Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jay Wood
Trad climber
Land of God-less fools
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 01:53pm PT
|
Building 7 collapsed because the firefighters were emotionally spent.
That's a new one.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 02:00pm PT
|
building structure is important in this debate. you have to understand what's inside a big building. the simple introduction is the old style playground monkeybars--our generation will remember them. steel pipe in a grid structure, a lattice. every two feet or so you have a three-dimensional connecting joint, the x, y and z axes. walk up to those monkeybars, grab them, and try to shake them for all you're worth. no flex. total rigidity.
that "grid" structure is the way every tall buiding in the world is built, up to about 70 stories high. at that point, wind becomes a factor and engineers have to undertake different strategies. the twin towers were soundly built according to an innovative ultra-high strategy, much copied after that. it was basically a core tower, a shell surrounding it on the outside, and the floors suspended between them.
it's interesting that thomas eagar, an m.i.t. structural engineer, came out the year after the attacks and tried to explain away the catastrophic collapses as "pancaking". that became a regular laughingstock within a couple of years. not even the government will give you the "pancake" theory any more. but take note, dr. F, eagar was a professor of structural engineering at m.i.t. can you beat that "credential"? at a certain point, one has to lay aside the resumes and look at the arguments themselves, as every jury in the country does in cases which involve warring "experts". even if it's hard to understand, a real expert will get the truth across to the layperson. beware those who assert their credentials and then ask you to take their word for it.
building 7 was a 42-story building, built with that steel grid structure. no airplaine hit it, although truthers like to note that one of the hijacked planes crashed in pennsylvania and it took a few more hours before building 7 was, essentially, instantaneously dissolved. steel grid structures simply do not collapse catastrophically from "minor fires" which "somehow" get out of control. look at a burning wood frame building if you like, much more vulnerable to fire. how does it come down? the fire eats away, but the framework is the last thing to go, and when it goes, it never goes all at once. it crumbles here and there, weaknesses taking out pieces. even towards the end, framework will be sticking up. towards the end of building 7's eight-second collapse, there was nothing but rubble.
you also have to look at what it takes to melt or weaken steel. heat has to be trapped, air has to be force-fed. think of a blast furnace or a blacksmith's forge. but the way to melt it quick is with thermite, the preferred demolition material for steel structures, and thermite has to be planted in the right places and detonated in a controlled manner.
i said that gage was the only technical person in this area--i should have said building professional involved in architecture and engineering. there are several other truthers with solid scientific credentials, prominently dr. steven jones, former professor of physics at BYU, who was shouldered out of his job for not keeping his mouth shut. jones continues to find plenty of evidence for thermite in WTC dust.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 02:05pm PT
|
jeeziz, craig. the "cop no one knows" was larry silverstein, owner of the entire WTC appearing on national television. go away and do some homework.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 02:50pm PT
|
there is a large body of knowledge about controlled demolition and building behavior. the government would have us rewrite building codes to conform with its myths of 9/11 "anomalies". steel frame buildings don't collapse due to fire--except on 9/11. the editor of fire engineering magazine--you don't get more expert than that--was fired from his job for trying to make a point of it.
this is all old material for me, and i tire of dealing with ignorance. i do agree that this is a dead issue, as the OP suggests, not because of lack of evidence but because of a truly withering power structure which prevents the issues from coming to the fore, where they belong. be content to accept what is foisted on you. you will never beat them. there is no rule of law, there is no place for truth. there is only power, as the romans knew. the victors write the history. if there is hope, it is the hope of mice and weasels who scurry to survive in the shadows of great dinosaurs.
|
|
nutjob
Gym climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 02:54pm PT
|
Anyone else here know John Duffield in real life?
This was his first post:
http://www.supertopo.com/inc/view_forum.php?dcid=Ozs_Ozc9ISUh
Sorry if you're a real dude, but since we're talking conspiracies and all, it's well known that US government agencies pay people to steer Internet forum conversations in more desirable directions to sway crowd actions and beliefs. But of course, that is only supposed to happen on Arabic language forums?
At any rate, it seems that the technique is effective.
John if you're a real climber dude, sorry! I'm just having fun on a thread that would make me cry if I didn't laugh.
Edit: scooped by couchmaster!
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 02:59pm PT
|
"steel frame buildings don't collapse due to fire"
Bird, you're just wrong. A cursory look in 10 sec refutes your claim.
