Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org
-
05-09-2011 6:24am#1
Comments
-
-
And now watching later segments they make lots of appeals to authority and
Repeating the canard that "no steel framed building had collapsed before".
Which is both misleading and factually wrong.
They keep showing photos that supposedly show the fires not being as bad as claimed.
So how come they didn't show this photo?:
And the biggie: Gage claims the building fell in 7 seconds.
This is totally false.
And all these "experts" keeping making claims that simply aren't true.
And now referring to the long debunked, thoroughly dishonest "paper" that claims to have found thermite.
This video is a hodge podge of lies, half-truths, distortions, misrepresentions, logical fallacies and plain old nonsense.
I gave up after 10 minutes the dishonesty was coming too fast and thick for me to stomach.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I will look into that penthouse thing KM once i get home,
i used to be a firefighter back home and we only dealt with fires and even the odd collapse but no matter how big the blaze was only sections came down ...and no it was not a 47 story building i know ... Just bricks and mortar
Looking north on nr 7 there is damage on the se corner i believe then fires break out and spread but in my logic that south section should go first .... Resulting in perhaps more of the building collapsing as well but for the building to drop in a matter of seconds dunno how much earlier the penthouse imploded. Why didn't all the other steel frame blazes didn't bring down one single high rise? Has it all to do with that debris from one of the towers ?
Strange though that building 6 didn't go ...only 9 floors but still
This video was posted in the 'building 7' thread. I think it answers all of your questions but its pretty much what barrington was saying already.Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Ohh that dangerous office furniture
:eek:
Hang on a second, you claimed you were a fireman?
http://www.ukfiretraining.com/inp/view2.asp?ID=39These items include;
* armchairs,
* upholstered benches and stools,
* beds and bedding where there is sleeping accommodation,
* wardrobes and dressing tables,
* dining chairs and tables,
* curtains, drapes and cushions,
* artificial foliage, trees, shrubs and flowers,
* desks and office furnishings,
* carpets1(b) Combustible materials
All of the combustible materials in, or forming part of, the premises should be identified and their hazard assessed. Some, such as wallpaper on the walls, should cause little concern, but others, especially those that may be easily ignited, may require action to be taken to eliminate, control or avoid the hazard.
Items to be considered include;
(i) Materials that form part of the business operations
* large quantities of paper, including files, folders and contents of waste bins,
* many plastic materials, especially foamed plastics,
* packaging materials,
* fabrics and clothing,
* timber, hardboard, chipboard and similar products,
* chemicals which may be combustible or react with other chemicals to produce heat,
* display and exhibition materials,
Large numbers of videos or computer tapes have been found to be a particular hazard and purpose-designed storage for these items should be provided.This fire test conducted by Factory Mutual Engineering and Research (FME&R) not long ago stands the notion that office areas are low-risk occupancies on its head. Combustible contents and interior finishes are numerous within office environments, and possible sources of ignition abound. In fact, according to an FME&R study of 490 office building fires, the average loss was $260,000.
Beyond statistics, the past 10 years, a decade which has seen some of the most catastrophic high-rise fires in history, have presented some compelling evidence of the fire hazards inherent in the average office environment.
On February 23, 1991, a 12-alarm fire burned out of control for 19 hours, killing three fire fighters and gutting eight floors of One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia (See page 265, Disaster Recovery World, or Vol. 4 No. 2, Disaster Recovery Journal ).
On May 4, 1988, a blaze killed one person and destroyed four floors of the 62-story First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles. Sixty-four fire companies battled the fire for three-and-one-half hours before bringing it under control (See page 258, Disaster Recovery World, or Vol. 1 No. 4, Disaster Recovery Journal ).
In Atlanta, the June 30, 1989, Peachtree 25th Building fire killed five people, injured 20 others, and heavily damaged the floor on which the blaze originated.
All too often it has taken spectacular events like these to prompt local governments to adopt stricter building codes or for companies to recognize the necessity of fire protection equipment and procedures.
