In the 2nd video down, that guy claims he’s an “Electrical” Engineer which is no way qualified for structural engineer claims. He further references to the Core of Engineers “CIVIL” division for a source of back-up. Civil Engineers know nothing of Structural Engineering. I’m very curious why he hasn’t provided a qualified Structural Engineer for a source. Furthermore, I’ve heard these building were not fireproofed very well at all. Steel burns very easily and fast. However, in my professional opinion, the collapse of these buildings look questionable but it could be a multitude of things other then strategically planned demolition. I would like to see the Architectural and Structural documents on these buildings but that’s probably near impossible to get.
If you have any questions or comments please email me. joshrobert01@comcast.net
---
Last edited 26 Feb 2007 04:56 pm by Xtrm Liability
Xtrm Liability wrote:
In the 2nd video down, that guy claims he’s an “Electrical” Engineer which is no way qualified for structural engineer claims. He further references to the Core of Engineers “CIVIL” division for a source of back-up. Civil Engineers know nothing of Structural Engineering. I’m very curious why he hasn’t provided a qualified Structural Engineer for a source. Furthermore, I’ve heard these building were not fireproofed very well at all. Steel burns very easily and fast. However, in my professional opinion, the collapse of these buildings look questionable but it could be a multitude of things other then strategically planned demolition. I would like to see the Architectural and Structural documents on these buildings but that’s probably near impossible to get.
If you have any questions or comments please email me. joshrobert01@comcast.net
See, that’s the thing, right here on MVC we have you Xtrm, a person with years of experience in structural engineering etc. While you gave us a pretty brief but educated opinion on 9/11, it would be very interesting if you delved into it a lot more, and if you also consulted others in your field, especially unbiased people, who could offer their understanding of these things too.
From my pov, the sheer lies, destruction of evidence, the acknowledgment of pre-awareness of a strike to occur, and the intel/military standing down others from doing their jobs to prevent 9/11 is a case for treason and murder, for being accomplices by way of allowing it...even if they werent demolitioned, they allowed it, invited it, therefore accompliced it.
--- Look into my eyes and hate me. Part animal, part machine...remain calm, prepare to destroy. Monochromat.
Also Xtrm, there are somewhat structural plans of WTC shown in some of those videos. How the building was built to suffocate any fire from blazing on thru, no air shafts, WTC built in smaller blocks upwards, so that fire would suffocate and die before reaching on.
Also, jet fuel, as they say, cannot even reach a temperature of 2,000 fahrenheit, which is when steel MELTS. WTC steel melted. Thermal images 5 days later proof of thermite used, etc. Wonder your thoughts on every bit of evidence they provided.
Even FEMA admitted that the fire from the jet fuel completely burned out in 10 mins. The fires therefore would have been contained that the WTC did not continue blazing and therefore melting. Therefore, impossible for thermal images 5 days later. Same with Building 7, thermite traces thru thermal imagery found there. But nothing actually hit it, to cause that. No planes etc.
--- Look into my eyes and hate me. Part animal, part machine...remain calm, prepare to destroy. Monochromat.
gg wrote:
Also Xtrm, there are somewhat structural plans of WTC shown in some of those videos. How the building was built to suffocate any fire from blazing on thru, no air shafts, WTC built in smaller blocks upwards, so that fire would suffocate and die before reaching on.
Also, jet fuel, as they say, cannot even reach a temperature of 2,000 fahrenheit, which is when steel MELTS. WTC steel melted. Thermal images 5 days later proof of thermite used, etc. Wonder your thoughts on every bit of evidence they provided.
Even FEMA admitted that the fire from the jet fuel completely burned out in 10 mins. The fires therefore would have been contained that the WTC did not continue blazing and therefore melting. Therefore, impossible for thermal images 5 days later. Same with Building 7, thermite traces thru thermal imagery found there. But nothing actually hit it, to cause that. No planes etc.
No doubt there’s questionable actions (or lack thereof) taking place. This is a question of exactly how these building collapsed and I think from there on the next question should be, who did it?
For more information, I was looking into material heat damage. Anything below 300 C, there is no appreciable damage done. 300C to 500C, damage to concrete requires careful assessment (especially above 400 C). Concrete will be weakened and some loss of modules will occur. Prestressing will be down to 50% of it’s strength above 400C and cold formed steel will be affected above 450C. Above 500C a significant loss of strength occurs in the concrete and modules of the concrete is significantly reduced. But Hot rolled steel is likely to recover it’s full yield strength even when heated to 600C but beyond this, some strength loss will occur. I could look more into IBC 2003 chapter 7 Fire Resistant and Rated Construction for more info but I’m not sure how the construction was done on this building to make any kind of professional opinion on the failure of structural connections. Keep in mind, steel does not need to be all that hot to expand. Take a few beams spanning 40 feet in each bay and each beam expands a few inches. Well as soon as you add up the total expansion along the line it could put some serious pressure on the end joints and connections could fail, bolts could buckle under pressure, then the floor falls through hitting the lower floor resulting in the pancake action. I don’t know, I’m really in no position at all to give an opinion as to what happened unless I see the design drawings.
---
Last edited 26 Feb 2007 06:39 pm by Xtrm Liability
gg wrote:
Also Xtrm, there are somewhat structural plans of WTC shown in some of those videos. How the building was built to suffocate any fire from blazing on thru, no air shafts, WTC built in smaller blocks upwards, so that fire would suffocate and die before reaching on.
Also, jet fuel, as they say, cannot even reach a temperature of 2,000 fahrenheit, which is when steel MELTS. WTC steel melted. Thermal images 5 days later proof of thermite used, etc. Wonder your thoughts on every bit of evidence they provided.
