mosque in South Tower before and during 9-11
-
fat_boy wrote:
Guess what... I used to design steel work for buildings.
Then you should be able to guess at how strong bare steel is when it's been exposed to 500-600 degree temperatures for an hour or so. How many of your buildings could survive an impact like those on 9-11?
I didnt design any buildings, I used to design brackets and fixings used in stone cladding, so I cant comment. According to the link you sent a building is required to withstand a fire for 3 hours. The article also stated that the steel only lost half its strength at this temperature and thus was within its factor of safety. However the buildings collapsed in about an hour so there is obviously a faiulre somewhere, either in design or in implementation. Like I said,, not pinning the floors to the outer shell of the building is throwing away a massive increase in strength which wouldnt have been particularly more difficult to implement. Just a few bolts on each beam would be sufficient.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
But how about WT7? How on earth did that collapse? It was almost untouched. A small fire, the impact of bulding debris. Many other buildings suffered similar fates that day without falling down.
Almost untouched? It had a tremendous gash in the side, about a quarter of the height of the building. But, like the twin towers, it wasn't the holes that toppled it - it was the fire. The gash lined up with the fuel system in the building, causing a horrific inferno. WTC7 collapsed for the same reason that the twin towers did, unlike the other buildings that failed to collapse.
-
I read that the fire in WT7 was not very large and didnt affect many floors. Did you read differently?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
I read that the fire in WT7 was not very large and didnt affect many floors. Did you read differently?
Yeah. This[^] is fairly disjointed, but interesting nonetheless. Not very large fire? The whole front of the building had smoke pouring out of it. Look[^] at it - there's no way that's a small fire affecting few floors.
-
I didnt design any buildings, I used to design brackets and fixings used in stone cladding, so I cant comment. According to the link you sent a building is required to withstand a fire for 3 hours. The article also stated that the steel only lost half its strength at this temperature and thus was within its factor of safety. However the buildings collapsed in about an hour so there is obviously a faiulre somewhere, either in design or in implementation. Like I said,, not pinning the floors to the outer shell of the building is throwing away a massive increase in strength which wouldnt have been particularly more difficult to implement. Just a few bolts on each beam would be sufficient.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
According to the link you sent a building is required to withstand a fire for 3 hours.
And it would've, if the fireproofing on the steel hadn't been blown off. Some engineers or whatever tested it, and found that the fireproofing that they used was actually quite easily removed by such an event.
fat_boy wrote:
The article also stated that the steel only lost half its strength at this temperature and thus was within its factor of safety.
It wasn't just losing half its strength, but also the severe temperature gradient across the steel beams that caused the failure. And once it started to collapse, there was no way it was going to remain standing.
fat_boy wrote:
Like I said,, not pinning the floors to the outer shell of the building is throwing away a massive increase in strength which wouldnt have been particularly more difficult to implement. Just a few bolts on each beam would be sufficient.
Well, I dunno why they did what they did, I've never designed a skyscraper. Presumably they knew what you're saying, otherwise they'd be the shittiest engineers on the planet...
modified on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:23 AM
-
fat_boy wrote:
According to the link you sent a building is required to withstand a fire for 3 hours.
And it would've, if the fireproofing on the steel hadn't been blown off. Some engineers or whatever tested it, and found that the fireproofing that they used was actually quite easily removed by such an event.
fat_boy wrote:
The article also stated that the steel only lost half its strength at this temperature and thus was within its factor of safety.
It wasn't just losing half its strength, but also the severe temperature gradient across the steel beams that caused the failure. And once it started to collapse, there was no way it was going to remain standing.
fat_boy wrote:
Like I said,, not pinning the floors to the outer shell of the building is throwing away a massive increase in strength which wouldnt have been particularly more difficult to implement. Just a few bolts on each beam would be sufficient.
Well, I dunno why they did what they did, I've never designed a skyscraper. Presumably they knew what you're saying, otherwise they'd be the shittiest engineers on the planet...
modified on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:23 AM
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Presumably they knew what you're saying, otherwise they'd be the shittiest engineers on the planet...
Wouldnt be the first time.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Wouldnt be the first time.
It wouldn't be the first time that a commercial jet piloted into a skyscraper at high speeds caused the skyscraper to fall because the engineers didn't bolt the floors to the supporting external tube columns? :confused:
-
fat_boy wrote:
Wouldnt be the first time.