Prevention of loss from such office fires is really quite simple. Tests conducted at FME&R’s full-scale fire testing center in West Glocester, RI, and the statistics on commercial fires clearly demonstrate that properly installed and well maintained automatic sprinkler systems and other basic protection equipment can virtually eliminate the chance of significant losses.
However, fire prevention is more than a matter of installing hardware. Obviously, the surest way to safeguard against fire losses is to assure that fires don’t start in the first place. Companies should make it a priority to develop an employee-driven, five-part Property Conservation plan and to take steps to eliminate hazards.
http://www.drj.com/drworld/content/w2_089.htm
Anyone who has taken even a cursory fire safetly course in their workplace can point out how seriously combustable the objects around our desks are, and wouldn't be making jokes about it.
Your smilies stretch your credibility as a self proclaimed firefighter.0 -
-
I meant it in the way that it brought down that skyscraper jaysus
You make it sound like i am assuming you could walk around in a office on fire for 20 mins and walk out eating a magnum ice cream don't be pathetic :mad:
You said "Oooh Dangerous Office Furniture :eek:" The sarcastic tone of your post suggested you didn't really think a office fire would be dangerous. Or am I wrong?
Just because you're having trouble making yourself understood its not my fault.
And plenty of skyscrapers and large buildings have been destroyed or partially destroyed by office fires alone.
The Windsor Building in Madrid, The McCormick Center in Chicago, One Meridian Plaza,
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
Either way you're flat out wrong saying "Dangerous office furniture :eek:" and deserved to be corrected.
What with you being a fireman and all...
0 -
You said "Oooh Dangerous Office Furniture :eek:" The sarcastic tone of your post suggested you didn't really think a office fire would be dangerous. Or am I wrong?
Just because you're having trouble making yourself understood its not my fault.
And plenty of skyscrapers and large buildings have been destroyed or partially destroyed by office fires alone.
The Windsor Building in Madrid, The McCormick Center in Chicago, One Meridian Plaza,
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
Either way you're flat out wrong saying "Dangerous office furniture :eek:" and deserved to be corrected.
What with you being a fireman and all...
Okay just say it again OOOHHHH THAATT DANGEROUS OFFICE FURNITURE in the context of levelling a 47 story skyscraper in seconds
as i was trying to explain in the post at 12:17
You need to read things first ... then maybe you can understand the crap you post yourself ...
And the only one in here getting corrected is you with warnings and a ban ...0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I said before that i was more interested in the lack of damage on the north side ... you are obsessed with that whole penthouse conspiracy thing
The building came down in 14 seconds ... inc penthouse the fires are not relevant to me in context with wtc 7 collapsing thats why i said an will keep saying it came down in seconds:rolleyes:
Okay nice simulation looks good
Im just not agreeing with the official office fire implosion thats all don't portrait me as yet another ct nut please
Were discussing similair topics in different threads ... Typing on my android half the time do maybe points get overlooked etc
Just keep breathing man
0 -
-
-
-
-
Funny how no one seems to want to speculate on this....
So why did you post a video that was so blatantly editing out important bits of the collapse?
So then you do believe that they are wrong when they claim that the building collapsed in 7 seconds?
That's not the question I asked you.
Do you see that the official explanation does not say that all the supports in the building gave out all at once?
Do you see how the building could collapse as in the official report?
Can you point out anything in the simulation that is impossible or conflicts with the evidence?
Why exactly do you doubt the official report now that we've shown you what you said you would have expected to see?
I already said a couple of times what was important to me in relation to that video ... Why are you not e-mailing the maker of that compilation and ask him how he got it into his mind to edit that penthouse thing out
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc7.html
Damn conspiracy people not showing all the footage .... rigghtt
No it al depends if you include the penthouse into it ... some argue you have to some say it got nothing to do with it
wtc7 had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns and yes they all crumbled at the same time i dont know how far the penthouse came down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus
Look ... for you its evidence fine by me
there are so many scientists and engineers who are baffled by this collapse. and are not convinced by the nist report
Don't ask me for their home address and copy of their diploma's or CV please
Who is we ? as in we've shown you ... are you teaming up now?
