Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jay Wood
Trad climber
Land of God-less fools
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 05:09pm PT
|
Hightraverse-
"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."
Seriously??
Here's a radio interview- largely about put options and alleged hijackers, but bears on Bldg 7 as well. Very clear, evidence-based. One hour.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23122.htm
|
|
Banquo
climber
Morgan Hill, CA (Mo' Hill)
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 06:32pm PT
|
I usually stay out of this stuff - fighting ignorance and faulty logic is a difficult task.
Me: I have a BS and a MS in structural engineering and have taught structural engineering since 1984. During the cold war days I worked for a research company that developed ways to prevent buildings collapsing due to nuclear attack. We blew up buildings to see how it worked and we worked with demolition companies to learn more about how they cause buildings to collapse. I have spent many years testing structures, models and elements of structures to destruction.
1) Buildings and large buildings in particular are not as robust as the pubic thinks. They are generally capable of resisting expected conditions but the unexpected can be devastating. In a sense, large buildings are actually fairly fragile.
2) Modern computer aided design and analysis has not resulted in more robust buildings, quite the opposite. Comparing the Empire State Building to WTC7 is not reasonable. More detailed analysis has resulted in both more refined designs and more refined loads. In the old slide rule days designers had to make more conservative assumptions than they do now. Old buildings are harder to knock down than new buildings.
3) Find and listen to the real experts. It takes competence to recognize competence. The incompetent are generally over confident while to truly competent tend to be under-confident. The guy who hesitates and qualifies his opinion often knows much more than the one who is absolutely certain about his opinion. Ed Anser??
4) Construction and design errors result in structures that are weaker than the designer intended. Factors of safety in structural engineering are something between 1.5 and 3.0. Once built, the actual safety factor will be something less. Just because a building has stood for many years does not mean it was properly constructed, properly designed nor has adequate safety factors.
5) Size effect. Galileo recognized that a long rope will almost always be weaker than a short rope since a long rope has a higher probability of including a defect or defects. This is that same as the chain is no stronger than its weakest link. A long chain has more links and probability theories say that it also has a greater chance of including a weak link. A large building has a greater probability of including more defects and may be weaker than the designer thought.
6) Imploding a building with explosives requires not only a lot of time and work but modification of the structure. Structural elements are removed or weakened. The columns to be cut need to be exposed, etc.
7) Steel rapidly looses both strength (yield stress) and stiffness (modulus of elasticity) as it heats up. The fireproofing is usually only good for a few hours and then the steel goes.
Ed Asner doesn't know sh#t from shinola. Ed Anser keeps talking about architects and the AIA. Architects do not necessarily know anything about structural engineering.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 06:47pm PT
|
There is no evidence of explosive use, NONE
-- Dr. F.
FEMA report, Appendix C. Plenty of evidence.
Now, what is your evidence, Doctor? Other than a line of reasoning, you have zero.
The NIST report hides the data from which they form their conclusion, so that cannot be labeled "scientific" nor can something unseen be labeled evidence.
BTW, Coz was in NY that day, he confirms that Lots of folks knew the building was being brought down by explosives. Odd, no? Also, this dude that shows up today, to quote "just one more explosion."
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 06:53pm PT
|
The Only reason you people think they used explosives is because some cop, that no one knows, said that they are pulling Building 7
Thats It.
Who is this Cop, What did he really say, is there a recording?
-- Dr. F.
Goes to show you how much the Doctor knows about this subject.
A cop? Really dude?
BTW, that ain't the evidence that people look at, and that wasn't no cop.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 07:29pm PT
|
Jay
Seriously?? See Banquo's post as well as mine.
It's a bit different here on the Left Coast where buildings are required to stay standing after significant earthquakes.
Even here, they're probably not much different for fire. It's expected that localized fires within/outside large buildings can be managed and extinguished in a short period of time. Meanwhile the occupants are evacuated.
They are not built to withstand large fires inside the building that can't be brought under control.
The video very specifically doesn't show you the significant damage on the side of 7WTC that was hit by the falling 1WTC.
It's also interesting they show just small areas burning. The entire South side of the building had been on fire
Here's a picture that gives a more realistic view of the fire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc7onfire.jpg
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center damaging the south face of the building[29] and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.[8] The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner with other possible damage including a large vertical gash near the center of the south face.[8] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[ Given that the fire systems in 7 WTC were not fully automatic, and the entire area had low water pressure, the conclusion is not surprising. Remember the fires burned in the Pentagon for several days. The Pentagon area that was hit had already been strengthened against terrorist attack and couldn't really fall to the ground anyway.