"On May 10, 1993, the 4 story Kader Toy Factory in Nakhon Pathom, Thailand collapsed after fire broke out on the first floor and spread throughout the complex. The factory was in full production at the time and all fire exits were locked. 188 people were killed and over 500 others were injured. The building was a steel-frame design.[10] "
If you're tired of dealing with ignorance, I suggest you address your own.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 03:11pm PT
|
a four-story toy factory in thailand?
you have to look much closer, in-your-arse. this issue was hashed out for years. i was involved in it. yes, a few selected "steel frame buildings", by loose definition, might collapse, but far more steel frame skyscrapers survive their fires spectacularly. one red herring which comes to mind is mccormick place in chicago--a vaulted convention center which collapsed in a fire--a far cry from grid structure. please re-read what i said before about grid structure.
to reply to kos's question, grid steel buildings don't "fail". to bring them down, you have to plan a demolition and place the thermite in exactly the right places. then you get a free-fall collapse, and that's exactly what we have with these three buildings of the WTC, free-fall collapse, no hindrance to things coming down, as you would expect with something accidental. astoundingly fast. and rubble which was amazingly pulverized. i'll never forget what one of the firemen said: you couldn't even find an intact telephone in the rubble. the biggest piece of a telephone he could find was a couple inches long. everything blown to smithereens by tremendous energy--and then quickly carted away, buried in landfills and structural steel sent to china to be resmelted, all in flagrant violation of the laws governing forensic evidence. now tin hat people can argue about things which no longer exist.
you get into it a little further, and it becomes almost laughable. there is footage of a BBC television reporter telling live on screen of the building 7 collapse shortly before it actually happened. in the background you see building 7 standing tall. when this came out, 3-4 years ago, the footage started playing hide-and-go-seek within the BBC archive. it was so embarrassing it was eventually released and forgotten about. as with larry silverstein, you can put the bald truth out in the open and the spin doctors will take excellent care of it.
|
|
ionlyski
Trad climber
Kalispell, Montana
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 03:15pm PT
|
Dr. F just doesn't get it. Or the thought has never crossed his mind.
No one in a million years would put demolition explosives in the Building 7 before 911 happened
The destruction of building #7 WAS PART OF 911. Jeez, it's not like anyone is saying somebody put explosives into the building to take it down, and then coincidently 911 happened and building 7 was just brought down as a complete seperate incident.
|
|
ionlyski
Trad climber
Kalispell, Montana
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 03:31pm PT
|
Who put the exposives there?, Why?
I don't know. So we could have a good, no questions asked excuse to bomb the shite out of Afghanistan and build natural gas pipelines to the Persian Gulf? That the Taliban refused to cooperate with us once they assumed power? You tell me? You've got the facts, right?
Arne
|
|
cliffhanger
Trad climber
California
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 03:35pm PT
|
The fact that all of the evidence was so quickly whisked away and destroyed is the most damning event in 9-11.
There should be no debate or theorizing over how those building collapsed because the exact story of their collapse was written in the steel and debris of the aftermath. But they destroyed it all. They shipped the steel very speedily to Korean and Chinese steel mills where it was melted down.
It is a crime to destroy evidence of crime and that is just what happened on a grand scale.
Plus from an engineering standpoint, all the building remains are needed to fully understand the details of the failures, in order to build better buildings. So it was also criminal of them to destroy the engineering evidence.
|
|
Jay Wood
Trad climber
Land of God-less fools
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 03:37pm PT
|
Re: John Duffield post-
"There’d been explosions all day and this was simply one more."
This is not generally part of the official narrative- the observations of explosions have been actively suppressed.
|
|
ionlyski
Trad climber
Kalispell, Montana
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 03:42pm PT
|
And let's not forget that the BBC (and Fox) reported "Building#7 has just completely collapsed", 20 full minutes before it even collapsed! That's not part of any conspiracy theory. No one disputes that, not even the BBC. So, you have to accept that and continue your dogma.
Arne
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 03:49pm PT
|
There was nothing "grid" like about WTC7 - it was a complete hack-job shell around existing structures and fell asymmetrically as one would expect.
|
|
ionlyski
Trad climber
Kalispell, Montana
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 04:13pm PT
|
it was a complete hack-job shell around existing structures and fell asymmetrically as one would expect.
Oh, OK.
Funny, I just watched the clip. Didn't see anything asymmetrically as I would expect.
By the way, I don't state that explosives brought down #7 because I don't know. All I believe to know is that things didn't go down on 9/11 the way our government told us it did. And when the media tells us "building #7 has just collapsed and there is nothing left" 20 minutes before it actually did, it kind of makes it all hard to swallow.
