Jump to content
The Education Forum

Steve Ulman

Members
  • Content Count

    239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Steve Ulman

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    New England, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

12,211 profile views
  1. Guess Bill Clinton was in on the planning as well. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c68_1193347304&p=1
  2. Jack- The title of the thread states "Architectural Forum" - Please provide a link to the forum.
  3. Jack- His explanation of the load bearing characteristics of the outer walls coincides with the way I understand the buildings were constructed (told to me by a Professional Structural Engineer - who had inspected the towers after the '93 bombing). However, they were not a "Curtain Wall" design. A "Curtain Wall" is just what it sounds like - a curtain "hung" on the outside of the building. My apologies - Perhaps you did misunderstand him. In terms of whether or not the buildings were "steel framed" - there is some nuance involved here. ALL loads in the Towers and WTC-7 were carried by st
  4. I know I said I wasn't going to discuss this anymore but I cannot let this disinformation / misinformation pass. Jack exhibits his abysmal lack of information regarding the WTC bldgs when he says: "The twin towers were NOT STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS. They were a newer type of construction called CURTAIN WALL." Neither of the Twin Towers or WTC-7 had a curtain wall. From Wikipedia: In all three buildings the outer walls carried building loads. Anyone who has researched 9-11 knows this - EXECPT jack! This isn't the first time jack has shown a lack of research skills regardijng 9-11 and I'm
  5. Bernice - I am very familiar with that photo. It is used by many CT's to give a false impression of a "massive" central core. Yes, the photo does give a good view of how the Towers were constructed, but unless you know what you are looking at, it can be very misleading, which is why the CT's use it so much. As mentioned on this site in many threads, possibly even this one, (I'm not going to take the time to find out) the "massive" and heavily braced sections at the corners of the core are the supports for the 4 tower cranes, which were removed once construction was completed. I'll bet you
  6. Peter- I think its a good overview explanation of the collapse of the Towers. I haven't been able to really go through it in detail (maybe this weekend). One quick item - I'm not sure how much weaker the central core columns were compared to the outer columns, especially considering they acted as a system because they were tied together at each floor by the concrete slab. You may want to elaborate on that. As for the Kansas City Hyatt - IRRC the structural engineer of record lost his PE license because of the collapse. What has always shaken me up about that incident is how obvious the mi
  7. Regarding my fact checking - I've sent the request to the BBC: The reason 21:54 GMT = 4:54 EST 21:54 GMT = 5:54 EDT 21:54 BST = 3:54 EST 21:54 BST = 4:54 EDT (I think I got that right - after all its 3:48AM EST) Confused yet? {edit to fix last line - was 21:54 GMT = 4:54 EDT}
  8. {edit - Fact checking my post - need info on GMT/BST/EST/EDT- Stay tuned...}
  9. Ron - You're not crazy. At least no more so than anyone else here. George posted his article twice. Your post was in the "Loose Change: Second Edition" thread. Kevin West has responded.
  10. Back to the top. Ron- I do not have an answer right now because I've never really thought about it. I've never found it incongruous that the center cores didn't survive considering that a 20 and a 10 story office tower fell on each of them respectively. Also remember, the pile was several stories tall, I don't know for sure, but based on some photos I've seen, it looks like some might have remained upright within the pile but not significantly higher.
  11. Sid- Thanks for your reply. I’ll try to address each point, and you’re correct, we may have to agree to disagree. Concrete towerblock – I accept your explanation. (whew – that was easy!) As to you’re statement “I think that the official versions of the THREE WTC collapses are not plausible in the least.” – I do not look at them as a single event. The engineer in me wants to review each event separately and then play “connect the dots” once I understand each event. This is the only way to understand the mechanics behind the failures. For instance, if WTC-2 had been the only tower hit, then
×
×
  • Create New...