Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of World Trade Center Building 7

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You didn't think this through very well, did you? Do you really think the government wants to "find out" what really happened? Of course not, that would mean that either they lied about the official story or don't believe their official story. This would raise doubts as to why they thought they had the pretext start wars. You must not be a believer in History. Remember the Reich-stag, Hitler, and his "minority" following at the time? You should have learned about it in 7th grade, you know, the grade where you learn also about the laws of gravity, physics, melting points of various metals, how to use reason, common sense, and so on.

And since when did a a group of people being a minority discredit them? Does that mean since African Americans are a minority that their claims of racism against them are false? I mean, why would we ever listen to them? They are a minority after all!
edit on 08/10/2011 by deadmessiah because: spelling




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

The steel distribution did seem to be something of a mystery and was given out by the NIST in their report, in other words, previously it had to be deduced by anyone who wanted to know, and possibly by NIST themselves. That could be one reason for Gage's reaction I don't know.

[Anyway most of the (heavy perimeter steel) shot off to all sides in the collapses, and the core steel collapsed after everything else had gone.]

Sorry, ignore the last paragraph in brackets which is relevant to the twin towers.

edit on 18-8-2011 by smurfy because: Amendment.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by SirMike
Correction, architects design aesthetics, it’s the licensed structural engineers who figure out how to make it work.


That is not true. An architect has to design every part of a building, including everything from materials used to the safety features. They have to know building design inside and out (no pun). So yes they had better know if a building can collapse, and how.

A structural engineer works from the plans provided by the architect. A SE can also design structures of course, but they usually design features that are incorporated into designs by the architect. Or the architect can consult an SE to see if something they want will work if it's not already established.


Thats not enitrely true .... actually, thats not true at all. Architect concentrate on flow and aesthetics, engineers work out all the details. Indeed, the structural engineers who certify the designs, are the ones who carry both the civil liability if there is a defect, not the architect.

An architect's license DOEST NOT qualify them to design structural components or certify them.

Why do you think a licensed SE makes 15-20% more than an architect?

Wait, dont answer, I dont want to hear about some grand conspiracy involving TBTB to make you look silly.


I have yet to debate one of you OSers who has any clue about construction, engineering, or physics. You are all arguing from assumptions, and misinformation you grasp at because it seems to your layman mind to make sense. Well there was a time when a lot of people thought the world being flat made sense.


My PE certification is good in 14 states ... hows yours?
edit on 18-8-2011 by SirMike because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


You're an engineer? It's about time one of you speaks up on this forum.

What do you think about the official story of the collapse of WTC7? Do you believe that one core column failure is capable of causing a symmetrical, free-fall collapse?
edit on 18-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
"Dutch Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko Dies In “Car Crash”
www.veteranstoday.com...

hmmmmmm



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadmessiah
reply to post by SirMike
 


Also, since you seem to be an expert in this area, explain to me at what temperature does steel melt? Don't bring the "it can weaken at lower temps" BS in. Tell me what temperature does steel melt at. (Hint: I already know, I just hope you do, seeings as how you claim to be an architect of some sort.)


Blah blah blah melted steel blah blah blah blah ... the support beams warped and broke their connections because of differential heating. I'm sure you are familiar with the concept, what with your decades of experience, education and what not, so I will spare you the lecture (hint, its why panel welding is such a problem).



That combined with weakening from the fire did the members in .

But let me guess, you are far to smart to fall for this.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Im not an SE, so I cant point to all the specifics of the NIST study, but it seems to make sense and they had some very good people work on it.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 




Im not an SE, so I cant point to all the specifics of the NIST study, but it seems to make sense and they had some very good people work on it.
I disagree entirely, the explanation of one core column failure causing a symmetrical collapse doesn't make sense at all.

Add to that the free-fall, the kink indicating a central core column failure (which isn't where the column they said failed was located), and explosions heard during the collapse, and you have a collapse that matches up on several levels with a controlled demolition.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 

What are you then, a surveyor?
If you believe the towers collapsed because of the diesel fuel and subsequent fire, there is really not much point in discussing this matter.
From one sir to another, you seriously discredit your anonymous self. Perhaps, that is the point. The professionals I hang with would laugh you out of the room, dude.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SirClem
 


Good for you then. Let me know when you an your "friends" get you PE's and then we can have a grownup discussion.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


lol. I called it once again. I'll refer you to the countless eyewitness testimonies from credible sources such as fire fighters and police officers who observed molten steel. Weakened steel is not molten steel. Also, weakened steel is no going to lead to a near free fall "pancake" collapse. The top would have broken off to one side and fallen, as its not natural for a falling object to go through the area of greater resistance.

