, where he was seen dining with none other than Vader, who was reportedly obsessed with obtaining Captain Solo’s ship (and the money contained therein). Solo’s ship was then seen flying into the super-structure of the second Death Star, destroying it just after Vader was able to get out (he was seen leaving a shuttle piloted by none other than Luke Skywalker). Yet through this whole sequence of events, the money was never seen removed from Solo’s ship. Was it used to bribe Darth Vader, who (allegedly) assassinated Palpatine? Did anyone other than Vader and Skywalker actually see Emperor Palpatine die?
10 ) During pilot debriefing we leaned that Obi Wan was the one who told Luke to turn off his targeting computer. He said he was told by Obi Wan to "Let go" and "Trust me". This is the same Obi Wan who was, according to the official story, killed after sabotaging the Death Star by none other than Darth Vader BEFORE speaking to Luke. His convenient death places him inside the Death Star just before the explosions on the surface occur. By faking his death Vader would have given Obi Wan time to plant explosives. The only evidence of his death is his Jedi robe on surveillance cameras. And even that can't be found because they decided to conveniently let the evidence burn in the planet atmosphere. Also, why are there reports from Endor that Lord Vader, Obi Wan and Yoda were seen together AFTER their deaths? And who other than the Empire has the capacity to fake their deaths?
11) Lord Vader executed an officer for incompetence by allowing the rebels to escape. He then orders another officer to disable the Millennium Falcon's hyper drive. The rebels once again escape using the disabled hyper drive. Why was the officer responsible for caring out Lord Vader's order to disable the hyper drive not executed? Why was he in fact given NO disciplinary action what so ever? Why did Lord Vader only disable the hyper drive? If Lord Vader didn't want the rebels to escape, why didn't he disable the ship entirely?
12) Why did the captain of the Imperial Stardestroyer not fire upon the lifepod with the droids carrying Death Star plans? The "official story" says he didn't find the any signs of life. He said "Hold your fire. There are no life forms. It must have been short-circuited." Why would he be looking for life when it was electronic plans he should have been looking for. Why did he jump to the conclusion it was "short-circuited". Is he a lifepod engineer?
How can all this be just incompetence and coincidence? IMPOSSIBLE!
The most important question of all is why would a shadowy group in the Empire want to destroy such a technological wonder? Is it an excuse to invade Hoth and steal their oil; a planet which didn’t have anything to do with the attacks. Or is it to take away your religious freedoms to practice the dark side of the force? As incredible as this sounds it makes more sense than the official story.
The only way we will ever get answers to these and other troubling questions is by voting into the office those who will make an investigation into the official story a priority. Listen to the "Bombad General" of Gungan. A whistleblower with connections to Emperor Palpatine.
Heyo-dalee, mesa yous humble servaunt culled Jaja Binkss. Mesa wanna spake at yous bout tis a long tale toll by dissa big bosses.
Mesa day starten pitty okeyday witda brisky morning munchen. Den boom.... before mesa knowen it...pow! Mesa runnin tada senate. Nosir, nosir. Mesa hate da senate. Dat's da last ting mesa wanten. Wit no-nutten mula to campaignin wit.
Trooperz do die'n without a fight? Trooperz isa warriors! Dead Sta gotta grand army. Dare-sa nobody dare. All gone. Some kinda fight? Sorry, no trooperz...no trooperz. Dissen all pitty odd to my... Wierdind... Mesa tink dissa nutsen!
Mesa need mooie mooie yousa mula ta fightin wit da big bosses, okeyday?
Donate now to the "Jar Jar Binkss for Senator" campaign and the "Galaxy for Death Star Truth". May the dark side of the force be with you.
Also buy Darth Ray Jones
"The Truth about the Death Star"
Now sold in paperback
"Mesa need mooie, mooie mula!"
"Debunking Death Star" debunks itself!
Says that Luke was born with the force then says he was trained in the force. Which one is it? Was he trained or was he born with it?
Blake, is this you?
Blake?
the thing is blake, you've been responded to by people a lot smarter than me. people who are not architects, but rather people who make a living off the sort of forensic investigation you're asking for.
i understand you don't agree with them, but asking them to repeat themselves over and over isn't going to give you a different answer. the answer just isn't what you want it to be.
they did the investigation you're asking for. you can read it online, they responded to your concerns. it's done. you can design buildings the way your supposed to and everything will be alright.
You're a prepper right?
Hmm...
Massive Conspiracy
This is what it's about.
3,892 to 160, that's how the AIA vote against the resolution went. I had to pull (heh) that figure from the conspiracy sites because apparently the AIA doesn't want to waste even one more second of time on these clowns; I haven't found any info on the AIA site.
Godwin's Law!
However, I digress. If you want to fight for the good cause of "re-evaluation terrorist attacks causing fires that burned down a total of ONE building", then by all means go for it.
