Random observations on 9/11

[Danzig]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...ecture/4278874


and yes, rosie o'donnell you fat pig, steel does and can melt. but it'll lose it's integrity long before that happens.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...eering/4213805


Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.

[Clip-Clop]

Random observation, Pres needs volunteers!
Oh yeah, something very sad happened 11 years ago too.

https://twitter.com/BarackObama

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Apparently the failure of one column - of all of the columns in the structure - this one particular column - could have caused the type of controlled collapse with a relatively small debris field witnessed:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

CNN and the BCC reporting it live before it happened? Well, they still don't have the answer for that one.

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...ecture/4278874


and yes, rosie o'donnell you fat pig, steel does and can melt. but it'll lose it's integrity long before that happens.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...eering/4213805


Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.

I'd like to see some statistical odds of that happening to building 7, RBE. Has to be real small.

Yes, zig. But even you agree that really doesn't answer what happened to building 7.

I've been accustomed to seeing fires in most building collapsing a corner of the structure. But I don't believe I've ever seen a building like 7 collapse the way it did from a fire.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I'd like to see some statistical odds of that happening to building 7, RBE. Has to be real small.

Yes, zig. But even you agree that really doesn't answer what happened to building 7.

I've been accustomed to seeing fires in most building collapsing a corner of the structure. But I don't believe I've ever seen a building like 7 collapse the way it did from a fire.

did you read the whole report? seems part of the issue with 7 was the way it was engineeredd/built.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I'd like to see some statistical odds of that happening to building 7, RBE. Has to be real small.

Yes, zig. But even you agree that really doesn't answer what happened to building 7.

I've been accustomed to seeing fires in most building collapsing a corner of the structure. But I don't believe I've ever seen a building like 7 collapse the way it did from a fire.

Because of the footprint and the type of structure that 7 was the only likely cause of the fall that would make some sense structurally that I could come up with (along with a few structural engineers in my office) is that the underground support structure was compromised by the collapse. Hence the straight down fall into itself. Lower Manhattan, particularly that area is basically suspended over tons of open space for the tubes. I had them actually write something up for me. I will see if I can find it.

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Because of the footprint and the type of structure that 7 was the only likely cause of the fall that would make some sense structurally that I could come up with (along with a few structural engineers in my office) is that the underground support structure was compromised by the collapse. Hence the straight down fall into itself. Lower Manhattan, particularly that area is basically suspended over tons of open space for the tubes. I had them actually write something up for me. I will see if I can find it.

That would be great. Thanks!

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

That would be great. Thanks!

We no longer have it here, since our server died but they pointed me to the "widely known" (they are engineers mind you) Structure magazine article confirming their theory.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

RBE posted that earlier. I need more explanation.

That is all other engineers have to go on? Not one of them remembers how some politicians and others reassured the public the towers were safe?

All of a sudden they and building 7 are severely flawed? So basically fiery debris caused a high rise building to collapse.

Still don't buy it.

[MaTH716]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UndqJTLin9A

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

RBE posted that earlier. I need more explanation.

That is all other engineers have to go on? Not one of them remembers how some politicians and others reassured the public the towers were safe?

All of a sudden they and building 7 are severely flawed? So basically fiery debris caused a high rise building to collapse.

Still don't buy it.

I didn't see that earlier posting. Our guys are more on the Con-Ed, underground structure and the way the beams were sistered and framed out that any weakening beneath those beams including 79 (which was a solo) would have easily been enough to drop the whole thing in that manner.
two buildings like those falling nearby is effectively an earthquake of pretty serious proportions.
I do remember all the safe statements, all too well actually. That was part of my request for the thoughts of those I use myself when we build.