- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A Non-Conspiracy explanation to the collapse of WTC building 7
Posted on 9/11/14 at 9:58 am to Ross
Posted on 9/11/14 at 9:58 am to Ross
quote:i sure dont but to have 2 sky scrapers right next door collapse im sure caused significant ground acceleration to the surrounding area.
Anyone know how much structural damage was done to the building due to the collapses of the other two buildings?
1
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:01 am to carlsoda
quote:
Why not show the 28 pages of the report that were redacted if there is nothing to hide?
If they did, the conspiratards would say it was fake anyway. They always demand evidence but refute it when they see it.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:02 am to CarRamrod
quote:
sure dont but to have 2 sky scrapers right next door collapse im sure caused significant ground acceleration to the surrounding area.
I'm sure an experiment has or could be done on a scale model of a building like that. Would be interesting for a civil engineering thesis or something
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:03 am to TigerDeBaiter
quote:ugh show me the design criteria. The same principles that hold the building up are the ones that allows it to come down in a straight line. you would have to have a significant lateral force to "push" the buildings over sideways
Uh, absolutely.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:07 am to TheIndulger
quote:
If they did, the conspiratards would say it was fake anyway. They always demand evidence but refute it when they see it.
Fair enough, I would still maintain that the truth is somewhere in the gray area... Maybe I just don't trust the gov't 100%.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:12 am to carlsoda
there was a history channel program about the collapses that was very interesting. Many interviews with the engineers and other world renowned Engineers that semi confirmed it happened how they think it would happen.
On an unrelated note, there was another program on the Hoover Dam where a team of Modern Dam engineers did a study on how they would design a modern damn around that location and confirmed the original engineers in the 1920 chose the best spot to construct a dam even using modern construction practices.
On an unrelated note, there was another program on the Hoover Dam where a team of Modern Dam engineers did a study on how they would design a modern damn around that location and confirmed the original engineers in the 1920 chose the best spot to construct a dam even using modern construction practices.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:20 am to Displaced
Yep, this was assumed almost immediately by engineers. Crazy, but apparently steel can melt.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:23 am to junkfunky
Well yeah it can melt, but it wouldn't have to come close to melting to fail in the field. As temperatures rise the yield strength and tensile strength both decrease significantly long before any phase changes in the material.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:27 am to CarRamrod
quote:
On an unrelated note, there was another program on the Hoover Dam where a team of Modern Dam engineers did a study on how they would design a modern damn around that location and confirmed the original engineers in the 1920 chose the best spot to construct a dam even using modern construction practices.
That is actually pretty amazing when you consider the technology of today... I wonder how much the science has really changed as opposed to more automation today. Maybe the towers did react as planned, but how much did we know before hand. How is it that every single plan we had in place for National security fail. The CIA, NSA, NATO failed, Air force failed, Airport security failed 4 times that day at the same time (ok airport security was a joke). It's just a lot of systems that all failed at the same time. Could it happen? Obviously it did but do we know everything? I doubt it.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:30 am to jrodLSUke
quote:
It's just that no one expected thousands of gallons of jet fuel to find its way into the building.
no jet hit building 7.
try AGAIN.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 10:33 am to CptBengal
I mean he did say "WTC buildings" so he was probably talking about the two skyscrapers. This topic is about WTC 7 though, so we should keep it there.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 11:16 am to CarRamrod
quote:
ugh show me the design criteria. The same principles that hold the building up are the ones that allows it to come down in a straight line. you would have to have a significant lateral force to "push" the buildings over sideways
That's exactly right. I'm not sure what your trying to get at here... It's a steel skeleton with concrete slabs in between. The steel fails and the slabs collapse. Not necessarily "designed to collapse", but they collapse because of the way they are designed. This is in reference to the twin towers.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 12:40 pm to tetu
quote:
Also, check out Madrid Windsor Tower Fire. Pretty bad stuff and the building didn't collapse as these experts predicted for a steel frame building fire. It was a partial collapse.
The Madrid Windsor Tower had a reinforced concrete core.
Page 4 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News