It's economics. Require all large buildings to remain standing after such major assaults and there'd be no more large buildings.
This is a pretty good debunking. These photos and videos show clearly that the collapse of 7 WTC was nothing like a demolition and shows how carefully the skeptics cherry picked their videos and images.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Rather like "Oswald couldn't have acted alone". 48 years later, there's still no convincing evidence he had assistance in the shooting of JFK.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 08:27pm PT
|
Codes usually require commercial and industrial buildings to be built to a standard that allows them to resist earthquakes and fires for long enough for the occupants to get out. Survival of the occupants, not the building, is the goal. With any serious damage, it's usually cheaper to demolish the building and replace it, given that insurance pays for it.
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 08:47pm PT
|
The 9-11 conspiracy had to be approved and planned at the very top.
Nice to see that Dr F is coming around to our point of view.Bush did it
He rigged it with explosives
waited for 911 to happen
Then set the explosives off to take the building down
The conversation below is the start of the whole planning process.
Bush: I am bored. I want to invade somebody.
Cheney: There are plenty of things for you to do here at home.
Bush: No, I am really bored. I want to invade Iraq. Maybe Afghanistan too. Afghanistan sounds like some place just itching to be invaded.
Cheney: Well, you can't just invade somebody without some excuse!
Bush: Awww.... why not?
Cheney: It would not look right.
Bush: How about if we say they shot a torpedo at one of our ships!
Cheney: No one would ever go to war on a flimsy excuse like that.
Bush: What if they assassinated one of our top officials?
Cheney: Maybe if we had a crown prince or something, but I'm not so sure.
Bush: What if their leaders are drug lords? Would that work?
Cheney: Naw! We could never attack another country just cause the leader is a drug lord.
Bush: Well, we could say that American students are in danger.
Cheney: That might work, but I think we need something big, with explosions, smoke and fire. Lots of people dying. That would get American fired up and ready to fight.
Bush: How about we just go to the UN and say that they have weapons of mass destruction.
Cheney: Don't be ridiculous! No one would ever buy that nonsense. Besides we need something to get peoples emotions going. You know.... Clinton mentioned this Bin Laden fellow talked about flying airplanes into the world trade center. Maybe we could encourage him to actually do that.
Bush: Who?
Cheney: I'm not sure it would be enough though. Only a few hundred people would die. It would be like a typical holiday weekend on the highways. But what if both towers collapsed after-wards and killed thousands of people? Now that would get everybody excited. We could invade anybody we wanted after that!
Bush: Don't we want to keep one tower as a spare?
Cheney: Absolutely not! If only one tower goes down, people will forget within a week!
Bush: If you say so.
Cheney: Now airliners filled with thousands of gallons of jet fuel won't be enough to bring down a high rise building, so we will have to install hundreds of pounds of high explosives in strategic spots in the buildings. Now who can we get to do that? I'm too old, so it probably needs to be you. The question is, can I trust you not to blab in the long run. It could ruin my legacy.
Bush: Me?? Don't we have the CIA and secret service and the marines for this kind of work?
Cheney: Well in other countries, certainly, but for domestic work it is a little more tricky. Maybe the mafia would do it for us. They can keep a secret.
Bush: That is a good idea. But couldn't we just put a lot more high explosives in the airplanes?
Cheney: Don't get side tracked! I wonder who can tell us how much explosives to put in the buildings and where to put it for best effect? I wonder how many people it will take to put the explosives in there? Then how much will we have to pay, to keep them quiet?
Bush: Hey! I know some structural engineers that are rock climbers! They could do the deed, then all we have to do is give them some new gear and a few free meals!
Cheney: My boy, you are onto something there. That is perfectly brilliant. Then for the rest of their days they will lie about it on internet forums. One thing still troubles me though.
Bush: What's that, boss?
Cheney: I just don't think that blowing up the two World Trade Center Towers and killing a few thousand people will be enough excuse to invade a backwards country that had nothing to do with it. We need something more......
Bush: Well what if we blow up some more buildings, like say, building 7?
Cheney: By golly, you are smarter than I thought! New Yorkers and all of America absolutely love Building 7. If that building goes, there will be no stopping us! Forget the Alamo! Remember Building #7!!!!
Bush: Lets go for it!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 09:13pm PT
|
None of you mental speculators were even in the building to witness what really happened.
Instead you all sit around and drool on the internet guessing how it happened all while believing some computer simulation some rascal programmed to make the result conform to the theory.
But in reality ya don't know sh'it.
Do you you even have a clue who was running the NIST investigative crew?
Nope ,,,, you all just drool bullsh'it on the forum.
