so i watched the video, first time..... you only see at best 2/3 of the entire building due to other buildings surrounding it. it clearly falls in one direction in the view that shows most from side indicating not too uniform. having worked in NYC i can tell you its not uncommon to discover prior interior renovation projects stripping clean columns that are to be fire proofed. hate seeing this as an architect because now your client has to clean up the prior assholes negligence.........your question and request is well outside the bounds of the AIA and if we are to seriously address your question i will re-iterate my first point - its called fireproofing. proper fireproofing will prevent such problems. so what is the question again?
and thanks to your wikipedia link i can conclude my assessment "The building was situated above a Consolidated Edisonpower substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants.".......read unique structural constraints............so just like Y2k some engineer designed a structure that was very unique under the assumption nothing crazy could ever happen etc........btw i am working on a project with structural issues but was designed to code when it was built and served its purpose when it was built. through various alterations etc....the building now performs structurally very strangely and potentially dangerously, so i am hardley suprised by any of this......i find it pretty unreasonable to base a conspiracy theory on a video and then pretend you are asking a pertinent design question that is clearly addressed by building codes - fire proofing and fire protection....and then ask the AIA and not say some testing agency to confirm this.......at least your taste in music doesnt suck.
Is anyone surprised by that? It'd be like some idiot group calling all tall buildings unsafe if an earthquake brings down one of those old cranky not up to code things. Makes no sense to assume all other buildings are dangerous because 1) the old ass building wasn't built to current standards and understanding of structures and 2) its failure has nothing to do with what comes after.
This guy insists there is no such thing as fireproofing. What do engineers do nowadays? Make it so the fires starve out and are contained. Look at the new Freedom Tower, which I doubt he did: they enclosed that damn core in 2-3 feet concrete. Add to that contemporary ways to deal with fire and that should be enough proof of progress and considerations.
and the Freedom Tower used 16,000 psi concrete.....great PBS special on that building btw...........i googled Blake Smith (someone suggested it) and one guy works for BIG who does have a masters and the other works for Skeptoid.....based on the BIGs guy pic and place of employment I would guess he listened to Paul van Dyk.....but seriously what new shit has van Dyk done lately.......i prefer host for Skeptoid on this one...........either way its entertaining and kills time on the bus....
Sure ain't that BIG guy because this Blake Smith admitted to being the older one a few pages back. You probably missed the result I am looking at. He's surprisingly easy to find.
It's fine to question authority but what he asks makes no sense. Plenty of buildings are fire-proofed in ways, even ones made of wood. If it was a conspiracy demolition, then the structure is fine and steel is ok. Brought down by explosives, ok. End of discussion. If it's the steel, then it certainly is prone to failure especially with that WTC 7 design. We have ways to prevent that then and now. End of discussion.
Something that has not happened before (steel skyscraper collapse due to fire) and the method of failure only observed in a controlled demolition does not mean the two are cause-and-effect related. The conspiracy has little to do with whatever point was asked about fires and steel.
should probably be writing proposals..........back in college some of my buddies would sign you up for various porn sites with your name......is this the real Blake Smith or someone who doesnt like the real Blake Smith......
carry on, its all quite amusing.
Ah, that bastard power of the internet. Quite easy to pull off an identity smear campaign and incredibly damaging if Google makes the connection. It won't, yet.
You dont seem to understand what a real academic journal is, apparently - or what "peer-reviewed" means. Creating your own journal as a platform to publish your own papers because they are rejected by experts legitimizes nothing. Quite the opposite, actually.
You already know it's one of the various possibilities. The truth is only what you want it to be and it's a waste of energy for anyone else to bother holding your hand through the history of structures. You're not going to know everything, especially not by the way you prod into issues only when some other nut job presents you easily digestible bits. How do you know you aren't being swindled by them?
Bureaucracies are generally incompetent but if they were to pull this off, you and the other loser bozos wouldn't be the ones to pick up on it. It's not an episode of Scooby-Doo where the dumbass kids unravel the stupid man behind the monster. If anything this would be the perfect distraction to keep the loons fixated on the wrong thing.
Don't bring the aftermath into this. If you want to talk about structures, look into fireproofing. Your various job positions should have encountered such a common thing so I don't understand why you keep quoting nonsense. Fireproofing existed before and after 9/11. If you want to talk conspiracy, then drop the engineering aspect that you cannot grasp.