What do you for a living, Blake? I cannot imagine you would be any use in architecture or engineering or any field where critical thinking is a requirement if you're so easily swayed by a website that has a clear agenda. Well, maybe not so clear to you. And hell, Youtube as evidence? At least with Wikipedia they have obsessive mods.
Building codes do change. When earthquakes strike, when that small car bomb blew up in the Trade Tower before, when Oklahoma City Murrah was bombed, and when the Towers went down. It's interesting how smart people actually do learn from the past and you can see for yourself in plans and documentaries of more recent buildings. Best example: the Freedom Tower.
Maybe in your neck of the woods people are still building with mud and sticks but regular folk are not quite so regressive and afraid of improving upon the past.
Can't wait until the OP's potential employer googles him.
You remain professionally ignorant of reality. Stick to your own conspiracy circles. You'll find comfort among your idiot bros.
What is your profession? With today's programs, you can simulate the disaster and present an argument which many would listen to if it weren't shrouded in conspiracy paranoia. The thing with bullshit is that the evidence often fails in unbiased repeat experiments.
And c'mon, you're not a martyr, more like a patsy. Your logic is fucked, don't use that word again.
No.
The assertion is that the majority does not see the need for additional research into the collapse of WTC 7 because:
1. The collapse has been thoroughly analyzed by NIST to the satisfaction of the majority of architects (based on the results of the AIA vote).
2. To a majority of the architects on this forum, there is a reasonable explanation for the collapse of the structure, one that was detailed on the NIST report.
3. There is no clear reason or motive for anyone to demolish an empty building in the vicinity of the two towers that were brought down that day, except as a consequence of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.
So, you are welcome to continue to believe or disbelieve in any conclusion that NIST came to. You are welcome to request that the AIA adopt a position that requests that the findings be reviewed. This position was requested by some members and rejected by the majority.
You are welcome to think that current standards are not adequate to protect the health, safety, and welfare of building users. You are welcome to exceed the standards in your design as long as they follow the minimum requirements of the applicable codes. You are welcome to request changes to the applicable codes based on your belief that the standards are inadequate.
You are welcome to personally fund further research on the findings of the NIST report on WTC 7. And you are very welcome to share the findings of your research as long as you can publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper.
You can actually share whatever you want, but if you think that I am going to waste my time watching a one-hour video of suspicions and innuendo, you are insulting my intelligence.
A one-sided Youtube video is not a scientific paper.
Don't think Bush could have gotten away with stealing a hot pocket from a 7-11...let alone pull off a planned demo on 9-11...
Great post, Zbig.
Holy fucking hell, do you understand the concept of independent reports? Stop linking to the same bullshit.
And Cheney, while he's probably diabolical enough, he is still a moron who shot an old guy in the face by accident...Not exactly the Joker from batman...
I should post porn in this thread. Will get it deleted promptly.
Non, kickrocks, don't please! This is fun.
Troooooooooth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI
Ok, I'm won over.
It's still vertically erect! I'm aroused.
The Harrit paper was not peer reviewed and has since been debunked by Dr. James Millette. Apparently, elemental aluminum was not present in the red/gray chips. Furthermore, one of the samples was collected before the collapse of WTC 7 and could not be representative of any findings related to that building. The Harrit paper purported to find thermite in the WTC 1 and 2 dust, not related to building 7.
so Blake, what you're saying is you won't stop until someone agrees with your delusions.
fucking waste of air.
so the building was blown up. by aliens. or 'birthers.' or terrorists. whoever did it, we probably found them and dropped a bomb on them from an unmanned aerial vehicle at 30,000 feet and fixed the problem. blake smith didn't get the memo because targeted assassinations are questionably legal, and congress was too busy investigating monica lewinsky's blue dress to notice. we can move on now.
How long are you gonna be here?
Also, Blake a word of advice... if you're going to start sprouting crazy nonsense on the interwebs, don't use your real name along with your job. You would not want your fellow brotherhood at the classy Association of Science and Engineering Technology Professionals of Alberta know you're dragging their names through the mud.
You have no proof of that.
It's all a ruse to confuse us of the real Blake.
See, anyone can make up anything if they keep falling for the first thing in their google search results.
Your 'peer-reviewed paper' is a sham, published in a journal that has no credibility due to their non-existent vetting process clearly set up solely for financial reasons - academic rigor be damned. No legitimate peer-reviewed journal would publish any of the same articles.
It has since been discontinued.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers
You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. While you certainly have the right to free speech, we have no obligation to listen.
Blake reminds me of tammuz ... with the difference being that tammuz had a real issue that he was beating to death (no pun intended).
"I'll be sure to check back in if the document alters my opinion."
I'm sure your authority on this matter is really damning. Waiting patiently for the evidence that blows my mind.
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.