Steel framed builing partially collapsed today

[-hp-]

Thought it could be interesting, the faculty of architectural engineering of my university caught fire this moring at 9:00 AM due to a electrical shorting. At 1:30 PM eyewitnesses (me included) heard an explosion that broke out several windows, then the fire department decided to pull back and let it burn controllably because they feared the structural integrity of the building was in danger. Around 4:30 PM a part of the 13 story steel framed building collapsed. There are still some fires going, so I'll keep you posted if anything happens.

Foto's:
nu.nl/slideshow/slideshowpopup.jsp?action=GetSlideshow&id=1564241

A video of the collapse:
dumpert.nl/mediabase/105731/46ccb8cd/bouwkunde_gebouw_delft_stort_in.html

[-hp-]

Damn, missed a d in the TT :(. Btw, I just realized something: May 13, a 13 story building, explosions.... hmmm :D

[theauthor]

And this helps arguments over 9/11 how?

Again, a building partially collapses. Big deal.

[-hp-]

Well, a steel framed building partially collapsed due to fire alone. A lot of truthers claim that can't happen, this incident proves they're wrong. :)

[DC]

i hope nobody got hurt.

en dan nog het Bouwkunde gebouw.

but i thaught initial collapse = global collapse.

[Confuseling]

Don't mind theauthor. He's lovely once you get to know him.

The reason this is significant is quite obvious. Explosion reported without bombs, followed by collapse of steel frame. It's a reactive game we play; if it annoys you that people post things like this, tell the truth movement to desist with their asinine claims that things like this are impossible.

[uk_dave]

And this helps arguments over 9/11 how?

Again, a building partially collapses. Big deal.

You're so desperate to believe in the 9-11 conspiracy that you need to deny that the partial collapse of a steel framed structure (and attendant reported 'explosions') has any relevance. Why is that?

What is your motivation dismissing this thread?

All along 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.

And every time another example of reality is shown to you, you franticly wave it away.

No the building did not (has not) suffered global collapse. Is that the sole difference which comforts you in your conspiracy fantasy? Buildings can now be accepted as being vulnerable to partial collapse during a fire, but so long as they don't fully collapse, then the 'truth' movement can sleep sound with their little fantasy intact? :cool:

[Viper Daimao]

but i thaught initial collapse = global collapse.

depends on the building design and where the initial collapse is

[uk_dave]

but i thaught initial collapse = global collapse.

Good grief.

Welcome to ignore.

[DC]

depends on the building design and where the initial collapse is

i really wonder if we could take Bazant's formulas and prove the the building was not able to arrest the collapse.

[DC]

but it shows that no Explosives (in case the was non) are needed for pulverizing Concrete

[DC]

Good grief.

Welcome to ignore.

You're so desperate to believe in the 9-11 OCTthat you need to deny NIST's Initial Collape = Global Collase

[Drudgewire]

Good grief.

Welcome to ignore.

You'll be amazed at how much more enjoyable your JREF experience is about to become. :)

[DC]

You'll be amazed at how much more enjoyable your JREF experience is about to become. :)

without twooofer you would be bored here. ;)

[Confuseling]

Perhaps a little like telling a paramedic that car crashes keep him in business.

[defaultdotxbe]

You're so desperate to believe in the 9-11 OCTthat you need to deny NIST's Initial Collape = Global Collase
i was unaware NIST studied the building this thread is about

[1337m4n]

This is incredible.

It is amazing that people like theauthor would rather nitpick at inconsequential details than accept the obvious reality.

What's wrong with them? Do they WANT 9/11 to be an inside job? Does that thought actually make them HAPPY?

[1337m4n]

without twooofer you would be bored here. ;)

You are correct :D

[DC]

You are correct :D

you own

[uk_dave]

What's wrong with them? Do they WANT 9/11 to be an inside job? Does that thought actually make them HAPPY?

Yes, I think it does.

I suspect that many 'truthers' came to the 9-11 conspiracy theory because they wanted to believe that something other than what we were being told had happened. They then used their 'common sense' and 'gut feeling' and google and discovered the temperature of aviation fuel fires and the melting point of steel and decided that they'd cracked the case. Everything from then on fell into place for them.