Better yet, build your own model. Stop looking for others to do the work. I can accept the NIST and go on with life. So have many others. It makes sense, it is reasonable, and like science, it has been vetted and accepted. Others are free to hypothesize and provide the burden of proof. As much as you think you're so much smarter than everyone else to question authority and assume we're all captive sheep, the actual outward projection is equivalent to the circular logic of a toddler.
You can cherry-pick all the evidence you want, no one is impressed or swayed by out of context quotes or articles written with an obvious slant. It's the Internet, anyone can publish anything, and it can spread for free. That's the problem with unfiltered data. Can the NIST be wrong? Sure. But their assessment is corroborated. Until you or someone provides a better model instead of forcing the same dubious entity to reinvestigate, which makes no sense if you don't trust them, then their story is the official verdict. What if the investigation concludes the same? Will you finally drop this shit? Doubtful.
And stop appealing to emotion, that's a tell-tale sign of you having a shaky argument and simply grasping onto straws. What would modern humanity be with the Towers still standing? Not so different. If you believe the government is out to wage war, then some other incident will trigger it. If terrorists wanted to attack the West, they would've found another way.
Do you understand what a logical fallacy is? I've already pinpointed many: appeal to emotion, appeal to authority (a bad one at that), cherry picking, straw man, and a bunch of other crap I haven't bothered to sift through.
You can claim yourself the victor. It doesn't matter. Two people can hold completely opposite beliefs and still coexist fine. You might be looking into the wrong one but whatever, it doesn't add anything to life to be right or wrong about this. So what, the government's bad? Then they'll continue their ways. So what, the steel structure collapsed? We learned and moved on to avoid the chances of it happening again. See Freedom Tower (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/ground-supertower.html). If there's anything that tries to rectify the wrongs, it's this symbolic project.
Your "curiosity" is only trying to find people who agree with you on very specific narrow and professionally dubious viewpoint, the opposite of discovery and inquiry. You're upset no one agrees with you and then basically assume everyone is too blinded or ignorant or content with the official NIST report. So what if they are? The theory of gravity might be nonsense to some skeptics but it works out and until proven otherwise, it's a solid theory. Remember, theory is not just an opinion but a substantiated explanation repeatedly tested. Oh, and what's the consensus from educated professionals? The opposite of yours. Count the numbers here.
The only data you would need is the floor plan and some basic structural analysis. It won't be as astute as an engineer's calculation but with your supposed experience, you ought to determine some truths for yourself in the process. Then keep it to yourself or make a substantial argument not using any of these preexisting nonsense that few are going to waste time looking through. The more you associate with wackos, the less seriously people will take you. It's one thing to be wrong and discuss things but another to peddle someone else's agenda like a shill.
I'm not gonna bother with this anymore. For your lingering free-fall question, massive PE to KE. Factor in some human factors like bad design and poor maintenance, and the mass of papers and desks and all that stuff inside each floor. Structures and materials and redundancy systems do fail and this is one of those cases.
Ask an engineer. If they agree with you, voila. If not, figure out why and learn something.
Blake, all you've proven so far is that you understand very little about how buildings and physics work. Please seek a refund from whatever online college that provided you a "masters degree". You have nothing new worth discussing, just a pile of old and tired paranoid ideals only a crank would find convincing.
read unique structure. column 79. lynch pin. fail. done. standard engineering practice is to create redundancies. unique means no reduncies. what kind of ConEd substation? what type of carpet, vct, mechancal equipment was installed in 1987? offixe fire means nothing to me.
You can't go to the site anymore and look at actual beams to see how they deformed anymore. so that source of information is gone. You`re just talking about modeling the building and showing that explosives placed intentionally is one possible way the building could have collapsed? Of your thousands of supporters, not a single one has the software or knowledge to pull that off? I wonder why that is?
curtkram - in high school i wrote an entire paper using only the dictionary and much to my classmates suprise i received 95%. 5% reduction for no other references. the paper was on anti-matter. with little effort any philosophical and theoretical case can be created.....but in AE forensics you can not just throw terms around and ignore facts of physics or sloppy langauge placement. Office Fire means nothing because it does not define what was burning in a 1987 building located over a ConEd substation in 2001. i am not intereated in the reports with data that claim to back up Blake here, i am interested in Blake building a real case with real knowledge and expertise......so far not a single post or response indicates any substanntial understanding of these conditions.
Blake, you seem to be resisting two (among dozens of others) things: when you heat a material above working temperature, it's yeild strength decreases, and when structural systems encounter a load far greater than they were designed for (such as an entire floor of a building collapsing onto it), they wI'll most likely fail.
