Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sign in to follow this  
Jack White

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

Recommended Posts

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

----------

Len writes:

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)

Intending to conflate these in some ways with high skyscrapers. This is far beyone apples and oranges. Combined with these words "or partially collapsed"

we are in the realm of apples and Japanes-constructed street cleaners. Come on Len, we know your swimming downstream, but you could at least kick now and then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Postscript

The BBC broadcast occurred just as I have reported it. You can find it on YouTube, for example, where reporter Jane Stanley is stating that "The Solomon Brothers Building" has collapsed and over her left shoulder you can see WTC-7 in the background. No steel structure high-rise had ever collapsed before due to fire, yet we are supposed to believe that on 9/11 it happened three times!

Significantly, I returned to Madison only to discover a series of recent posts that confirm the themes of my presentation. One was a report of Benjamin Netanyahu telling an audience at Bar Ilan University that the 9/11 terror attacks “were good for Israel”. Netanyahu, by the way, just happens to be a close personal friend of Larry Silverstein. These relationships are important to understanding 9/11.

Disturbingly, there were also several reports about studies that have been done of the consequences of a nuclear attack on Washington, D.C. They suggest that an attack with a nuclear device near The White House would kill around 100,000 people and flatten federal buildings. The panel that called for these studies is chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Israel’s strongest ally in the Senate.

The New York Times (20 April 2008) has now published an extensive study confirming that the Pentagon and the mass media have used “independent military experts” with massive conflicts of interest to evaluate progress in Iraq. And, to my astonishment, The Times (24 April 2008) reported that General Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA, will resign his commission but continue with his position during the coming summer.

Additional links:

Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel (16 April 2008)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975574.html

Nuclear attack on D.C. a hypothetical disaster (16 April 2008)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d.../556828862/1001

Risk of Nuclear Attack on Rise (16 April 2008)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8041502969.html

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand (20 April 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washingt...amp;oref=slogin

C.I.A. Director Announces He’ll Retire from Air Force (24 April 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/washingt...rtner=BREITBART

MORE ABOUT THIS ARTICLE:

9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda (with links)

http://911scholars.org (scroll down the home page)

9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda (slightly edited with illustrations and links)

http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPages/Too...Con_Agenda.html

The Real News James Fetzer, 15 April 2008 (video)

Prof. Jim Fetzer recounts Freedom Rally Speech, 15 April 2008 (audio)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=66...04816&hl=en

Thanks for that, Jan. I have no background in news / media, but know from experience that (in Australia at least) media reporting can be wildly wrong, especially when it comes to a chaotic situation. Caveats should be given, and sometimes are - but certainly not always.

I still rely on hard evidence for my views on 9/11. To date, no-one has produced any 'smoking gun' or any verifiable evidence that says it was an inside job, it was MIHOP, LIHOP, etc. Did the current US administration take full political advantage of it? Hell, yes. Did they use it as a pretext for further operations in Afghanistan and Iraq? Hell, yes. Are they covering up for failures in the system that day, systemic or individual, accountable or not? Hell, yes. Did they blow up buildings with controlled demolitions or fly unmanned aircraft / missiles into others? Hell, no. The only facet which might hold some truth is that Flight 93 was shot down by US forces in order to stop it attacking a target, and that the Administration now wants to cover up that incident (even though it would have been an understandable action in the chaos of that day).

I'll review my opinions when I see evidence - not people speaking on subjects which they do not have a background in, not professional giving opions on which the overwhelming majority of their professional peers disagree with, not innuendo and fairy tales.

Evidence. Facts.

(end rant)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had another thought.

When the summer time clocks change, there is often one week when the time difference between US Eastern Seaboard Time and UK time is six hours, rather than five.

I don't think September 11 is, or has been, within that summer time transition period when the time differences are out of kilter, Jan.

April to October uniformly in the US in 2001:

http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/e.html

The UK in 2001 was March to October, adopted by the EU in 1996.

I concur with the others in thanking you for sharing your info and experiences on this. (and links).

Edited by Mark Stapleton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

This shows an ignorance of engineering principles. LOAD is not transferred to other FLOORS. LOAD IS

TRANSFERRED BY STEEL STRUCTURES TO BEDROCK. No floor would have a load any greater than

any other floor.

The WTC towers had a strong STEEL CENTRAL CORE WHICH SUPPORTED THE BULK OF THE WEIGHT.

Steel thickness ranged from 4 inches at bedrock level to a quarter inch at the top. In addition the

oustide wall was supported by 244 steel box columns, also tapered in the same manner. Each floor

was supported on the inside by the CENTRAL CORE and on the outside by the BOX COLUMNS. NO

FLOOR BORE ANY WEIGHT FROM ANY FLOOR BELOW OR ABOVE IT. The steel bore all the weight.

