|
#41
●
10-14-2016, 01:41 PM
| ||||||||
 You holdin....? Poster Rank:21 Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 58,107
Contributions: 23
Mentioned: 263 Post(s) Quoted: 25273 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: FDNY Rudy Dent Spills the Beans on 9/11
Again though....you have to consider that when something happens for the first time in history (like a fire leading to a progressive collapse), there is no historic presidence.  If you're honestly interested, do a Google search for the term 'fire induced progressive collapse' and see what kind of tests have been done. I mean, let's be real here....you want them to build a real size model, then try to force the dame thing to happen so conspiracy theorists are satisfied? That would be awesome, I agree....but that's not feasible. So, instead, here is a quick google search of the scholarly articles on the topic ( source ) .....the first link is a paper on how buidling code should (I believe that has changed now) be changed to protect against this kind of fire induced collapse and includes evidence from other structure fires where similar damage was seen. it uses the WTC collapse as an example but isn't a paper arguing about how the building collapsed. That paper is from 2002. The second link is a paper from 2014 talking about results of tests using new building fire standards....where they actually did build two ten story buildings and simulated many types of issues, including fire. I mean, really...if you look outside of conspiracy theory sites and even outside of skeptic sites and you look for how the building collapse changed US building code, you'll find that the building either collapsed because of fire induced progressive collapse like they said.....or the vast majority of the structural engineers in the US have no idea what they are doing and US building fire code changed because of an unproven theory. The latter is just silly, imho. My question is: why would building officials with nothing to gain be trying to change building code to protect against something they don't have evidence happened? also, why would they pay for and fake tests (which is what would have to be happening for years now) in order to keep the conspiracy hidden for this many years with no leaks from insiders still working on the cover-up....but a NY fireman is somehow more trustworthy in this field? Also, just to be clear....i was also a truther for a long time and that didnt change until a couple years ago. So, please don't think I'm trying to be a condensending ass or anything.   |
|
#42
●
10-14-2016, 01:52 PM
| ||||||||
 *DR's nice guy* Poster Rank:78 Male Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 19,438 Mentioned: 89 Post(s) Quoted: 7144 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: FDNY Rudy Dent Spills the Beans on 9/11
I don't think you're being condescending, but I do still think the evidence put forward is insufficient. Far from recreating an exact replica of the WTC Building 7 for the test, I would be quite happy with them making use of a similar building (size and materials) and setting it on fire etc to make the impact on the building the same and see if they can make it collapse in that fashion. They could try this multiple times (different buildings), and if it happened again just once it would give a lot of strength to your position, if it happened several times I would no longer even mention building 7.
|
|
#43
●
10-14-2016, 01:58 PM
| ||||||||
| You holdin....? Poster Rank:21 Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 58,107
Contributions: 23
Mentioned: 263 Post(s) Quoted: 25273 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: FDNY Rudy Dent Spills the Beans on 9/11
the papers i mentioned (sorry, i was posting from my phone and couldnt add links, so here they are for your convenience) the 2002 paper from the National Institute of Building Sciences on the need to change the building code to better protect against fire induced progressive collapse in the future: here a link to a paper that was in the Fire Safety Journal in 2002 talking explaining in great detail how the buildings could have collapsed due to fire: here a 2014 paper from Engineering Structures called "Fire induced progressive collapse of steel building structures: The role of interior gravity columns"....this is the paper i told you about that has the test conducted with the 10 story buildings: here an article from Fire Engineering (which is more of a website for fire engineers and not a journal, just to be clear) has an article from 2011 called "Building Safety Codes Changed as a Result of 9/11" where they do a quick summary of the changes made do to the incident: here an article from Scientific American called "Twin Towers Forensic Investigation Helps Revise Building Codes, Despite Critics" that talks about both sides, including critics who were against the building code changes as they felt the NIST reports werent transparent enough: here and, finally, an article from CTBUH (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat which is a non-profit organization) called "Evolution of Building Code Requirements in a Post 9/11 World": here |
|
#44
●
10-14-2016, 02:07 PM
| ||||||||
| You holdin....? Poster Rank:21 Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 58,107
Contributions: 23
Mentioned: 263 Post(s) Quoted: 25273 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: FDNY Rudy Dent Spills the Beans on 9/11
where would the funding for that come from? and why are the tests they already have done insufficient (like the ten story buildings in the paper i posted in the post above, to name just one)? you keep saying there is insufficient evidence...but then you arent pointing out specific examples. you want test done to simulate a building collapsing from a fire and when they are done...you say they arent good enough or dont actually address the findings. you also are forgetting the fact that these test showed that fire alone is enough to cause a building to collapse...you're said 'the building wasnt hit', which is true if youre talking about a plane, but the building did have a ten story gash going down the south side. that along with fire is more than enough to bring a building that was built like this was down.  ....and the evidence i presented is more than enough to prove that. you're free to reject the evidence but, lets be real here....when you do that, it's an argument from personal incredulity, which is the same as a religious person walking away from an evolution debate when they are shown evidence as well, frankly. |
|
#47
●
03-01-2017, 09:01 PM
| ||||||||
 So Fucking Banned Poster Rank:265 MAN Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 5,143 Mentioned: 20 Post(s) Quoted: 2832 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: FDNY Rudy Dent Spills the Beans on 9/11
If building 7 came down because of the nearby fire, what about other buildings near the towers. And in the whole time that building 7 burned, firefighters weren't called upon to put out the fire?
|