Schoon, it just can't be that simple... there must be layers of secrecy and complicated social hurdles to jump before we can explain everything to simpletons like Blake.
it seems he wants to believe that it was intentional destruction of a building.
so the report that was issued showed that heat from fire reduced the capacity of the steel connections, and when a girder finally broke from a column, the gravity path of the loads changed in such a way as to break many of the remaining steel connections. it seems like those other steel connections were also weakened by fire, since there were multiple fires covering a pretty big area. nothing wrong with that as a theory, since we know fire makes steel soft and gravity points down.
it's true that the steel did not all melt at once. it seems blake wants to suggest that the only alternative to placed demolitions is that something ridiculous like that happened, or that the entire building fell down in 6 seconds without considering the effects of the fire and debris that were already weakening the structure before that 6 second clock started. he proposes that the steel connections that failed were in ideal conditions, rather than being weakened by the fires. in order to make his theory sound plausible, it seems he either he has to lie to us, or his understanding of how things work is so basic and misinformed that he actually believes what he's saying. this is where i think his ramblings are really off, and he should reconsider the way he presents his argument. whether it's intentional or just ignorance, it takes away what little credibility he might have had.
in addition to his attempts at disproving the established report, he wants to propose an alternative possibility. i think it would be possible to develop a model that shows how targeted charges would bring down a building in a manner similar to what we've seen of building 7. obviously this wouldn't prove anything, it would just show that there is the possibility of different things happening. whenever you try to build a story around forensic evidence like this, you can't be certain of what happened, you just make the best guesses you can.
either way, we already design buildings to not burn down, we design fire proofing to keep steel connections stable at least long enough for occupants to safely exit a building if a fire does happen, and buildings are not designed to withstand demolition. i don't understand how he thinks any possible case with this building would mean we would want to design buildings any different. i think this is another lie, that doesn't seem to serve any purpose but command attention.
blake, i'd appreciate if you would show me you're more mature than the allegations i put on you here. the nature of the argument is far more interesting than the content of the argument.
Schoon and several others have made the case clear. A floor collapsing onto another floor will very likely overload the next floor down, especially if the structure has been weakened by heat.
Blake wonders how this is possible, if the structure has been fireproofed.
It's important to realize that fireproofing does not prevent the structure from becoming overheated by fire and deforming. It SLOWS the process of it overheating. That's why we rate the structure to 1 hour, 2 hour, etc. The rating gives time for the occupants to exit the building safely - and some time for fire fighting to happen. If the fire continues, eventually the structure will heat up. I mean, fireproofing is just some insulation material sprayed on the structure, it's not magic.
Get out your books and reference materials from your favorite spray fireproofing company. Look up fireproofing that's for areas that might be exposed to rapid temperature rise - like in a factory or industrial plant that might actually have vats of diesel fuel present. This is expensive fireproofing for specialized applications. It's NOT used in office buildings because they don't have the same rise in temperature.
Therefore, it's easy to see how jet fuel burning in WTC 1 and 2 can quickly weaken the structure, causing it to collapse, overload and crush the entire building. What's amazing is that so many people DID get out of the buildings first.
WTC 7 was a regular fire that was not extinguished in any way. There's no clear reason why anyone would want to demolish the building to pretend to be terrorists. There's no advantage.
Blake, please, before you screw up any new real buildings, go learn how structures really work and what we are trying to accomplish with fire and life safety. You sound like a full on nutjob.
World trade center was the first and only building ever to collapse of fire related damage with a "functioning" sprinkler system. #7 was right in the path of falling debris and got battered fairly hard with parts of the towers piercing and severing columns several bays into the base of the building. It was unfortunate that it collapsed but buildings in the US up until the Oklahoma City terrorist bombings in the early 90's were never designed to take lateral blast related impacts at the perimeter at street level. #7 suffered a series of impacts as the towers collapsed and the weight pressing in on the base of the building did it in.
It is also weird that the section of the Pentagon Hit was the one whose sprinkler system was offline for repairs and upgrades. I suppose the public bid process for the contract may have informed the terrorist where to strike.
And remember the Cessna that crashed into the White House during Clinton's time in office made it apparent that there is no effective antiaircraft defense system for DC.
Blake, next you'll tell us that Putin blew up his own apartment buildings to gain power... Don't bother with these people. Engineers don't know shit about politics. Over 80% of Russians would never consider it a false flag. Don't expect the number to be any better over here. There were plenty of educated people in Germany with high credentials who got caught up in Hitler's wake, just like those who have answered you on this thread. Now I'm seeing they were probably just as big assholes and douchebags.
