1,000 architects want to know how WTC buildings could possibly collapse on 9/11

[landscaper]

Well we have another list of people who may or may not have actually read the thing before they put their name on it. Thats assuming that they know they put their names on it.

The world trade cecnter was designed unlike any other building in the world, the supporting structure was steel columns around the perimiter of the structure. There was no internal ie., inside the out columns support , even the elevator shafts were stand alone. They designed it that way to maximize the office space and the " view" for advertising reasons, the things were tough to rent out when the were being built.

The aircraft during impact rupurted their fuel tanks and the burning fuel spread around the interior of the buildings, the resulting fire melted the supporting columns resulting in the floors above the fires to collapse straight down. gravity is indeed a bitch. The collapse accelerated at the acceleration rate generally atributted to gravity 9.8 m/s2 or there abouts.

You in effect had multiples of thoudsands of tonnes of building accelerating straight down. Yep buildings fall down go crunch. The chances of a nearby building being damaged by some part of the megatonnes of debris is not small either.

So lets all have a conspiracy.

Lord I wish they would come up with something original , just once

 

[oldjones]

In any case, it's the US government, and it happened in a city far away in that country, and even if we all lived there, what would we be able to do with The TRUTH if we knew it?

Since airplane-proof buildings have apparently been archtectural SOP for years—who knew, but wouldn't the WTC be still standing otherwise?—that conspiracy's dead. Real life is what happens where you live. Root out the conspiracy that keeps buffoons on City Council who still can't get your snow plowed, or a decent trash can on the streetcorner. Let's expose the conspiracy that still has decisions about roads and developments and taxes and plans being made in secret and only trotted out into the light after the fact. That's where we live. That's a conspiracy needs fixing.

But kids have always enjoyed scaring each other with ghost strories, don't let me stop this one.

 

[Mencken]

And I don't believe for a second that 1000 architects are asking that question. Because it is an absolutely stupid question. And engineers do not say that it is impossible. In fact I have heard engineers describe exactly how it did happen....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns

Engineers say that it is impossible for this to have happened. One building that was not even hit by the towers collapsed. Many engineers (including some from MIT) have expressed their doubts about the official explanation, saying it was an inside job.

 

[danmand]

Absolutely ridiculous! You have a list of Conspiracy theorists, congrats!

Have you ever seen controlled demolition? It is sync'ed from the bottom up, not the top down. How did the window's blow out, the same way a paper bag explodes when you crush it after its been filled with air.

You might as well post something on Pearl Harbor, The Great depression, Roswell, and The Kennedy Assassination while you are at it, to name a few!

You asked for the list, I gave it to you. I expected you not to like the list,
but why attack me for giving you a link to it?

 

[newguy27]

these conspiracy people are still going nuts.

how about this little fact? - the terrorists alleged to have caused this, AQ, admitted to it, and in fact, Bin Laden gloated about it on many occasions and on videotape watching it happen while commenting!
Geez, how blind do you have to be?

 

[seth gecko]

Occam's razor

is the principle that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one.

Did you know that ol' Willy had to go buy himself a new one every time Mrs. Ockham used his razor to shave her legs? S'truth!

 

[Aardvark154]

Oh for the love of. Architects are questionable enough but Landscape Architects! This has as much validity as a man on the street survey.

 

[Yoga Face]

Did you know that ol' Willy had to go buy himself a new one every time Mrs. Ockham used his razor to shave her legs? S'truth!

The principle is attributed to 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham.

Anyone know how they shaved themselves back then ???? Pig fat and an iron razor ????

Why in the films of those ages do the women have shaved legs and armpits ???????? Hollywood got it wrong again ????? Did they shave landing strips ??? What did they call them ??? Jousting strips ???

 

[danmand]

How did I attack you? You provided a list of names. Do you even know where those names came from?
Regardless, I didn't attack you. I made a reference to the validity of this thread being as useful as posting the various conspiracy theories about other events in the US's history!

here is how you attacked me:

Absolutely ridiculous! You have a list of Conspiracy theorists, congrats!

Have you ever seen controlled demolition? It is sync'ed from the bottom up, not the top down. How did the window's blow out, the same way a paper bag explodes when you crush it after its been filled with air.

You might as well post something on Pearl Harbor, The Great depression, Roswell, and The Kennedy Assassination while you are at it, to name a few!

You asked for the list of signatories, I gave it to you. You knew when you asked, what the list was of.

