In my best Michael Holding rasta accent:

"And now Len Colby emerges from the pavillion".

In my best Michael Holding rasta accent:

"And now Len Colby emerges from the pavillion".

Light refreshment, anyone?

I'm interested to see what Len has to say, because it has been proven in the past that many of the engineering experts proclaiming siding with the 9/11 CT side have actually not been experts at all.

Even if all 14 persons are qualified to speak authoritative on the matter, I would like to see more from them on their specific objections. There have been calls of "I support Dr Jones", which are quite fair - but they must also accept that the vast majority of their peers not only do not agree with them, but they reject the analysis of Dr Jones.

If for no other reason than to put this matter to rest, I would support a review of the circumstances by a panel of qualified personnel, all of which have been approved / endorsed by a body of professional engineers.

blah, blah, blah - Yes Peter.

Probably no better example will be found as to why this discussion forum rapidly lost its appeal. No substance, simply demeaning in a churlish way. Surely you can do better, Evan. No matter though. No breath held. You are as you are.

The canard that 'less than half' of this or that group of professionals have not to your satisfaction stood up and spoken against the current fiction of historical mythology is, just that, a canard. Ever heard of fear of loosing their jobs? Despite that a majority of Americans and even more non-Americans question the fiction as presented by the US Government.

The problem is that when you chrunch numbers you get some minisculefration of a percent of "this or that group of professionals" supports the claims of the truthers I believe at last count about 20 of the 100,000 or so licensed structural engineers has done so. Most of them have areas of expertise in things life irrigation etc. I don't know of any licensed structural engineers with exerience related to buildings more than 3 stories tall who question the NIST report's conclusion that the towers collapsed due to the impact of the airliner impacts alone. A conclusion accepted by Leslie Robertson the lead structural engineer of the WTC whose wife worked on the earlier ASCE/FEMA Report and by Hyman Brown the construction manager for the complex and accepted by engineering professors from MIT, Northwestern, UC Berkley etc. But hey what do they know, the opinions of a handful of ship hull, oil rig and high school gym structural engineers is more authoritative!

Fear of getting fired doesn't adequately explain the dearth of engineers who support the truthers claims, many are retired, others are tenured professors, some presumably would risk their jobs to tell the truth and AFAIK none of the enginers who've come forward have lost their jobs.

Probably no better example will be found as to why this discussion forum rapidly lost its appeal. No substance, simply demeaning in a churlish way. Surely you can do better, Evan. No matter though. No breath held. You are as you are.

Richard,

I already made my reply - the opinions are very much against the mainstream, not supported by their peers. Even so, I would support a thorough reinvestigation by QUALIFED individuals and undergoing some type of peer review process. Peter finds this objectionable in some way, and so from long experience I know it is simply better to ignore his rants.

Borg blah blah blah Borg blah Borg blah blah.

Yes Peter.

---------------

Moderator Moderate Thy Self!

The problem is that when you chrunch numbers you get some minisculefration of a percent of "this or that group of professionals" supports the claims of the truthers I believe at last count about 20 of the 100,000 or so licensed structural engineers has done so.

Typical of Len.

Always specific with facts!
Never makes to much of a phrase or isolated instance!
Never willing to overgeneralize.!
Always sceptical of the government that forgot the Maine, Tonkin Gulf and WMD!
Never stooping to glib dismissal!
LOL
Is this and "Ad hom?" Go back and read his last post again.

Well said.

Why? Am I not allowed an opinion?

Oooh I misspelled the words 'minuscule' and 'fraction' and forgot to put a space between them (or didn't hit the space bar hard enough) how can I ever live down the shame?!

PS That should have read "10,000 or so licensed structural engineers" I think I conflated the number of Civil and structural engineers. I will make a correction forthwith.

Of course NOT Evan! Only those who agree with the majority should be allowed to post here, especially if they are a moderator. Shame on you for asking such a ridiculous question!

So you wise moderators who agree with the majority of corporate media "thought" can characterize another's post as "blah blah blah" and it is not considered in need of moderation. got it. Geez Your descent is speeding up! So glad you are qualified as a moderator! Do you write for one of Murdochs 3,500 publications. You blah quite well.

Of course NOT Evan! Only those who agree with the majority should be allowed to post here, especially if they are a moderator. Shame on you for asking such a ridiculous question!