0 -
-
Barrington wrote: »Just to point out from a structural point of view:
Let's say a Column needs to carry 100kN Dead Load (weight of the building) and 100kN Imposed Load (weight of stuff in the building), and is fixed at the top in 4 directions (eg. a beam is fixed to all 4 sides of the column).
In the design of the column (by todays standards anyway), it will be designed to carry 140kN Dead Load and 160kN Imposed Load (Factors of Safety). Now, if one column fails/collapses, the load it is designed to take is then transferred to other nearby steel members. Not only that, but the beams and columns nearby are then being pulled in another direction which they weren't designed to be (eg a beam fixed on all 4 sides to a column. If one is removed or being pulled away, the column is then being pushed in one direction, thereby losing some of its strength)
Once one column goes, its loading is passed to nearby members. If they fail, their load is transferred to nearby members etc. Eventually, they just can't carry that loading or resist those directional forces, which means they'll fail almost instantly.
So it isn't a case of all the columns failing at the same time. Some internal ones failed (not visible from outside) and as their loading was passed on and on, by the time it reached the outer columns and structure, they couldn't carry the loading/forces and so would have failed instantly.
That's my whole point (dilemma)
when you look at the footage it would (for me) be logical that the building would collapse from the penthouse to the right cascading if you know what i mean so the left of the building would be down with the rest following due to lack of support ... with even some of the building left standing maybe
gonna be an engineer when im done here 0 -
That's my whole point (dilemma)
when you look at the footage it would (for me) be logical that the building would collapse from the penthouse to the right cascading if you know what i mean so the left of the building would be down with the rest following due to lack of support ... with even some of the building left standing maybe
gonna be an engineer when im done here
The trouble is, how long is a piece of string?
Some columns or beams may not have failed as quickly as others. Some connections between columns and beams may have snapped off without pulling the surrounding members down with it. I mean, people can post all the visual representations they want, whether they be pro-CT or anti-CT. The trouble is, it's next to impossible (well, from my viewpoint anyway) to know exactly what happened to what steel member in what order. People talk about the column which pretty much brought everything down with it when it failed, but it may not have been the first one to fail. It may have failed due to other ones failing and overloading it.
But once some of the members have failed, the rest offer little to no resistance and support. Once it fails to a certain extent, it doesn't matter if the left falls before the right or vice versa, it's just all going to collapse because every steel member is connected to at least two others.
So, if a collapse happened internally first, let's say for arguments sake on the 10th floor, by the time it has reached the roof, it has also reached the outer walls at the 10th floor, so the walls throughout are already being affected through overloading and directional forces by the time the collapse becomes visible at the roof.
*puts away 'Structures for Dummies' and tries to look smart* 0 -
Barrington wrote: »The trouble is, how long is a piece of string?
Some columns or beams may not have failed as quickly as others. Some connections between columns and beams may have snapped off without pulling the surrounding members down with it. I mean, people can post all the visual representations they want, whether they be pro-CT or anti-CT. The trouble is, it's next to impossible (well, from my viewpoint anyway) to know exactly what happened to what steel member in what order. People talk about the column which pretty much brought everything down with it when it failed, but it may not have been the first one to fail. It may have failed due to other ones failing and overloading it.
But once some of the members have failed, the rest offer little to no resistance and support. Once it fails to a certain extent, it doesn't matter if the left falls before the right or vice versa, it's just all going to collapse because every steel member is connected to at least two others.
So, if a collapse happened internally first, let's say for arguments sake on the 10th floor, by the time it has reached the roof, it has also reached the outer walls at the 10th floor, so the walls throughout are already being affected through overloading and directional forces by the time the collapse becomes visible at the roof.
*puts away 'Structures for Dummies' and tries to look smart*
But with all the interior support gone would it not be normal for the building to fall into itself being pulled in by at least some the interior horizontal support beams ... the footage is the only reference we have imo ... and the simulation of course0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
Advertisement