 

[Yoga Face]

I read some of the "personal statements" and they revealed a great deal of ignorance. A common theme was that only in a controlled demolition does a building collapse symmetrically. That is true for low rise buildings, houses, and most office towers. Presumably that is the area of expertise (if any) of these people. In such buildings there are more than one support, and so if one support fails the building tends to topple in the direction of the failed support.

The WTC however had no such structure. The floors were hung from a superstructure, not supported from underneath by columns. As a result when they began falling from the structure they fell straight down.

You got it wrong

the building in question is the third collapsed building which, ironically, housed the emergency team organized to deal with emergencies.

I saw the world's top demoltion expert, who has collapsed more of these buildings than anyone, say it had to be controlled to collapse inward like it did

there has yet to be an explanation of how it collapsed like it did other than conspiracy but to plant explosives in it surreptisiously is also impossible so we are left to wonder

 

[fuji]

You got it wrong

the building in question is the third collapsed building which, ironically, housed the emergency team organized to deal with emergencies.

I saw the world's top demoltion expert, who has collapsed more of these buildings than anyone, say it had to be controlled to collapse inward like it did

there has yet to be an explanation of how it collapsed like it did other than conspiracy but to plant explosives in it surreptisiously is also impossible so we are left to wonder

No, you got it wrong. If you watch the 9/11 videos you can clearly see that building takes a hit, and then in the hours before it collapses you can see it gradually failing. First it bulges out visibly.

You know what doesn't happen in a "controlled demolition"? The building does not bulge out before it goes down.

 

[PornAddict]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns


Engineers say that it is impossible for this to have happened. One building that was not even hit by the towers collapsed. Many engineers (including some from MIT) have expressed their doubts about the official explanation, saying it was an inside job.

"Why the Towers Fell"


You should watch Nova - great explanation by on Why the tower fell. This explanaton by structural Engineers.
http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=34488

"Why the Towers Fell"

PBS Airdate: April 30, 2002
Go to the companion Web site

NARRATOR: By now you've seen the images and heard the stories.

BILL FORNEY (World Trade Center Survivor): ...because I remember a coworker saying, "Don't. Don't. Don't open the door. Don't go out there. It's fire out there. You're going to, you're going to burn up."

NARRATOR: But what really caused the Twin Towers to collapse? Was their failure inevitable? Or could they have stood longer, giving occupants and emergency crews a better chance for escape?

FIREFIGHTERS: When we hit the fifth floor, that's when everything happened.

It was rattling. It was rolling. It was roaring. The floor was shaking.

I remember getting knocked down the stairwell, landing like a rag doll.

That's when the building started coming down.

NARRATOR: When a blue ribbon team of forensic engineers was asked by the government to determine exactly what triggered the Towers' collapse, NOVA was there from the beginning, following their quest for answers.

W. GENE CORLEY (Structural Engineer): What we're looking for is pieces that were in the areas where fires occurred. You can get a better idea of what the strength was before the collapse occurred.

NARRATOR: From their detailed examination of the Towers' innovative design to the search for forensic evidence in the molecules of collapsed steel, the investigation team has studied every possible scenario. Could one tower have collapsed for different reasons than the other? Was there something about the Towers—built to maximize rental space—that traded safety for economy?

CHARLES THORNTON (Structural Engineer): A lot of people are saying that the structural engineering of the World Trade Center was miraculously wonderful, that the buildings stood up in the case of two 767s flying into it. I would tend to think they were not as successful as they could have been.

NARRATOR: Was the damage from the explosions and massive fires too great for any building to sustain?

MATTHYS LEVY (Author, Why Buildings Fall Down): As the steel began to soften and melt, the interior core columns began to give. Then you had this sequential failure that took place where it all pancaked—one after the other.

NARRATOR: Why could only eighteen people from the impact areas or above get out alive? Was there a problem with the emergency stairs? The escape route? And perhaps most importantly, what does this disaster tell us about the safety of all tall buildings?

JAKE PAULS (Building Safety Analyst): Public perception about evacuation of large buildings is that if they decide to evacuate that they will get out quickly. The reality is really something quite different.

NARRATOR: This unthinkable tragedy has come to define our times. The question now is, "Can we learn from it?"

LESLIE ROBERTSON (Engineer, World Trade Center): I cannot escape the people who died there. It's still, to me, up there in the air, burning. And I cannot make that go away.