I am also sorry that members of the forum stop posting because of the presence of people like Len Colby and Tim Gratz. However, I will not ban them from this forum because I will not resort to the methods of right and left-wing dictatorships.

The administrator of this Forum seems to have a less restrictive view:

Blah blah Borg blah.

Yes Peter.

Mike in case you missed it I was being sarcastic.....

Dr. Steven Jones et.al. Published in Peer Reviewed Civil Engineering Journal

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

Brilliant strategic tactic, reversing the arguement and restating it as areas of agreement......someone has been reading 'Art of War'.

http://skeptosis.blogspot.com/2007/02/fire...teel-facts.html
Interesting site.

"So again, just to re-state the undebunkable truth, prior to 9/11, no steel-framed building
had ever fully collapsed due to fire."

Jack

The Madrid Windsor Building is situated in the heart of the Spanish capital's financial district and was a distinct and familiar landmark on the city's skyline. Built between 1974 and 1978 by architects Alas Casariego, its occupants included high profile corporate clients including accountants Deloitte and Spanish legal firm Garrigues.

The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

The tower was built using normal strength concrete and before modern fire proofing standards, without any sprinkler system. It was undergoing a complete refurbishment, including the installation of various active fire prevention and resistance measures, when the fire began at around 11pm on 14 February 2005. Fortunately the building was empty of people at the time.

The fire started on the 21st floor and quickly spread both above and below. Upward spread was by means of internal openings made as a result of the refurbishment and the failure of fire stops between the perimeter column and steel/glass façade. Downward spread is thought to have been caused by burning façade debris falling through windows on lower floors.

Because of the height of the structure and the extent of the blaze, firefighters could only mount a containment operation and ensure that neighbouring buildings were protected. The fire eventually finished 26 hours later, leaving a complete burn-out above the fifth floor. The steel-glass façade was completely destroyed, exposing the concrete perimeter columns. The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor. The insurance value of the total damage caused was €122 million.

Crucially, the building remained standing despite the intensity of the fire. An investigation is underway between Spanish technical agency Intemac and UK authorities including Arup Fire, the University of Edinburgh and the concrete industry including Cembureau, BCA and The Concrete Centre. Preliminary findings suggest that a combination of the upper technical floor and the excellent passive fire resistance of the tower's concrete columns and core prevented total building collapse.

The fire is significant in terms of its potential similarities between the collapse of the building's steel frame above the 17th floor and the experience seen at the World Trade Center. Notably, one of the recommendations of NIST's interim report on the World Trade Center disaster is for tall building design to incorporate 'strong points' within the frame.

The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors.

Evan, This building was a concrete framed building as stated above from your article. I believe Jack and the Skeptosis blog are referring to steel framed buildings. The WTC 1, 2 & 7 were steel framed.

Okay, so what is the point of all the articles?

That concrete is more resistant to fire? That steel framed building are more suscepible to collapse from fire?

I appreciate that you are not an expert on this subject, but neither am I.... but what is your take on the subject, based on the preceding articles? That steel framed buildings can collapse given fire heating them, or that concrete framed buildings are less susceptible to fire damage?

The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from 1970-20021 identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:

* Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)
* Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)
* Brick/Masonry: 5
* Wood: 2
* Unknown: 2

Well, my general take on it would be (from these articles and the NIST GCR 02-843 report. ) that steel framed building are stronger than concrete framed ones.



You will note that of the 6 structural steel buildings quoted above from the report 4 of them were the WTC buildings 1, 2, 5, 7. All of these buildings collapsed totally. Of the other two remaining buildings One New York Plaza (NY, NY, 08/05/70) and Alexis Nihon Plaza (Montreal, Canada, 10/26/96) these were only a partial collapse.

1. One New York Plaza (NY, NY, 08/05/70) - partial collapse
50-story office building. Fire caused several steel filler beams on the 33-34th floors to fall and rest on the bottom flanges of their supporting girders.

2. Alexis Nihon Plaza (Montreal, Canada, 10/26/96) - partial collapse
15-story steel-framed office building. Approximately five hours after the fire started, a section of the 11th floor collapsed onto the 10th floor.

Ergo WTC buildings 1, 2, 5, and 7 are the only steel (not reinforced concrete structures) ever to have completely collapsed due to 'fire'.