The floors were lightweight concrete and steel.

Jack

Edited by Jack White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I openly admit my ignorance of construction engineering principles - it's not my field. That's why I asked Nathaniel and Maggie, to seek their opinion.

They are not engineers (to the best of my knowledge) but we could discuss what we think would happen.

Likewise, you are not an engineer Jack, though your opinions are noted. They may well be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not an expert Evan but Jacks's reply does have the ring of truth about it. I recall hearing something similar while listening to a lecture about cantilevered structural design many moons ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I'm not an expert Evan but Jacks's reply does have the ring of truth about it. I recall hearing something similar while listening to a lecture about cantilevered structural design many moons ago.

I have spent several hours, maybe as many as 8 or 10, reading papers

by architects and engineers on the construction of the WTC. I profess to

know more than the average person.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone know - is it normal to pay to have your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal? I ask because Dr Jones would appear to have paid $600 to have his article published in that journal. This might be normal procedures, but it sounds strange to me.

Peter, Jack, Prof Fetzer:

So the much vaunted peer-reviewed paper from Dr Jones actually turned out to be a letter to an obscure online journal, for which Dr Jones (or someone on his behalf) had to pay $600 to the journal in order to be published?

Ah! Smells like credibility..... not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is interesting. I'm watching the programme "World Trade Center - The Rise and Fall of an American Icon" on the History Channel, and they were describing the collapse. It mentioned how the impact point on the south tower (75 - 58) was some 10 or more storeys below the earlier impact on the north tower (94 - 98).

They described how because the impact point on the south tower was lower, the damaged area had to support more load than the north tower and thus collapsed first.

Okay, this is a programme on the History Channel, but it backs up what I thought would be the case - more floors above means supporting greater load.

I'll see if I can find an engineer to explain if this is correct or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, this is interesting. I'm watching the programme "World Trade Center - The Rise and Fall of an American Icon" on the History Channel, and they were describing the collapse. It mentioned how the impact point on the south tower (75 - 58) was some 10 or more storeys below the earlier impact on the north tower (94 - 98).

They described how because the impact point on the south tower was lower, the damaged area had to support more load than the north tower and thus collapsed first.

Okay, this is a programme on the History Channel, but it backs up what I thought would be the case - more floors above means supporting greater load.

Please demonstrate how the massive vertical steel tri-cores pancake

collapsed in free-fall speed into their own footprint.

This is like claiming that a lamp-post out on the street could pancake

collapse into its own footprint!

I'll see if I can find an engineer to explain if this is correct or not.

Anyone who questions the official lie is attacked.

It takes extraodinary guts for people to come forward on this.

The 9/11 Lie Machine is ever ready to slander and smear anyone

who dares challenge their belief system.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/o...24thur2-24.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many competent people who are unembedded in the government or entities dependant on them, have already spoken to this - you make it sound like this new....

Many? 14 out of how many? 1000? 5000? 10,000?

Competent? Like Dr Jones, who pays an obscure journal to publish his letter, because he knows his theories would be torn to pieces by his peers?

What about competent people who have not ties - like Dr Frank Greening, retired?

That is also why you and LC-911 find it essential to be at the tail end of every 911 thread - to put in that 'dash' of doubt. Why don't you start a thread on how the official version is correct?

I always want to ensure that any misconceptions, disinformation, or blatent inaccuracies (like a 20 min intercept for Payne Stewart) are corrected. I want to ensure people hear all sides, are provided with reference and sources they can check, so they can determine for themselves what is correct and what is not.

One doesn't have to be a building engineer to get the basics of this and see the impossibility of the official version. High school physics will do fine. Even common sense. Had you been reading all the cited items and websites, films et al I and others have posted you'd realize that won't wash. Core columns were massive and supported most of the weight load and never got hot enough to loose their ability to. Doesn't explain any of the events seen, nor manner of collapses, and not worth any more time on it.

So you raise yourself above many highly qualified professionals? Who say the collapse was a unique and complicated event, involving a huge number of factors? That is awfully conceited - even for you.

Watch Gage's presentation. http://911blogger.com/node/10025

Oh yes - Richard Gage. The same Richard Gage who thinks thermate + semi-silent huge explosives were used to destroy the towers. The Richard Gage who showed videos of controlled demolitions, but altered the soundtracks to omit the sound of explosions.

There is that nasty credibility problem again. Facts are stubborn things for truthers, aren't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you raise yourself above many highly qualified professionals? Who say the collapse was a unique and complicated event, involving a huge number of factors? That is awfully conceited - even for you.

So unique it happened 3 times in one day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×