It wouldn't be the first time that a commercial jet piloted into a skyscraper at high speeds caused the skyscraper to fall because the engineers didn't bolt the floors to the supporting external tube columns? :confused:
No, it wouldnt be the first time engineer have made serious mistakes. There was the wobbly bridge recently in Lonon for example. The engineers hadnt accounted for the fact that on a swaying object, people start to walk in step, making it sway more. It got so bad people were clinging on, stationary, terrified to move.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
No, it wouldnt be the first time engineer have made serious mistakes. There was the wobbly bridge recently in Lonon for example. The engineers hadnt accounted for the fact that on a swaying object, people start to walk in step, making it sway more. It got so bad people were clinging on, stationary, terrified to move.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
No, it wouldnt be the first time engineer have made serious mistakes. There was the wobbly bridge recently in Lonon for example. The engineers hadnt accounted for the fact that on a swaying object, people start to walk in step, making it sway more. It got so bad people were clinging on, stationary, terrified to move.
Yeah, but they fixed it, and the problem was a lot less simple than bolting a floor to a wall.
-
fat_boy wrote:
No, it wouldnt be the first time engineer have made serious mistakes. There was the wobbly bridge recently in Lonon for example. The engineers hadnt accounted for the fact that on a swaying object, people start to walk in step, making it sway more. It got so bad people were clinging on, stationary, terrified to move.
Yeah, but they fixed it, and the problem was a lot less simple than bolting a floor to a wall.
What are you arguning about? Are you trying to tell me engineers dont make mistakes? That things dont fuck up, fall over, break, collapse, or fail in any one of the thousands ways engineered products can do?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
What are you arguning about? Are you trying to tell me engineers dont make mistakes? That things dont fuck up, fall over, break, collapse, or fail in any one of the thousands ways engineered products can do?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
What are you arguning about? Are you trying to tell me engineers dont make mistakes? That things dont f*** up, fall over, break, collapse, or fail in any one of the thousands ways engineered products can do?
I'm not trying to say that engineers don't make mistakes. I'm just trying to avoid blaming them for the buildings collapsing. They're not bungling incompetents.
-
fat_boy wrote:
What are you arguning about? Are you trying to tell me engineers dont make mistakes? That things dont f*** up, fall over, break, collapse, or fail in any one of the thousands ways engineered products can do?
I'm not trying to say that engineers don't make mistakes. I'm just trying to avoid blaming them for the buildings collapsing. They're not bungling incompetents.
OK. Starting fomr basics, a product is engineered to be functional given its expected usage. The bridge in London was engineered to take pedestrian traffic at a certain density (giving a figure for the maximum load it can carry). But they didnt count on the slight lateral movement of the bridge being amplified by the nature on the way in which people walk when reacting to a slight lateral movement of what they are walking on. Thus was the product fit for its purpose? No. Therefore the engineers fialed. The WTC buildings were engineered to take an impact from a 707. Given that planes genrally have fule in them one owuld expect the design to handle not only the kinetic effect of the impact but also the thermal effect of the burning fuel. Did the buildings meet this design target when tested? No. Therefore the engineering failed.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
OK. Starting fomr basics, a product is engineered to be functional given its expected usage. The bridge in London was engineered to take pedestrian traffic at a certain density (giving a figure for the maximum load it can carry). But they didnt count on the slight lateral movement of the bridge being amplified by the nature on the way in which people walk when reacting to a slight lateral movement of what they are walking on. Thus was the product fit for its purpose? No. Therefore the engineers fialed. The WTC buildings were engineered to take an impact from a 707. Given that planes genrally have fule in them one owuld expect the design to handle not only the kinetic effect of the impact but also the thermal effect of the burning fuel. Did the buildings meet this design target when tested? No. Therefore the engineering failed.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
The WTC buildings were engineered to take an impact from a 707.
You keep saying that, but, well, see point 1[^].
fat_boy wrote:
Given that planes genrally have fule in them one owuld expect the design to handle not only the kinetic effect of the impact but also the thermal effect of the burning fuel.
Except that it wasn't really the burning fuel that toppled the tower. It was the fires it caused, which were spread widely throughout the tower due to the impact, which also removed the insulation from the steel. Nobody could've predicted such an unusual combination of circumstances, especially not before the techniques to analyse them weren't very far developed.
-
fat_boy wrote:
The WTC buildings were engineered to take an impact from a 707.
You keep saying that, but, well, see point 1[^].
fat_boy wrote:
Given that planes genrally have fule in them one owuld expect the design to handle not only the kinetic effect of the impact but also the thermal effect of the burning fuel.
Except that it wasn't really the burning fuel that toppled the tower. It was the fires it caused, which were spread widely throughout the tower due to the impact, which also removed the insulation from the steel. Nobody could've predicted such an unusual combination of circumstances, especially not before the techniques to analyse them weren't very far developed.
