And I'm sure you meant I should ask structural engineers because architects do very little work when it comes to exterior forces on building torque strength.
Yeah.
"Shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about."
Don't know if my response got eaten by Skynet but...
The building wasn't built for horizontal force.
Did you know that most deaths/destruction from external explosions (particularly car bombs and ordinances but certainly including falling buildings) are caused by direct changes in air/wind pressure?
Building 7 was never designed to withstand that kind of horizontal power.
WHAT?? It's built next to the Atlantic Ocean!!! They didn't think about hurricanes????
I'm sure there was a good bit of pressure from those other building collapsing, but it occurred over the course of minutes, when hurricanes go on for hours.
Or earthquakes.
Not sure I'd want you designing any building I'd go in.
By the way, where do you even come up with this idea?
The official report argues it was the fires on a couple of the floors causing structural failure. To which a bunch of actual building engineers cried foul.
Two jets. Three buildings fell. This is about the building the jets didn't hit.
I don't have any problems discussing all sides and angles of an issue, as it keeps the brain cells working, but I get the sense you don't seem to know much at all about the subject.
You are most likely quadrupled covid vaxxed and wonder why you still are getting covid! And you believe ivermectin is only supposed to be used on horses.
If Bldg 7 was purportedly hit by "horizontal power" why did it collapse upon its own footprint in free fall but didn't collapse in the direction of purported "horizontal power"? You've explained nothing.
Your comment bolsters my argument that a dude hiding in a cave didn't bring down the towers, but that the very same people who rigged the election for Biden brought down the towers.
Um, no it doesn't. It bolsters the argument that dishonest framing of a situation can make anything look ridiculous or implausible. But it's just dishonest.
The Architects and Engineers who dispute the 911 report funded a study that refutes everything that our lying ass government and you claim: https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2020/05/world-trade-center-7-building-did-not-collapse-due-to-fire-report "Under the conditions described, the displacement of the outside steel would have been only one inch, not the 6.25 NIST claimed and not enough to cause failure.тАЭ Further, he says, the debris from WTC 1 which fell 943 feet to WTC 7 did not attain sufficient mass to cause structural damage to the steel in that building. The bottom line, he says, is that the NIST report is flawed and of no value to future engineering or architectural learning. The Alaska report adds new momentum to long standing claims by the AE911T that all three of the buildings should not have collapsed in the spectacular and deadly manner they did. Further, and Korol underlines this, there was nothing in the offices beyond basic desks, chairs, computers and paper that would be of such a combustible nature so as to feed a fire and raise the temperature to above 1,400 degrees Celsius and melt the steel structure."
BTW, when you begin a supposedly smart response with "um" it makes you appear as dumb as you are. Have a nice day!
On 9/11 I lived in NYC, nearby, and witnessed the Twin Towers' fall. Never dug into any of this. I have no clue, nor a firmly established opinion, about what really happened, aside from the obvious. (The buildings were there; now, they're not.)
But the conversation on this topic here made me read a bit. So I scanned the "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster", Series Title, "NIST National Construction Safety Team Act Reports."
When a layman in me read:
"However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin."
and
"This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires."
It's easy to understand why so many people believe in the "insider job" theory.
To me, the sheer number of people distrusting their own government to such an extent is the real story, 22 years later.
Engineers were тАЬstunned by what happened to 7 World Trade CenterтАЭ and unable to explain it. Even as late as March 2006, NISTтАЩs lead investigator told New York Magazine, тАЬI donтАЩt really know. WeтАЩve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.тАЭ Excerpt from тАЬThe Ground Zero Grassy Knoll,тАЭ New York Magazine (March 2006)
Explain something else - how could anyone justify the cost of making the welding in building so strong that if the building were to be hit with a strong force from the side it would topple over like a domino rather than simply having the beams crack apart, separate, and drop like weights?
Then explain why anyone would want a building to topple like a domino and take out other structures rather than fall apart and drop?
I poured concrete on multistory buildings. Each floor is a 3тАЭ thick slab on top of metal forms . Each floor. Once one of those floors collapsed...I can guarantee it drop STRAIGHT down followed by all the rest. Concrete is very heavy. To me itтАЩs perfectly logical that the building collapsed on its own footprint. IтАЩm not sure engaging with these commenters is going to make for a good day lol
Hahahaha! Sure you are.
And I'm sure you meant I should ask structural engineers because architects do very little work when it comes to exterior forces on building torque strength.
Yeah.
"Shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about."
-Confucius
Explain Bldg 7.
Don't know if my response got eaten by Skynet but...
The building wasn't built for horizontal force.
Did you know that most deaths/destruction from external explosions (particularly car bombs and ordinances but certainly including falling buildings) are caused by direct changes in air/wind pressure?
Building 7 was never designed to withstand that kind of horizontal power.
WHAT?? It's built next to the Atlantic Ocean!!! They didn't think about hurricanes????
I'm sure there was a good bit of pressure from those other building collapsing, but it occurred over the course of minutes, when hurricanes go on for hours.
Or earthquakes.
Not sure I'd want you designing any building I'd go in.
Earthquakes roll the earth and most damage is done when building "bounce" off their foundations.
Hurricanes tend to find openings (like ripping the roof off) to create collapses.
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM STRUCTURAL FAILURE DUE TO NEARBY BUILDING COLLAPSE AND THE RESULTANT VACCUUM.
Jesus, you people really need to not reproduce.
By the way, where do you even come up with this idea?
The official report argues it was the fires on a couple of the floors causing structural failure. To which a bunch of actual building engineers cried foul.