I can buy the bullshit when it comes to 1 record-setting building collapsing from a fire from an impact, maybe even 2. But all 3 buildings collapsing ultimately due to fire (according to 9/11 report)? So why is it again that we shouldn't be more concerned about fires and current standards of steel construction?
Bldg 7 fell at free fall speed because, as Larry Silverstein has already confessed, it was "pulled." That's a controlled demolition term. Silverstein admits that everyone involved agreed to pull the building. Problem with that is ... it take time, days, even weeks, to arrange a controlled demolition. So it is obvious that the demolition was pre-planned.
Volunteer, what was the construction on the Grenfell House building though?
Concrete?
As for controlled demolition, yes, obviously a large number of people went into the building when no one was around, installed massive numbers of explsoive charges of a type that no one knows about (so it is undetected) at key points, along the controls to fire them, then carefully covered up the damage before exiting unseen.
Or, the charges were wired into the building as it was built, with none of the thousands working on the building noticeing. Or they were all part of the conspiracy theory.
None of whom have spoken about it yet.
Yes, it must be a conspiracy, because it would be just plain nuts otherwise.
Props to Blake-most of you posters here are pathetic, desperately trying to find the identity of someone that dares to ask questions and better understand complex disasters inadequately addressed by those institutions you all so slavishly believe in. History shows the majority to seldom be able to think beyond what is programmed for them.
Jun 18, 17 1:02 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
desperate. motherfucker, puhlease.
Jun 18, 17 3:43 pm ·
·
bilderberger
Trying to damage someone's career or life because they don't agree with you on the internet is desperate to me-regardless of the effort.
Dr. Leroy Hulsey (Chair of Environmental and Civil Engineering) and University of Alaska; Finite Element Modeling: (Fire didn't do it ; ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcHZNqwGUOE Presented at Boston Society of Architects
Jun 18, 17 1:08 pm ·
·
Schoon
I watched the video, and saw the presenter making a lot of questionable assumptions and caveats, most notably that they didn't have the structural drawings or the analysis. Also, on their methodology slide they state that their work has not been peer reviewed. I've done this sort of structural analysis before, using the same software he used, and I know that you have to work very hard not to model your bias. It's incredibly easy to omit essential parameters or neglect to model real-world behaviors, whether by accident or otherwise. The NIST study the presenter attempted to dismantle was apparently done using software specifically designed for fire analysis, while the study in the video used finite-element analysis software to jury-rig a fire analysis with no experience using the programs or performing fire analysis (the presenter admits as much in the video). This is a very weak study, and you should be skeptical of it.
Again, I wouldn't hang my hat on that ideologue if I were you. By the way, that video is not Dr. Hulsey "testifying" before attorneys, it's him preaching to the choir at a convention gathered specifically to question the events of 9/11. It makes me trust him less, not more. You are the company you keep...
Volunteer, don't tell me you're one of those idiots who still hold on to that conspiracy? For fuck's sake, it's like beating a dead horse with a bag full of dead horses at this point. You know, there are still crackpot crazies in every field: young earth fucktard geologists, anti-vax waste of oxygen doctors, the whole climate change denial crowd of pundits, etc. Those few still holding onto the damn 911 none sense are just as equal as those I list above.
We actually can, with significant certainty explain the events you fool. Far more are of that mindset than of the none sense you speak of.
But, simple minds need simple boxes to explain things they are unwilling or unable to understand. It's always easier to invent invisible agents to explain away your ignorance than think things in intelligent and rational ways. 911 idiots are just another flavor of religious superstition none sense.
I didn't know of the ignore and flag buttons. I only use the phone app. I can't post pics either but I think the ignore button would be more useful in this instance. The ridiculing does seem to have an effect as I've seen it shut down threads / responses. Snarkitecture has got to be one of the best firm names out there considering how often it's employed here.
Aug 6, 17 10:58 pm ·
·
randomised
You just bumped this thread to the top of the list, again :D
the structural system of the WTC was totally unique as you all know, and was essentially a 'mesh' of steel on the exterior. this mesh was also comprised of much thinner steel elements and components than typical in-board columns which would have been a lot beefier. So the fire was able to melt these exterior steel elements much more quickly because of their more slender size.
But random you bumped it! And now the poor mare is still getting kicked.
