|
Real0ne -> RE: WASHINGTON TIMES QUESTIONS WTC 7 COLLAPSE (2/25/2010 4:34:40 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AnimusRex
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
its really fun watching these guys dance explaining why they did not "collapse after they burned all day and had their centers completely blown to hell.
I am hoping Rex will give us his expert analysis on how that is possible that buildings can be so gutted and still stand while other have only scratches and come crashing down.
You missed my point, which is that no one here is an "expert" in any of these fields.
But, speaking as a generalist, yes, whether a building has a catastrophic collapse depends on many factors, the length of fire being only one.
It depends on the type of fire (some are hotter than others), the type of fireproofing (some is more resistant to being pried loose than others), the type of structure (some have more redundancy than others) and other factors.
For example, the First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles burned on floors 12-16 for 3 1/2 hours in 1988, but the building didn't collapse. However, the fire department chiefs on the scene recounted how they were terrified that it might; WR Grace, the company that made the fireproofing, actually used photos of the burned out floors in their advertising, boasting about how their fireproofing was harder and more resistant to being knocked loose during a fire than their competitors.
In other words, had a different product been used, had the fire been slightly hotter, the entire building could have collapsed....just like the WTC did.
I suppose that depends on your idea what an expert is? Licensing is only for insurance and business purposes and hardly determines who is an expert and who is a beginner as long as you can pass the test you dont even need to go to school on the subject.
So then you know that the fireproofing was useless after a few hours right?
You probly also know that the wtc was built with 5 times redundancy.
YOu seen the picture of building 6 from the previous page
[image]local://upfiles/59055/1A125B870A7F48CB8BE18F1F8BE2DAD1.jpg[/image]
but you did not even comment on it.
You did comment on the wtc so if your opinion is valid there it should be valid here right?
Its seems that if 3 buildings all came down on the same day, one not even hit by a plane, the towers in which you claim
quote:
Which brings me to the bigger point- the official story, that the towers fell from structural weaking caused by fire, is perfectly consistent with general principles of structures and fire protection; we apply fireproofing on columns to prevent exactly this. This is something I can speak with perfect clarity and expertise on.
then why did 6 stand after burning all day and worse yet it has no guts left in it?
What are those principles you and those who agree with you are talking about? I mean I want to examine them to see how you made your conclusion.
Then what is your conclusion about this one? It burned for nearly 16 hours and it did not have any water sprinklers and it did not have any insulation and it burned so hard it lit the whole city up. How is this possible? I mean if you can generally determine that the wtc is consistent you then should have no problems explaining why these did not collapse using you same analysis techniques and impart that general knowlege and understanding unto us. So why did this one not fall?
[image]local://upfiles/59055/369AAB9DE5ED4A7D8E82C4D5EEE39017.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