Even the NIST investigative crew were unhappy with the sh'it heads who were ordering them around and preventing them from doing a real scientific investigation.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 09:40pm PT
|
None of you mental speculators were even in the building to witness what really happened.
But you do, oh wise one?
|
|
new world order-
climber
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 09:50pm PT
|
Pardon me please the double post. I feel it applies here.
I've found the more a person works for the Man, the less likely he is to believe in OWS, 9/11 being an inside job (and the whole host of so-called conspiracy theories).
So, folks like Mighty Hiker (a lawyer), doctors, dentists, government employees, police, teachers, etc. etc., would never even consider investigating said, conspiracy theories, let alone believing them. They are....the Man. Their minds are made up. They have been programmed. Sad, that. The mind (like a parachute) works better when it's open.
war, what's your excuse?
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 09:56pm PT
|
government employees, police, teachers,
HAHAHAHAHA
WRONG.
Klimmer, our resident kook, is a teacher.
|
|
new world order-
climber
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 09:58pm PT
|
^^^^ Hmmmmm, that. Perhaps "teachers" was too all inclusive.
|
|
fairweather
Mountain climber
Roseville, CA
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 10:26pm PT
|
I just can't believe I finally stumbled onto a post where Dr. F is making sense. I may have to put on my tin foil hat, remove my brain and start believing that Bush planned all of it.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 10:38pm PT
|
how many buildings in between 7 and the plane targets? Zero.
1 WCT (the first tower hit) collapsed in the direction of 7 WCT and did significant damage to it. On the side away from the conspiracy theorists' video. They never show a vid of the side that was struck and was on fire from about the 6th floor to the top.
See the link I provided earlier for pictures of 7 WCT from all directions.
And now I'm over and OUT.
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 10:43pm PT
|
WBraun, the news rascals video showing the collapse did not show what
I first saw in 2008. What I saw makes sense that the building collapsed
from severe damage behind the side shown in the news video and the damage
was caused by falling debris from 1 of the World Trade Center towers if
not both. That side of the building was probably not hit by debris or
very little. The roof had huge holes and there was severe damage to the
other sides.
This made sense all the way up to this next quote....
Im still wondering if it was the Manhattan Projects research
center?
You guys ought to listen to Banquo. You should really stop and ask, would you call in Werner to rescue you from El Cap? Or an internet expert thats never climbed let alone rescued someone. Because thats what this discussion sounds like. Experts that have no clue.
|
|
Charlie D.
Trad climber
Western Slope, Tahoe Sierra
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 11:11pm PT
|
Have any of you that think this was done by demolition or some sort dark magic ever asked the question why does the code require fire protection of steel?
Steel becomes plastic and loses its strength with heat. The vertical gravity support of a floor or more failed, the columns were turned to rubber by heat and triggered a consecutive failure by impact loading of all the many floors above. It was a classic text book structural failure, sorry WB no engineer had a gun to their head......how do you come up with this stuff???
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 11:14pm PT
|
they said that joe frazier was somehow responsible,
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 11:28pm PT
|
Steel becomes plastic and loses its strength with heat.
you have to get specific about that. how much heat? how much strength? you know more about this than you think. put a gallon of kerosene--that's what jet fuel is, essentially--into a metal wheelbarrow and set it ablaze. will the steel melt? or as someone said above--do cars melt when a car fire goes out of control?
and even if the fire was hot enough to do steel damage, how would the damage occur? would it go whoomph all at once, or would it buckle and topple gradually? it went whoomph all at once. you can't spindoctor that. and three buildings--the twin towers identical structurally, but building 7 quite different--all went whoomph all at once.
|
|
Jay Wood
Trad climber
Land of God-less fools
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 11:30pm PT
|
Banquo-
Good post, thanks. Can you cite any example of any similar "fairly fragile" building collapsing completely and rapidly from a non-explosive cause?
|
|
nature
climber
back in Tuscon Aridzona....
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011 - 11:49pm PT
|
There is some pretty good discussion in this thread. None of it is coming from Dr. F. He's committed so many fallacies of logic it's perplexing.
The short of it for me is something doesn't add up. Bury your head in the sand like Ron tends to do. fine. But the answers to the questions posed to the people that should conduct a real investigation don't exist.
Something stinks. I'm not pointing fingers but if this whole thing was so cut and dry that high jacked plains as reported and believed by most caused all of this than why all the secrecy and dodging of a real investigation?
It smells like a cover up to me. Yeah, a far fetched one and certainly one difficult to believe. But if what we are being told really happened than why all the secrecy?
My god.... release all the video that got confiscated from around the Pentigon (within hours).
What's to hide if the story we are being told is what really happened?
What's to hide?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!