I mean volunteer you know that architects don't have any structural training, like whatsoever right? All this foam and melting point and 'time' stuff is lost on us artsy fartsies
Aug 7, 17 8:37 am ·
·
randomised
Replies don't bump threads only comments like yours O.o
" The First and Only Steel Skyscraper in the World to Have Collapsed Due To Fire"
so i watched the video, first time..... you only see at best 2/3 of the entire building due to other buildings surrounding it. it clearly falls in one direction in the view that shows most from side indicating not too uniform. having worked in NYC i can tell you its not uncommon to discover prior interior renovation projects stripping clean columns that are to be fire proofed. hate seeing this as an architect because now your client has to clean up the prior assholes negligence.........your question and request is well outside the bounds of the AIA and if we are to seriously address your question i will re-iterate my first point - its called fireproofing. proper fireproofing will prevent such problems. so what is the question again?
and thanks to your wikipedia link i can conclude my assessment "The building was situated above a Consolidated Edisonpower substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants.".......read unique structural constraints............so just like Y2k some engineer designed a structure that was very unique under the assumption nothing crazy could ever happen etc........btw i am working on a project with structural issues but was designed to code when it was built and served its purpose when it was built. through various alterations etc....the building now performs structurally very strangely and potentially dangerously, so i am hardley suprised by any of this......i find it pretty unreasonable to base a conspiracy theory on a video and then pretend you are asking a pertinent design question that is clearly addressed by building codes - fire proofing and fire protection....and then ask the AIA and not say some testing agency to confirm this.......at least your taste in music doesnt suck.
Is anyone surprised by that? It'd be like some idiot group calling all tall buildings unsafe if an earthquake brings down one of those old cranky not up to code things. Makes no sense to assume all other buildings are dangerous because 1) the old ass building wasn't built to current standards and understanding of structures and 2) its failure has nothing to do with what comes after.
This guy insists there is no such thing as fireproofing. What do engineers do nowadays? Make it so the fires starve out and are contained. Look at the new Freedom Tower, which I doubt he did: they enclosed that damn core in 2-3 feet concrete. Add to that contemporary ways to deal with fire and that should be enough proof of progress and considerations.
and the Freedom Tower used 16,000 psi concrete.....great PBS special on that building btw...........i googled Blake Smith (someone suggested it) and one guy works for BIG who does have a masters and the other works for Skeptoid.....based on the BIGs guy pic and place of employment I would guess he listened to Paul van Dyk.....but seriously what new shit has van Dyk done lately.......i prefer host for Skeptoid on this one...........either way its entertaining and kills time on the bus....
it looks like Paul van Dyk just realeased a new album.......
Sure ain't that BIG guy because this Blake Smith admitted to being the older one a few pages back. You probably missed the result I am looking at. He's surprisingly easy to find.
It's fine to question authority but what he asks makes no sense. Plenty of buildings are fire-proofed in ways, even ones made of wood. If it was a conspiracy demolition, then the structure is fine and steel is ok. Brought down by explosives, ok. End of discussion. If it's the steel, then it certainly is prone to failure especially with that WTC 7 design. We have ways to prevent that then and now. End of discussion.
Something that has not happened before (steel skyscraper collapse due to fire) and the method of failure only observed in a controlled demolition does not mean the two are cause-and-effect related. The conspiracy has little to do with whatever point was asked about fires and steel.
should probably be writing proposals..........back in college some of my buddies would sign you up for various porn sites with your name......is this the real Blake Smith or someone who doesnt like the real Blake Smith...... carry on, its all quite amusing.
Blake - what is fireproofing?
Ah, that bastard power of the internet. Quite easy to pull off an identity smear campaign and incredibly damaging if Google makes the connection. It won't, yet.
Chuck Norris was spotted lurking aroind before the collapse. a round house kick from this man could be to blame.
You dont seem to understand what a real academic journal is, apparently - or what "peer-reviewed" means. Creating your own journal as a platform to publish your own papers because they are rejected by experts legitimizes nothing. Quite the opposite, actually.
ae911 is counting this as part of the NIST cover-up.
You already know it's one of the various possibilities. The truth is only what you want it to be and it's a waste of energy for anyone else to bother holding your hand through the history of structures. You're not going to know everything, especially not by the way you prod into issues only when some other nut job presents you easily digestible bits. How do you know you aren't being swindled by them?
Bureaucracies are generally incompetent but if they were to pull this off, you and the other loser bozos wouldn't be the ones to pick up on it. It's not an episode of Scooby-Doo where the dumbass kids unravel the stupid man behind the monster. If anything this would be the perfect distraction to keep the loons fixated on the wrong thing.
Don't bring the aftermath into this. If you want to talk about structures, look into fireproofing. Your various job positions should have encountered such a common thing so I don't understand why you keep quoting nonsense. Fireproofing existed before and after 9/11. If you want to talk conspiracy, then drop the engineering aspect that you cannot grasp.