Edit: Building 5 of WTC was only a partial collapse not complete.

Maggie....contrary to your information, Building FIVE DID NOT COLLAPSE, but
had three holes punched in the roof. See below.

Evan My first impression is that you are wrong, that steel construction is more suscepible than concrete... but I don't have anythong more than my uninformed opinion to back that up at this stage.

The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:

* Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)
* Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)
* Brick/Masonry: 5
* Wood: 2
* Unknown: 2

Evan, look again at this list. This is the list from the NIST survey of fire induced collapses from years 1970 to 2002. Even if you accept that the WTC towers were destroyed by fire that still only makes 6 steel structures destroyed versus 7 concrete ones. Last time I checked 6 was still less than 7. More concrete building were destroyed by fire than steel structured ones. If you take away the WTC and Pentagon buildings from consideration it comes down to 2 steel framed buildings and 6 concrete buildings ever destroyed by fire induced collapse.

Maggie such a comparison is only relevant if we know the relative number of steel and concrete framed buildings. In Brazil at least steel framed buildings are in the over whelming minority. What the Windsor building fire showed is that stupid comparisons to Coleman stoves aside structural steel IS susceptible to fire and in relatively short time frames under the right (or should I say wrong?) conditions. Several smaller steel framed buildings other structures have collapsed or partially collapsed in fires.

Including:

The Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania(1)
The McCormick Center in Chicago (1)
A Toy factory in Bangkok (2)
A few other small buildings (1)
A highway over pass in Oakland CA (3)

You mentioned the Meridian building while it didn't collapse the Philadelphia fire department and structural engineers feared it might (1).

I don't think anyone on this forum is qualified to say whether steel or concrete franes are more fire resistant. The Windsor fire suggests the latter. Also a UC Berkley engineer who led one of the four major studies o fthe WTC collapses advocated coating steel elements of brides and overpasses to make the more fire resistant (3)

Dr. Mir M. Ali, a professor of architecture at the University of Illinois said. "It's better to build in reinforced concrete, If there is an impact, crash or explosion, it can absorb the energy better. That makes the building less vulnerable…The trend is toward more concrete…An all-concrete structure would have lasted longer [than the Twin Towers]." (4)

1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/4358
2 http://web.archive.org/web/20070307071310/...h=0&ssect=0
3 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan...pass_05-10.html
4 http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/NYTimes91801.htm

---------------------


Maggie such a comparison is only relevant if we know the relative number of steel and concrete framed buildings. In Brazil at least steel framed buildings are in the over whelming minority. What the Windsor building fire showed is that stupid comparisons to Coleman stoves aside structural steel IS susceptible to fire and in relatively short time frames under the right (or should I say wrong?) conditions. Several smaller steel framed buildings other structures have collapsed or partially collapsed in fires.

Including:

The Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania(1)
The McCormick Center in Chicago (1)
A Toy factory in Bangkok (2)
A few other small buildings (1)
A highway over pass in Oakland CA (3)

You mentioned the Meridian building while it didn’t collapse the Philadelphia fire department and structural engineers feared it might (1).

I don’t think anyone on this forum is qualified to say whether steel or concrete franes are more fire resistant. The Windsor fire suggests the latter. Also a UC Berkley engineer who led one of the four major studies o fthe WTC collapses advocated coating steel elements of brides and overpasses to make the more fire resistant (3)

Dr. Mir M. Ali, a professor of architecture at the University of Illinois said. "It's better to build in reinforced concrete, If there is an impact, crash or explosion, it can absorb the energy better. That makes the building less vulnerable…The trend is toward more concrete…An all-concrete structure would have lasted longer [than the Twin Towers]." (4)

1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/4358
2 http://web.archive.org/web/20070307071310/...h=0&ssect=0
3 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan...pass_05-10.html
4 http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/NYTimes91801.htm

Nathaniel, Maggie

The number of floors raises an interesting issue. Is a taller steel-framed building MORE or LESS susceptible to collapse if involved in a fire?

For instance:

Let's assume same building construction, same fire, only the number of floors in each building is different.

Building A: 3 storey building (ground floor, floor 1, floor 2), fire on floor 1.

Building B: 15 storey building (ground floor, floor 1, floor 2, ..... floor 15), fire on floor 1.

Which building is more likely to collapse? Building B has a greater load on it, so is it the more likely in the above example?