It was very inconvenient that the one thing which separates this generation of 'truthers' from those in the past, the internet, though such a valuable tool for their amateur, misguided sleuthing, also produced forums such as this and people such as Mark Roberts who very annoyingly started to rain on their parade.

And every time a deeply held 'truther' belief is exposed as woo, they get petulant and defensive and refuse to listen and refuse to understand.

I think it's the willful lack of understanding which becomes most annoying.

[Drudgewire]

You are correct :D

I don't ignore twoofers by any stretch. Got lots of 'em on here I'd never consider putting on ignore.

Beliefs don't earn you a spot there, tactics do. Once you've proven yourself to be uninterested in answers and more interested in playing a stupid button-pushing game to get under people's skin you're gone.

Well, except for Tweeter because I have to marvel over how good he is at it with people who should be way too smart to keep letting him get to them. :p

[yodaluver28]

This is incredible.

It is amazing that people like theauthor would rather nitpick at inconsequential details than accept the obvious reality.

What's wrong with them? Do they WANT 9/11 to be an inside job? Does that thought actually make them HAPPY?

My personal opinion is that for the die-hard conspiracist it is their religion, their theology and philosophy of life. Whether they enjoy thinking that way or just get trapped in the vortex and once they've started, can't stop, I have no idea. But like any philosophy or theology, they use this viewpoint to evaluate everything they come across in life. I think alot of them want it to be true, so badly they can taste it. Conspiracism is an enormous ego trip if you think about it. They spend almost all of their energy in life obsessed with the notion that they are intellectually and morally superior to practically everyone else on the face of the earth, whether they be the evil lizard-based overlords bent on world domination or just stupid little sheeple being controlled by The Man. Then there's the awesome feeling of importance they feel when they convince themselves that they are so keenly attuned to these dark secrets that there are dozens, maybe even hundreds or thousands, of people devoted to debunking, dis-info-ing, stalking, and plotting against them personally.

[peteweaver]

i really wonder if we could take Bazant's formulas and prove the the building was not able to arrest the collapse.

The load bearing section under the failed part was not able to arrest collapse.

However this building was not constructed the way the WTC's were. Its load distribution was very different, like several buildings stuck together rather than one single block.

[peteweaver]

what university is that ?

[DC]

The load bearing section under the failed part was not able to arrest collapse.

However this building was not constructed the way the WTC's were. Its load distribution was very different, like several buildings stuck together rather than one single block.

indeed the WTC Towers was a very special design, while i am very very impressed by the core "tube" i was kind shocked when i saw the truss perimeter connections the first time.

[DC]

what university is that ?

Delft, Netherland.

[Pardalis]

but i thaught initial collapse = global collapse.

Is that all you got to say? What does this even mean?

[Walter Ego]

what university is that ?

Delft University in the Netherlands apparently.

Here's the video of the collaspe.

http://dumpert.nl/mediabase/105731/46ccb8cd/bouwkunde_gebouw_delft_stort_in.html

[Pardalis]

DC, you write 40 posts per day, why is it so long for you to answer in this thread?

Let's recap:

but i thaught initial collapse = global collapse.

i really wonder if we could take Bazant's formulas and prove the the building was not able to arrest the collapse.

but it shows that no Explosives (in case the was non) are needed for pulverizing Concrete

You're so desperate to believe in the 9-11 OCTthat you need to deny NIST's Initial Collape = Global Collase

What on earth are you trying to say here? What's your point?

[Drudgewire]

"Oh it just so happened to be an architectual engineering building. Isn't that convenient." :tinfoil

[-hp-]

i hope nobody got hurt.

en dan nog het Bouwkunde gebouw.

but i thaught initial collapse = global collapse.
Fortunately nobody got hurt. It's indeed Delft University of Technology. Do you know the place? You seem to be Dutch.

Another video of the collapse:
youtube.com/watch?v=Dec9FmTgXN4

Some video's of the fire:
youtube.com/watch?v=nk4dloF47l8
youtube.com/watch?v=y0cbRKSWE1k
youtube.com/watch?v=bRMSqSf1rFM

[munki?]