Better yet, build your own model. Stop looking for others to do the work. I can accept the NIST and go on with life. So have many others. It makes sense, it is reasonable, and like science, it has been vetted and accepted. Others are free to hypothesize and provide the burden of proof. As much as you think you're so much smarter than everyone else to question authority and assume we're all captive sheep, the actual outward projection is equivalent to the circular logic of a toddler.
You can cherry-pick all the evidence you want, no one is impressed or swayed by out of context quotes or articles written with an obvious slant. It's the Internet, anyone can publish anything, and it can spread for free. That's the problem with unfiltered data. Can the NIST be wrong? Sure. But their assessment is corroborated. Until you or someone provides a better model instead of forcing the same dubious entity to reinvestigate, which makes no sense if you don't trust them, then their story is the official verdict. What if the investigation concludes the same? Will you finally drop this shit? Doubtful.
And stop appealing to emotion, that's a tell-tale sign of you having a shaky argument and simply grasping onto straws. What would modern humanity be with the Towers still standing? Not so different. If you believe the government is out to wage war, then some other incident will trigger it. If terrorists wanted to attack the West, they would've found another way.
Do you understand what a logical fallacy is? I've already pinpointed many: appeal to emotion, appeal to authority (a bad one at that), cherry picking, straw man, and a bunch of other crap I haven't bothered to sift through.
You can claim yourself the victor. It doesn't matter. Two people can hold completely opposite beliefs and still coexist fine. You might be looking into the wrong one but whatever, it doesn't add anything to life to be right or wrong about this. So what, the government's bad? Then they'll continue their ways. So what, the steel structure collapsed? We learned and moved on to avoid the chances of it happening again. See Freedom Tower (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/ground-supertower.html). If there's anything that tries to rectify the wrongs, it's this symbolic project.
Your "curiosity" is only trying to find people who agree with you on very specific narrow and professionally dubious viewpoint, the opposite of discovery and inquiry. You're upset no one agrees with you and then basically assume everyone is too blinded or ignorant or content with the official NIST report. So what if they are? The theory of gravity might be nonsense to some skeptics but it works out and until proven otherwise, it's a solid theory. Remember, theory is not just an opinion but a substantiated explanation repeatedly tested. Oh, and what's the consensus from educated professionals? The opposite of yours. Count the numbers here.
The only data you would need is the floor plan and some basic structural analysis. It won't be as astute as an engineer's calculation but with your supposed experience, you ought to determine some truths for yourself in the process. Then keep it to yourself or make a substantial argument not using any of these preexisting nonsense that few are going to waste time looking through. The more you associate with wackos, the less seriously people will take you. It's one thing to be wrong and discuss things but another to peddle someone else's agenda like a shill.
I'm not gonna bother with this anymore. For your lingering free-fall question, massive PE to KE. Factor in some human factors like bad design and poor maintenance, and the mass of papers and desks and all that stuff inside each floor. Structures and materials and redundancy systems do fail and this is one of those cases.
Ask an engineer. If they agree with you, voila. If not, figure out why and learn something.
Now, do everyone else a favour and fuck off.
read unique structure. column 79. lynch pin. fail. done. standard engineering practice is to create redundancies. unique means no reduncies. what kind of ConEd substation? what type of carpet, vct, mechancal equipment was installed in 1987? offixe fire means nothing to me.
You can't go to the site anymore and look at actual beams to see how they deformed anymore. so that source of information is gone. You`re just talking about modeling the building and showing that explosives placed intentionally is one possible way the building could have collapsed? Of your thousands of supporters, not a single one has the software or knowledge to pull that off? I wonder why that is?
curtkram - in high school i wrote an entire paper using only the dictionary and much to my classmates suprise i received 95%. 5% reduction for no other references. the paper was on anti-matter. with little effort any philosophical and theoretical case can be created.....but in AE forensics you can not just throw terms around and ignore facts of physics or sloppy langauge placement. Office Fire means nothing because it does not define what was burning in a 1987 building located over a ConEd substation in 2001. i am not intereated in the reports with data that claim to back up Blake here, i am interested in Blake building a real case with real knowledge and expertise......so far not a single post or response indicates any substanntial understanding of these conditions.
Blake, you seem to be resisting two (among dozens of others) things: when you heat a material above working temperature, it's yeild strength decreases, and when structural systems encounter a load far greater than they were designed for (such as an entire floor of a building collapsing onto it), they wI'll most likely fail.
