They’re wrong and they’re wasting their lives.
Well, that and many of them either don’t exist or have asked to have their name taken off that list and been ignored. Oh, and I don’t think very many - if any - of the people who want to be on the list are actual architects or engineers. Funny that this has been pointed out to the nutter who maintains the list many times, and he has acknowledged it, but refuses to make the corrections.
If the impact and fires took down the towers,and just a fire took down bldg. 7, then they were poorly designed buildings. A lot of buildings have burned a long time without falling. Building fires are not all that rare. To have those 3 drop in their tracks implies terrible design and build. Somebody should have been sued.
I saw an interview with the building designer who said they were designed to handle an airplane impact. Safety factors in such things are not close calls. You overdesign and overbuild to be safe. Someone built some bad buildings. They should have been sued and publiclly humiliated.
Well, yes and no, in the case of the two towers no, because they still stood up for several minutes against a bigger and faster plane than the 707 they were designed to withstand. Those minutes that the towers managed to stay up saved many lives.
Regarding building 7, maybe, because IIRC some features, like fuel tanks for the World Trade Center anti terrorist office response located there ( nice going Rudy :rolleyes: ) contributed to the fire that was the cause of the eventual collapse.
One item that is being avoided by the 911 truters is that after all their pompous explanations of controlled explosions, and claiming that the buildings fell neatly in a controlled fashion, the fact was that the main towers did not collapse so neatly, chunks of the buildings did fall many meters away from the base and destroyed other buildings and as pictures and videos show, building 7 got hit by several pieces (one chuck tearing a gash over ten stories high) and began to burn.
At the very least, conspiracy theories aside, the “story” here is an imporperly designed builing i.e. WTC7. An investigation should have looked into that aspect alone i.e. Was the building soundly built? It obvioulsy wasn’t if it collapesed the way that it did become the 3rd steel frame skyscraper to to sucumb to such a fate.
Succumbing to collapse after two 110 story skyscrapers collapse nearby doesn’t imply “improperly designed”. Pieces of WTC1 fell on WTC7, severely damaging the south face of the building. You can’t really find decent pictures of the damage because, until WTC7 collapsed, that side of the building was visually obscured by smoke.
I really don’t think you can make a reasonable argument that the building’s designers should have accounted for the possibility that large quantities of debris could impact the building and compromise its structural integrity. A building that damaged would likely be deemed unusable and demolished anyway, so if WTC7 could have sustained the damage without collapsing, it wouldn’t really have done much for anyone.
Yes, there were design flaws. If I am not mistaken, the guy who designed the buildings died in them on 9/11 so he’s not around to be publically humiliated. And they were designed to withstand an indirect hit from a smaller airplane travelling at a much slower speed. Building fires are not all that rare but roaring infernos 80 stories in the air with no way to put them out are.
Ahem. There was an investigation into that aspect alone. See the title and first post of this thread. Why do truthers always say “investigate 9/11” when it’s probably the most thoroughly investigated single event in world history? The problem is that you guys don’t bother to read the results of the investigations because they don’t jibe with your fantasies. And the “3rd steel framed building to collapse” is really a joke of an argument, especially if your alternate explanation is demolition. Because they would also be the 3 largest buildings to ever have been demolished. There’s a first for everything. It’s not as if skyscrapers have been around for thousands of years. Very few have hit reached their life expectancy and none the size of WTCs 1, 2, or 7.
But how many of those buildings had no active firefighting operations? AFAIK, there was no firefighting done on WTC7 at all. Now, I have no highrise firefighting experience whatsoever. That said, I have fought fires in residential and commercial structures. In all of those fires, we expected that if we hadn’t stopped the fire by a certain point, the building would collapse. I know of no reason why these buildings should be different.
Contrast WTC7 to the Windsor Building in Madrid Spain
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_2005.html
The building was a true towering inferno for 24 hours and that had to finally dismantle it to bring it down.
There are other examples like that. That is why the architect and designer should be in court to recover clean up costs at least.
The architect ,I beleieve was in a building not far from the towers and watched it fall.
As far as a bigger plane. You over design of safety factors by a wide margin. You do not try to barely make it survivable.
According to the linked article, the Windsor building had a reinforced concrete construction; WTC 7, like virtually every other NY skyscraper, had a steel frame. Reinforced concrete is less susceptable to fire than steel girders.
There you go, posting facts, again. What’s the point of a rousing debate if posters insist on posting facts to it?