Reread the link, it only states that documentation regarding the analysis used could not be found so the statement could not be vefiried. As stated ... a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ...indicated that the impact of a ... Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Except that it wasn't really the burning fuel that toppled the tower. It was the fires it caused, which were spread widely throughout the tower due to the impact, which also removed the insulation from the steel. Nobody could've predicted such an unusual combination of circumstances, especially not before the techniques to analyse them weren't very far developed.
I could answer this is about 6 different ways, but I'll let you answer it since you know you are talking crap.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Reread the link, it only states that documentation regarding the analysis used could not be found so the statement could not be vefiried. As stated ... a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ...indicated that the impact of a ... Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Except that it wasn't really the burning fuel that toppled the tower. It was the fires it caused, which were spread widely throughout the tower due to the impact, which also removed the insulation from the steel. Nobody could've predicted such an unusual combination of circumstances, especially not before the techniques to analyse them weren't very far developed.
I could answer this is about 6 different ways, but I'll let you answer it since you know you are talking crap.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
I could answer this is about 6 different ways, but I'll let you answer it since you know you are talking crap.
So, is this an official proclamation that you would've predicted this? You would've sat down and said, "Let's consider what would've happened if a jet was commandeered into the tower. Well, the insulation would obviously be first to go, and the fuel would..." and so on.
-
fat_boy wrote:
I could answer this is about 6 different ways, but I'll let you answer it since you know you are talking crap.
So, is this an official proclamation that you would've predicted this? You would've sat down and said, "Let's consider what would've happened if a jet was commandeered into the tower. Well, the insulation would obviously be first to go, and the fuel would..." and so on.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
"Let's consider what would've happened if a jet was commandeered into the tower. Well, the insulation would obviously be first to go, and the fuel would..." and so on.
If you were designing a building to survive a plane impact do you suppose the discussion would be very different from that?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
"Let's consider what would've happened if a jet was commandeered into the tower. Well, the insulation would obviously be first to go, and the fuel would..." and so on.
If you were designing a building to survive a plane impact do you suppose the discussion would be very different from that?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
If you were designing a building to survive a plane impact do you suppose the discussion would be very different from that?
I imagine it would've gone more like: "OK, the maximum stress the beams can support is blah, and the expected stress will be blah, and a jet crashing will be about blah, so we're covered there. The support beams are properly fireproofed, so even if the jet causes a fire the beams will be protected, so I guess we're covered there. OK, I think we're good to go!" I mean, the buildings DID survive the impact, quite easily in fact, and they probably would've survived the fire if the insulation was intact.
-
fat_boy wrote:
If you were designing a building to survive a plane impact do you suppose the discussion would be very different from that?
I imagine it would've gone more like: "OK, the maximum stress the beams can support is blah, and the expected stress will be blah, and a jet crashing will be about blah, so we're covered there. The support beams are properly fireproofed, so even if the jet causes a fire the beams will be protected, so I guess we're covered there. OK, I think we're good to go!" I mean, the buildings DID survive the impact, quite easily in fact, and they probably would've survived the fire if the insulation was intact.
-
Remind me never to get into a product you engineered! :) And they wouldnt have collapsed if the floor were joined solidly to the shell.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Remind me never to get into a product you engineered!
Well, obviously they didn't know that the insulation would be so effortlessly removed, and that was probably the main factor in the collapse, so what's so unreasonable about my hypothetical discussion? Giving artistic license, of course. ;P
fat_boy wrote:
And they wouldnt have collapsed if the floor were joined solidly to the shell.
You can't know that.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Remind me never to get into a product you engineered!
Well, obviously they didn't know that the insulation would be so effortlessly removed, and that was probably the main factor in the collapse, so what's so unreasonable about my hypothetical discussion? Giving artistic license, of course. ;P
fat_boy wrote:
And they wouldnt have collapsed if the floor were joined solidly to the shell.
You can't know that.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, obviously they didn't know that the insulation would be so effortlessly removed
What, after being smacked into by tonnes of airplane?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You can't know that.
If floor collapse was part of the failure, and most analysis points in this direction, then pinning them to the skin and central colllumn, would have made a big difference.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Well, obviously they didn't know that the insulation would be so effortlessly removed
What, after being smacked into by tonnes of airplane?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You can't know that.
If floor collapse was part of the failure, and most analysis points in this direction, then pinning them to the skin and central colllumn, would have made a big difference.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
What, after being smacked into by tonnes of airplane?
Not even just that - the fast movement of air it caused, apparently, stripped the insulation off.
fat_boy wrote:
If floor collapse was part of the failure, and most analysis points in this direction, then pinning them to the skin and central colllumn, would have made a big difference.
Well, I thought that the floors were anchored to the walls: http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm[^]. I'm not sure what to make of it.