Even FEMA admitted that the fire from the jet fuel completely burned out in 10 mins. The fires therefore would have been contained that the WTC did not continue blazing and therefore melting. Therefore, impossible for thermal images 5 days later. Same with Building 7, thermite traces thru thermal imagery found there. But nothing actually hit it, to cause that. No planes etc.
No doubt there’s questionable actions (or lack thereof) taking place. This is a question of exactly how these building collapsed and I think from there on the next question should be, who did it?
For more information, I was looking into material heat damage. Anything below 300 C, there is no appreciable damage done. 300C to 500C, damage to concrete requires careful assessment (especially above 400 C). Concrete will be weakened and some loss of modules will occur. Prestressing will be down to 50% of it’s strength above 400C and cold formed steel will be affected above 450C. Above 500C a significant loss of strength occurs in the concrete and modules of the concrete is significantly reduced. But Hot rolled steel is likely to recover it’s full yield strength even when heated to 600C but beyond this, some strength loss will occur. I could look more into IBC 2003 chapter 7 Fire Resistant and Rated Construction for more info but I’m not sure how the construction was done on this building to make any kind of professional opinion on the failure of structural connections. Keep in mind, steel does not need to be all that hot to expand. Take a few beams spanning 40 feet in each bay and each beam expands a few inches. Well as soon as you add up the total expansion along the line it could put some serious pressure on the end joints and connections could fail, bolts could buckle under pressure, then the floor falls through hitting the lower floor resulting in the pancake action. I don’t know, I’m really in no position at all to give an opinion as to what happened unless I see the design drawings.
Thanks for those details. I’d love to hear more of indepth analysis about it from you. I mean, they say jet fuel can only reach about 1,000 C, not enough to melt steel like a hot knife thru butter. But thermite can at 2,000 C. Your right that youd need the plans etc. But I always hear that no skyscraper has ever collapsed like this from a fire, nor from a plane, nor from a fire and a plane. There’ve been many instances of skyscrapers being hit by planes front on, even the Empire State back in the older tech of the 1930’s. Or buildings that burned for 4 hours or more. Yet they never collapsed at all.
There would seem to be, guaging from this, that it almost wouldnt matter how the WTC was built. The architects said each building could withstand multiple plane hits, like maybe 4 or 6 each before it fell, and even then it would not crumble like that, liquified, but would topple over sideways, and steel beams would still be standing or protuding out.
From your experience what can you say about all this?
--- Look into my eyes and hate me. Part animal, part machine...remain calm, prepare to destroy. Monochromat.
There is a video I saw, that I don’t see here(perhaps I missed it), but it provided an opinion from a physics professor, and physicist, and even someone who was supposedly part of the construction of the building, I think an architect (I may be mistaken on all accounts of this man’s job in the WTC construction, I’m merely presenting this). He stated that the design of the towers was made to withstand a plane hit, but, I’d have to run this by Xtrm, since he is actually a professional here.
If you guys give me a bit, I’ll find the video. I’m not really making a case, just providing for your debate.
I can’t get it today, since where I found it is being mean and GVideo has too many videos on 9/11 for tonight.
Because you can see the planes flying into the towers. You can see the beams bending then breaking not bombs going off. The government had nothing to do with kill it’s own people. People get over it it was Osama’s people that did it end of story!
--- <iframe src=“http://gamercard.xbox.com/REPLACE-THIS-WITH-YOUR-GAMERTAG.card” scrolling=“no” frameBorder=“0” height=“140” width=“204”>Put your gamertag here too.</iframe>
http://www.myspace.com/linkious
Well hold on now. There are questionable things going on here. No doubt in my mind, given the way those planes hit and the side they hit on should have been a lean to collapse. The pancake collapse is possible but by far, logic tells me this building should have collapsed on one side if anything. In addition to that, the core building columns that support the main bulk of the gravity loads were not affected by the plane whatsoever, if anything, the columns should at least be somewhat erect. However, I did see a pancake collapse on a TV show which was due to too much gravity loads from the mechanical A/C (or Air conditioners) on the roof and the weight bearing structures lost their integrity to support the building (I think it was a huge mall type structure with 5 or 6 floors). Although the bearing was weak in one corner of 20% of the roof, subsequently the whole roof collapsed evenly, affected every connection thus the pancake collapse took place. But the WTC were such large buildings, a plane seems minuscule in comparison to do such massive damage (even in the week spot ), let alone make it collapse.
---
Last edited 26 Feb 2007 10:52 pm by Xtrm Liability
I disagree. There is something very fishy about 9/11 and I think the conspiracies around it present some good ideas of destroying the bullshit the government would like us to believe. I mean dont' get lost in what the media and government state.
After watching many videos of the fall of the towers it’s pretty damn obvious that the towers did not just fall spontaneously. I mean those little explosions shooting out as it falls can’t be caused by pressure going down. It wouldn’t work that way. Those are mini explosions occuring beneath it.
But that’s my take.
Zucas out
--- It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns.
Zucas wrote:
I disagree. There is something very fishy about 9/11 and I think the conspiracies around it present some good ideas of destroying the bullshit the government would like us to believe. I mean dont' get lost in what the media and government state.
After watching many videos of the fall of the towers it’s pretty damn obvious that the towers did not just fall spontaneously. I mean those little explosions shooting out as it falls can’t be caused by pressure going down. It wouldn’t work that way. Those are mini explosions occuring beneath it.
But that’s my take.
Zucas out
Zucas your stupid level just went up 20 points
--- <iframe src=“http://gamercard.xbox.com/REPLACE-THIS-WITH-YOUR-GAMERTAG.card” scrolling=“no” frameBorder=“0” height=“140” width=“204”>Put your gamertag here too.</iframe>
http://www.myspace.com/linkious
»
Off-Topic
» Re-Opening 9/11
First 
), let alone make it collapse.