Arne
|
|
nature
climber
back in Tuscon Aridzona....
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 04:22pm PT
|
it sure looks symmetrical to me
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 04:36pm PT
|
Bird:
"steel frame buildings don't collapse due to fire"
Bird, 5 minutes late having been conslusively proven wrong:
yes, a few selected "steel frame buildings", by loose definition, might collapse but
But nothing. And you wonder why nobody takes you clowns seriously. You throw up the fact that you wasted years in some circle jerk with other tin foil hatters as some form of credential, "this issue was hashed out for years. i was involved in it". We're laughing AT you Bird, not with you.
|
|
ionlyski
Trad climber
Kalispell, Montana
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 04:37pm PT
|
Yeah, I get that Silver.
I tend to look for answers though. Shite doesn't just happen. You and I were told a story that's not real.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 04:39pm PT
|
it's not like anyone is saying somebody put explosives into the building to take it down That is exactly the implication of the repeated mention of "thermite" explosions. There's a strong implication of cover up and conspiracy throughout the video. That's the whole point of it.
So how would they explain that all the thermite charges would be detonated at the same time assuming they were pre-planted. After 8 hours of fire? The didn't go off separately earlier?
If not pre-planted, how did they get planted during the fire?
I'm not going for planted explosives.
The video is rather deceiving about the time it took to fail: it started buckling 2 1/2 hours prior to the collapse (which is why NYFD evacuated their personnel) which took 37 seconds.
And it started in the mechanical spaces.
Some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[32] Fires burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[33][34] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[28] In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[35] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[36] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[37] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[38] At 5:20:33 pm EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 pm EDT the entire building collapsed completely.[39][40] There were no casualties associated with the collapse.
If there's a "smoking gun" in my mind it's here:
Mechanical equipment was installed on floors four through seven, including 12 transformers on the fifth floor. Several generators in the building were used by the Office of Emergency Management, Salomon Smith Barney and others.[1] Storage tanks contained 24,000 gallons (91,000 L) of diesel fuel to supply the generators.[9] Fuel oil distribution components were located at ground level, up to the ninth floor........ the fuel in the building is today not believed to have contributed to the collapse of the building. Not the fuel, but the generators and 12 distribution transformers. If the power hadn't been cut outside the building, there'd have been massive arcing as the systems failed. This would have caused thermite-like pellets and spheres.
Architects are not structural engineers. I studied architecture for two years in university. I took all the required engineering classes. I could calculate the loads and stresses in a pin connected truss bridge. That's elementary statics and strength of materials not structural engineering.
One thing we did learn is that heat is the enemy of structural steel. Even at normal fire temperatures. When you see the shiny metal exterior of a steel frame building, it's a facade. The steel beams and columns inside are coated with concrete mixed with fireproofing as a fire protection and then covered again with the trim that you see. Even then, the protection is not meant to last for hours. They are designed to stand long enough for the people to get out. 7 WTC succeeded at this. Even at 1 and 2 WTC, 10's of thousands of people got out.
The NIST didn't do all their own structural engineering either:
The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew upon in-house technical expertise as well as the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY). These organizations know their stuff. They determine the specifications AND do the materials and processes testing.
The analysis of the collapse of 1 and 2 WTC
NIST vindicated the design of the WTC, noting that the severity of the attacks and the magnitude of the destruction was beyond anything experienced in U.S. cities in the past. NIST also emphasized the role of the fires, but it did not attribute the collapses to failing floor joists. Instead, NIST found that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns: "This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers."
These buildings were not designed to survive this kind of attack. Period. They weren't even designed to survive earthquakes. They are expensive to build and there is no significant structural redundancy. Once one part of the building starts to fail, the rest comes down quickly. This is why demolitions experts can bring down a big building with a few dozen pounds of explosives.
And why is NIST keeping so much data secret for national security reasons? Precisely because there are thousands of similar buildings in the US.
There's a lot of appealing to our emotions in that video. Yet there were no casualties caused by the 7 WTC collapse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 04:46pm PT
|
it sure looks symmetrical to me Look carefully at the video. The (equipment) penthouse region collapses first. It's on the left side of the building as seen in the video. It pulls down the rest with it.
healye's sketch is revealing, as is the floor plan:
The video specifically doesn't show the severely damaged side of the building away from the camera. Was this video cherry picked? Are there any in the public domain of the other side of the building?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!