Schoon, it just can't be that simple... there must be layers of secrecy and complicated social hurdles to jump before we can explain everything to simpletons like Blake.
it seems he wants to believe that it was intentional destruction of a building.
so the report that was issued showed that heat from fire reduced the capacity of the steel connections, and when a girder finally broke from a column, the gravity path of the loads changed in such a way as to break many of the remaining steel connections. it seems like those other steel connections were also weakened by fire, since there were multiple fires covering a pretty big area. nothing wrong with that as a theory, since we know fire makes steel soft and gravity points down.
it's true that the steel did not all melt at once. it seems blake wants to suggest that the only alternative to placed demolitions is that something ridiculous like that happened, or that the entire building fell down in 6 seconds without considering the effects of the fire and debris that were already weakening the structure before that 6 second clock started. he proposes that the steel connections that failed were in ideal conditions, rather than being weakened by the fires. in order to make his theory sound plausible, it seems he either he has to lie to us, or his understanding of how things work is so basic and misinformed that he actually believes what he's saying. this is where i think his ramblings are really off, and he should reconsider the way he presents his argument. whether it's intentional or just ignorance, it takes away what little credibility he might have had.
in addition to his attempts at disproving the established report, he wants to propose an alternative possibility. i think it would be possible to develop a model that shows how targeted charges would bring down a building in a manner similar to what we've seen of building 7. obviously this wouldn't prove anything, it would just show that there is the possibility of different things happening. whenever you try to build a story around forensic evidence like this, you can't be certain of what happened, you just make the best guesses you can.
either way, we already design buildings to not burn down, we design fire proofing to keep steel connections stable at least long enough for occupants to safely exit a building if a fire does happen, and buildings are not designed to withstand demolition. i don't understand how he thinks any possible case with this building would mean we would want to design buildings any different. i think this is another lie, that doesn't seem to serve any purpose but command attention.
blake, i'd appreciate if you would show me you're more mature than the allegations i put on you here. the nature of the argument is far more interesting than the content of the argument.
Schoon and several others have made the case clear. A floor collapsing onto another floor will very likely overload the next floor down, especially if the structure has been weakened by heat.
Blake wonders how this is possible, if the structure has been fireproofed.
It's important to realize that fireproofing does not prevent the structure from becoming overheated by fire and deforming. It SLOWS the process of it overheating. That's why we rate the structure to 1 hour, 2 hour, etc. The rating gives time for the occupants to exit the building safely - and some time for fire fighting to happen. If the fire continues, eventually the structure will heat up. I mean, fireproofing is just some insulation material sprayed on the structure, it's not magic.
Get out your books and reference materials from your favorite spray fireproofing company. Look up fireproofing that's for areas that might be exposed to rapid temperature rise - like in a factory or industrial plant that might actually have vats of diesel fuel present. This is expensive fireproofing for specialized applications. It's NOT used in office buildings because they don't have the same rise in temperature.
Therefore, it's easy to see how jet fuel burning in WTC 1 and 2 can quickly weaken the structure, causing it to collapse, overload and crush the entire building. What's amazing is that so many people DID get out of the buildings first.
WTC 7 was a regular fire that was not extinguished in any way. There's no clear reason why anyone would want to demolish the building to pretend to be terrorists. There's no advantage.
Blake, please, before you screw up any new real buildings, go learn how structures really work and what we are trying to accomplish with fire and life safety. You sound like a full on nutjob.
this belongs.
so far this gorilla is more interesting.
Nancy Snyderman, RA, FAIA
Princeton, MArch '99 Cum Laude
Laid off 2009
Ringling Brothers "Waste Disposal Architect" 2014 - Present
World trade center was the first and only building ever to collapse of fire related damage with a "functioning" sprinkler system. #7 was right in the path of falling debris and got battered fairly hard with parts of the towers piercing and severing columns several bays into the base of the building. It was unfortunate that it collapsed but buildings in the US up until the Oklahoma City terrorist bombings in the early 90's were never designed to take lateral blast related impacts at the perimeter at street level. #7 suffered a series of impacts as the towers collapsed and the weight pressing in on the base of the building did it in.
It is also weird that the section of the Pentagon Hit was the one whose sprinkler system was offline for repairs and upgrades. I suppose the public bid process for the contract may have informed the terrorist where to strike.
And remember the Cessna that crashed into the White House during Clinton's time in office made it apparent that there is no effective antiaircraft defense system for DC.