This is the first time I've heard this excuse.
Do you have a link?
What temperature does jet fuel reach? Enough to melt steel? Was that taken into account when the building was designed? I bet it wasnтАЩt.
Uhm, this is about Building 7.
Just office furniture, paper, carpets, etc.
But youтАЩre good with a reality based hypothesis about jets hitting the trade buildings?
Two jets. Three buildings fell. This is about the building the jets didn't hit.
I don't have any problems discussing all sides and angles of an issue, as it keeps the brain cells working, but I get the sense you don't seem to know much at all about the subject.
The effect you ascribe would have had people, cars, buses, firetrucks, being hurtled down the surrounding streets.
They are smaller and lighter than buildings.
The dots seriously don't connect.
You are most likely quadrupled covid vaxxed and wonder why you still are getting covid! And you believe ivermectin is only supposed to be used on horses.
Still trolling I see.
Nope, nope and nope.
And I've never gotten Covid.
I do avoid a large groups of people gathered indoors without proper ventalation.
Cuz my sister is Stage 4 cancer and I'd rather not get her sick whether it be Covid or a cold.
Anything else you got, you fucking idiot?
If Bldg 7 was purportedly hit by "horizontal power" why did it collapse upon its own footprint in free fall but didn't collapse in the direction of purported "horizontal power"? You've explained nothing.
Cuz shit collapses in the easiest direction.
Why do demolitions not collapse outwards if the explosives are inside the building?
Because the force causes the structural failure and gravity does the rest.
Jesus.
Don't invest in shit you don't understand like structural engineering or artitectural design.
The Saudis allowed extremists to plan and execute the 9-11 attacks.
Our "intelligence agencies" were caught with their pants down.
The Bush Admin. let the Saudis get away with it.
And the last 22 years has been the US govn trying to take advantage of that fear and panic.
Stop thinking it's not the obvious.
"Stop thinking it's not the obvious"
Obvious being that a dude in a cave brought down the twin towers. Yup, Captain Obvious.
An old man hiding in a basement became the US president.
Your comment bolsters my argument that a dude hiding in a cave didn't bring down the towers, but that the very same people who rigged the election for Biden brought down the towers.
Um, no it doesn't. It bolsters the argument that dishonest framing of a situation can make anything look ridiculous or implausible. But it's just dishonest.
The Architects and Engineers who dispute the 911 report funded a study that refutes everything that our lying ass government and you claim: https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2020/05/world-trade-center-7-building-did-not-collapse-due-to-fire-report "Under the conditions described, the displacement of the outside steel would have been only one inch, not the 6.25 NIST claimed and not enough to cause failure.тАЭ Further, he says, the debris from WTC 1 which fell 943 feet to WTC 7 did not attain sufficient mass to cause structural damage to the steel in that building. The bottom line, he says, is that the NIST report is flawed and of no value to future engineering or architectural learning. The Alaska report adds new momentum to long standing claims by the AE911T that all three of the buildings should not have collapsed in the spectacular and deadly manner they did. Further, and Korol underlines this, there was nothing in the offices beyond basic desks, chairs, computers and paper that would be of such a combustible nature so as to feed a fire and raise the temperature to above 1,400 degrees Celsius and melt the steel structure."
BTW, when you begin a supposedly smart response with "um" it makes you appear as dumb as you are. Have a nice day!
Wow.
Didn't really believe there was people stupid enough to believe that al- Qaeda didn't do what they tried to do for 15 years.
93 was also a CIA Plot, I suppose?
But here you are.
Wow, I didn't think there were people who still believed both our government and our media after Nov 1963, but here you are.
What made you conclude I believe either "our government " or "our media"? I believe neither.
I understand propaganda very well.
I also understand how to discern truth from fiction.
You, on the other hand, WISH the truth was more like a Hollywood movie so you can be the Hero of your own delusions.
Reality is depressing and mundane enough.
But you can't even deal with that.
On 9/11 I lived in NYC, nearby, and witnessed the Twin Towers' fall. Never dug into any of this. I have no clue, nor a firmly established opinion, about what really happened, aside from the obvious. (The buildings were there; now, they're not.)
But the conversation on this topic here made me read a bit. So I scanned the "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster", Series Title, "NIST National Construction Safety Team Act Reports."
When a layman in me read:
"However, the reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin."
and
"This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires."
It's easy to understand why so many people believe in the "insider job" theory.
To me, the sheer number of people distrusting their own government to such an extent is the real story, 22 years later.
Engineers were тАЬstunned by what happened to 7 World Trade CenterтАЭ and unable to explain it. Even as late as March 2006, NISTтАЩs lead investigator told New York Magazine, тАЬI donтАЩt really know. WeтАЩve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.тАЭ Excerpt from тАЬThe Ground Zero Grassy Knoll,тАЭ New York Magazine (March 2006)
Explain something else - how could anyone justify the cost of making the welding in building so strong that if the building were to be hit with a strong force from the side it would topple over like a domino rather than simply having the beams crack apart, separate, and drop like weights?
Then explain why anyone would want a building to topple like a domino and take out other structures rather than fall apart and drop?
I poured concrete on multistory buildings. Each floor is a 3тАЭ thick slab on top of metal forms . Each floor. Once one of those floors collapsed...I can guarantee it drop STRAIGHT down followed by all the rest. Concrete is very heavy. To me itтАЩs perfectly logical that the building collapsed on its own footprint. IтАЩm not sure engaging with these commenters is going to make for a good day lol
thanks, good info. i had my fun and regret nothing lol!