I don't think you know much about structures, or 7th grade for that matter. Countless steel buildings have had fires that raged for much longer and hotter than those of the WTC, yet, they didn't collapse.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by deadmessiah
reply to post by SirMike
 


Also, since you seem to be an expert in this area, explain to me at what temperature does steel melt? Don't bring the "it can weaken at lower temps" BS in. Tell me what temperature does steel melt at. (Hint: I already know, I just hope you do, seeings as how you claim to be an architect of some sort.)


Blah blah blah melted steel blah blah blah blah ... the support beams warped and broke their connections because of differential heating. I'm sure you are familiar with the concept, what with your decades of experience, education and what not, so I will spare you the lecture (hint, its why panel welding is such a problem).



That combined with weakening from the fire did the members in .

But let me guess, you are far to smart to fall for this.



ok mr. engineer, i see you put up a nice little graph on elasticity of metal under certain temperatures, that's fine, it doesn't however take in the fact of thickness of the metal, doesn't take in the fact that the fires were not distributed evenly throughout the building. doesn't take in the fact that the fire was burning at a right angle to the structural metal's surface, doesn't take in the fact that any object that falls against another object of the same material will degrade proportionately to the object( of the same material) that is being hit, thereby only damaging a proportionate amount of the said material....any columns that weren't "effected" by the fire would still be structurally sound, therefore would take a much larger strain and would not be ready to be compromised as easily as the other.....thereby causing an asymmetrical collapse.....we did not witness asymmetrical, we witnessed symmetrical at nearly free fall speed, there was no fits and jerks that were visible to the naked eye, which would mean that every one of the structural columns would have had to fail at precisely the same time....laws of probability on that happening are beyond imagination....especially when you see three buildings in the same day exhibit the same incredible anomaly...that would tell me that demolition teams have been doing it wrong all along...they could just use fire on a few floors and take out an amazing amount of buildings per day....they can save a lots more money by not having to hire a bunch of guys to plant the explosives and thermite. we now know they aren't even needed.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by SirClem
 


Good for you then. Let me know when you an your "friends" get you PE's and then we can have a grownup discussion.


but you aren't a SE so how are you gonna have a grownup discussion? doesn't that PE give you the knowledge of an SE? if it doesn't, don't throw it around like your a bigshot with it...your credibility has been shot



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SirMike
 


Those remarks on Architects versus engineers are subjective, and you forgot about contractors who 'make' the most. If you/I want to build a house which is a home using experts, you choose an Architect, whose knowledge is both spatial and and practicable and will have a knowledge of structure and material.
I don't think I would go with a structural engineer alone to create a building, any more than I would want an architect alone to build a space shuttle, then of course it is the contractor who builds the thing...ahem.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by deadmessiah
 


No, you can list a bunch of people who saw molten METAL...not steel. You cannot list ONE shred of proof that there was molten steel.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by deadmessiah
 


No, you can list a bunch of people who saw molten METAL...not steel. You cannot list ONE shred of proof that there was molten steel.



i love it when someone posts a reply to some post waaaaaayyyy back in the thread and totally messes up the flow of the conversation ha ha ha....



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 



No, you can list a bunch of people who saw molten METAL...not steel. You cannot list ONE shred of proof that there was molten steel.
I'm treading into dangerously off-topic material, but let me refer you to the peer-reviewed paper: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Within this paper, all four dust samples used contain iron spheres, which can only be formed when iron is turned molten, allowing the surface tension to pull it into a sphere. Active thermitic was found in the dust samples, and one of the by-products of a thermitic reaction is molten metal, which consequently forms iron spheres.

Furthermore, the presence of eutectic steel in the WTC debris cannot be explained by the official theory of materials in the building causing it, as experimentation found:
No explanation was given by FEMA, and the more popular theory of materials within the building causing it was debunked by an experiment performed in the above video.

Thermite can produce eutectic steel, as the video "The Great Thermate Debate" found.
So the evidence points to thermite being the cause of this molten metal, and this molten metal being molten steel.

This is pretty off-topic so if you want to continue discussing the molten metal, we should do it in another thread because this is about the collapse of WTC7, not molten metal found in the debris of the Twin Towers and WTC7.

How about we continue in this thread that actually mentions the molten metal in the OP?
edit on 18-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 


How is 15 minutes....waaaaay back in the discussion? Or do you not realize I replied to a post thats only four or five posts down...on the same page?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


It was pointed out to you long ago that those spheres are also a byproduct of WELDING. For some reason you forget that.





top topics
 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join