Why the Towers Fell, up next on NOVA ....click on below link.

http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=34488

 

[Moraff]

There was a tv documentary awhile back (sorry, don't remember the name) where they went through the conspiracy theorist's claims and tested them to see if they were credible. If I recall correctly they covered the following:

"Burning jet fuel wouldn't weaken structural steel" -> busted... does it just fine

"The buildings were brought down by smuggled in explosives" -> extremely unlikely... they worked with professional building demolishers to determine what amounts of explosives would be needed and where they would have to be placed. It would have taken over a month to do the towers and the work would have been obvious.

"The building codes are designed to create structures that can withstand being flown into" --> somewhat true... the codes indeed allow for it... but were set up long before we had such big planes with big fuel tanks and were not modified to keep up.


With all the conspiracies the gov't is supposed to be successfully perpetrating on us, you'd think they'd do a better job running the country no?

 

[basketcase]

...

All stinky's list proves is that there is a list. This particular list is names of folks who want more info. Proves nothing about anything.
...

I'm sorry but stinky's list is extremely important. It names 1000 people you don't want to design any building taller than a bungalow.

 

[basketcase]

...
I saw the world's top demoltion expert, who has collapsed more of these buildings than anyone, say it had to be controlled to collapse inward like it did
...

1: The building did not collapse inward. Any look at the videos shows sections falling outside the footprint of the building (in addition to the large area damaged by falling debris).

2: Have you actually looked up the qualifications of this "expert" or did you just believe it because someone told you so?

 

[basketcase]

...
It's true.... i saw a documentary my friend made on this in his basement.

cheers!

I'll only believe it if it's on youtube.

 

[danmand]

LOL...oh come on, you feel attacked because I used "you" 4 times!
Haven't you learned not to take anything personal on this board?

I apologize if I made you feel attacked!

Apology accepted. The reason I reacted as I did, is that it is customary on this panel to
attack anyone who raises any question or present any data that might be contrary to the official explanation.

I think, for example, that it is somewhat interesting, that 1,000 architects and engineers want more
investigations of what happened to the WT7 building. I believe I should be able to provide a link to a
list of such signatories without being accused of believing in consp[iracy theories or other evil activities.

In any event, I am patient, and I don't quite understand why people get so worked up against anyone
questioning the established explanations. I am confident, that if there was a conspiracy, it will eventually
come out, and if there was no conspiracy, it will not come out. Being trained as a scientist, I believe it is
good to question any theory. Without that, we would still believe that the sun, the moon and the stars
rotated around the earth.

 

[carter80]

Occam's razor

is the principle that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one.

To quote Isaac Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

In science, Occam’s razor is used as to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models

In my own words, the least far fetched idea, and the one closest to the known, should be accepted until evidence persuades otherwise


Now which is least far fetched ???

1 There is a conspiracy to cover up that the government destroyed the Towers
2 there is a conspiracy to make it look like the government is conspiring to cover up

Even less far fetched is 3 There is no conspiracy

 

[PornAddict]

I think, for example, that it is somewhat interesting, that 1,000 architects and engineers want more
investigations of what happened to the WT7 building. I believe I should be able to provide a link to a
list of such signatories without being accused of believing in consp[iracy theories or other evil activities.

In any event, I am patient, and I don't quite understand why people get so worked up against anyone
questioning the established explanations. I am confident, that if there was a conspiracy, it will eventually
come out, and if there was no conspiracy, it will not come out. Being trained as a scientist, I believe it is
good to question any theory. Without that, we would still believe that the sun, the moon and the stars
rotated around the earth.

Since you are a scientist ... I hope you have a open mind and watch this video by Nova on

Why the Tower fell.

http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=34488



After you finished watching this video ...would like to hear your feedback on this video by NOVA

 

[james t kirk]

Hey, there is some validity to this. Think about it.
The amount of time, resource and dedication to be an Architect is comparable to being in the medical field.

These are professionals that have real world extensive experience in producing "complicated" buildings that we live, play and work in.

If an architect questions the integrity of your home -- wouldn't you listen?

No.

Architects typically know fuck all about how a building is built. They are not Structural Engineers.

Architects design how a building is going to look, whereas Engineers design the structure of the building. I.e. how to hold it up.

If a respected Structural Engineer had concerns about my house - I'd listen. But an Architect? I'd ask him if the drapes matched the tile.