Someone was paying attention
Over and OUT
Peter N
Blake, next you'll tell us that Putin blew up his own apartment buildings to gain power... Don't bother with these people. Engineers don't know shit about politics. Over 80% of Russians would never consider it a false flag. Don't expect the number to be any better over here. There were plenty of educated people in Germany with high credentials who got caught up in Hitler's wake, just like those who have answered you on this thread. Now I'm seeing they were probably just as big assholes and douchebags.
I can buy the bullshit when it comes to 1 record-setting building collapsing from a fire from an impact, maybe even 2. But all 3 buildings collapsing ultimately due to fire (according to 9/11 report)? So why is it again that we shouldn't be more concerned about fires and current standards of steel construction?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZPCp8SPfOM
respect for Joe showing utter contempt to scumbag alex jones
Bldg 7 fell at free fall speed because, as Larry Silverstein has already confessed, it was "pulled." That's a controlled demolition term. Silverstein admits that everyone involved agreed to pull the building. Problem with that is ... it take time, days, even weeks, to arrange a controlled demolition. So it is obvious that the demolition was pre-planned.
"Free fall speed" = 32' per sec ^ 2 = gravity.
"Free fall speed" = 32' per sec ^ 2 = gravity.
mother fucker, please.
Silly me, I though skyscrapers were designed NOT to collapse.
Volunteer, what was the construction on the Grenfell House building though?
Concrete?
As for controlled demolition, yes, obviously a large number of people went into the building when no one was around, installed massive numbers of explsoive charges of a type that no one knows about (so it is undetected) at key points, along the controls to fire them, then carefully covered up the damage before exiting unseen.
Or, the charges were wired into the building as it was built, with none of the thousands working on the building noticeing. Or they were all part of the conspiracy theory.
None of whom have spoken about it yet.
Yes, it must be a conspiracy, because it would be just plain nuts otherwise.
bingo.
bingo
Props to Blake-most of you posters here are pathetic, desperately trying to find the identity of someone that dares to ask questions and better understand complex disasters inadequately addressed by those institutions you all so slavishly believe in. History shows the majority to seldom be able to think beyond what is programmed for them.
desperate. motherfucker, puhlease.
Trying to damage someone's career or life because they don't agree with you on the internet is desperate to me-regardless of the effort.
bitch-ass, motherfucker, puhhhhhlease.
Dr. Leroy Hulsey (Chair of Environmental and Civil Engineering) and University of Alaska; Finite Element Modeling: (Fire didn't do it ; )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcHZNqwGUOE
Presented at Boston Society of Architects
I watched the video, and saw the presenter making a lot of questionable assumptions and caveats, most notably that they didn't have the structural drawings or the analysis. Also, on their methodology slide they state that their work has not been peer reviewed. I've done this sort of structural analysis before, using the same software he used, and I know that you have to work very hard not to model your bias. It's incredibly easy to omit essential parameters or neglect to model real-world behaviors, whether by accident or otherwise. The NIST study the presenter attempted to dismantle was apparently done using software specifically designed for fire analysis, while the study in the video used finite-element analysis software to jury-rig a fire analysis with no experience using the programs or performing fire analysis (the presenter admits as much in the video). This is a very weak study, and you should be skeptical of it.
Dr. Leroy Hulsey testifies at Cooper Union before a panel of attorneys:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf1ewgbq4fY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf1ewgbq4fY#t=13m10s
Again, I wouldn't hang my hat on that ideologue if I were you. By the way, that video is not Dr. Hulsey "testifying" before attorneys, it's him preaching to the choir at a convention gathered specifically to question the events of 9/11. It makes me trust him less, not more. You are the company you keep...
Testify!
But, simple minds need simple boxes to explain things they are unwilling or unable to understand. It's always easier to invent invisible agents to explain away your ignorance than think things in intelligent and rational ways. 911 idiots are just another flavor of religious superstition none sense.
The real 9/11 conspiracy is found in the justification for the attack and the way the attack was used to justify further actions.
.
WHY. Did you have to dig this thing up.
There is a little ignore user and flag option. Ridicule also works since reality clearly does not for these fools.
You just bumped this thread to the top of the list, again :D
the structural system of the WTC was totally unique as you all know, and was essentially a 'mesh' of steel on the exterior. this mesh was also comprised of much thinner steel elements and components than typical in-board columns which would have been a lot beefier. So the fire was able to melt these exterior steel elements much more quickly because of their more slender size.
I mean volunteer you know that architects don't have any structural training, like whatsoever right? All this foam and melting point and 'time' stuff is lost on us artsy fartsies
Replies don't bump threads only comments like yours O.o
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.