Thought it could be interesting, the faculty of architectural engineering of my university caught fire this moring at 9:00 AM due to a electrical shorting. At 1:30 PM eyewitnesses (me included) heard an explosion that broke out several windows, then the fire department decided to pull back and let it burn controllably because they feared the structural integrity of the building was in danger. Around 4:30 PM a part of the 13 story steel framed building collapsed. There are still some fires going, so I'll keep you posted if anything happens.

Foto's:
nu.nl/slideshow/slideshowpopup.jsp?action=GetSlideshow&id=1564241

A video of the collapse:
dumpert.nl/mediabase/105731/46ccb8cd/bouwkunde_gebouw_delft_stort_in.html

Very interesting.

And welcome to JREF, -hp-.

[DC]

Fortunately nobody got hurt. It's indeed Delft University of Technology. Do you know the place? You seem to be Dutch.

Another video of the collapse:
youtube.com/watch?v=Dec9FmTgXN4

Some video's of the fire:
youtube.com/watch?v=nk4dloF47l8
youtube.com/watch?v=y0cbRKSWE1k
youtube.com/watch?v=bRMSqSf1rFM

Neen hoor :) maar ik spreek wel een beetje ABN and plat flaams

Im not Dutch, im swiss, but happened to have lived in Belgium (Flaanderen/Kortrijk) for 7 years.

and i never was in Delft, but in europe Delft is a well known University.

[X]

Sorry to hear about your university.

Hopefully nobody lost valuables (books, research, tech, etc) in the fire.
Or at least, that they can be replaced.

If there's anything Engineering departments from other universities can do to help, we'd be glad to try.

[DGM]

Fortunately nobody got hurt. It's indeed Delft University of Technology. Do you know the place? You seem to be Dutch.

Another video of the collapse:
youtube.com/watch?v=Dec9FmTgXN4

Some video's of the fire:
youtube.com/watch?v=nk4dloF47l8
youtube.com/watch?v=y0cbRKSWE1k
youtube.com/watch?v=bRMSqSf1rFM

Dec9FmTgXN4

nk4dloF47l8

y0cbRKSWE1k

bRMSqSf1rFM

Welcome hp! now you have enough post to do this yourself.

[-hp-]

Very interesting.

And welcome to JREF, -hp-.
Thx munki?!

Neen hoor :) maar ik spreek wel een beetje ABN and plat flaams

Im not Dutch, im swiss, but happened to have lived in Belgium (Flaanderen/Kortrijk) for 7 years.

and i never was in Delft, but in europe Delft is a well known University.
Tof om te horen (cool to know)! Only been to Switserland a couple of times on vacation, nice counrty. A lot of different languages though.

;3700571']Sorry to hear about your university.

Hopefully nobody lost valuables (books, research, tech, etc) in the fire.
Or at least, that they can be replaced.

If there's anything Engineering departments from other universities can do to help, we'd be glad to try.
Some of the works of for example Rietveld, Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright are gone. And all the maquettes of course, a couple of my friends lost their study materials.



Welcome hp! now you have enough post to do this yourself.
Thx DGM! Finally earned those precious privileges :p

[mrbaracuda]

Again, a building partially collapses. Big deal.

Didn't you see the squibs?

http://b.imagehost.org/0799/squibs.jpg

Clearly it was an inside-job.
Oh and you might also notice the kink in the middle. And I bet some Steven Jones could find some sulphur.

Can't wait for whatever loose change would translate to in Dutch! :popcorn1

[Pardalis]

DC:
What's your point?

Since you ignore my question, I guess you don't have one.

[1337m4n]

Hmm, did it look to anyone like that section collapsed at near freefall?

[mrbaracuda]

Hmm, did it look to anyone like that section collapsed at near freefall?

Now that you say it.. :eek:
We shall time the fall of the outer debris to solve the puzzle! You go ahead, I'll eat some more popcorn! :popcorn1

[sleahead]

Lots of dustification and a nice pyroclastic flow,too.

Two years ago, students from this university were given a summer project to examine the claims of Loose Change. They appeared in the same Zembla program that featured Danny Jowenko. The students came to the conclusion that nothing in Loose Change stood up to scrutiny.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You are correct :D


I disagree, at least for my part. If there were no truthers, I wouldn't be bored here; I'd be entertained somewhere else.

[RKOwens4]

On the topic of partial collapse versus complete collapse, we have to remember that a huge section of both tower cores survived the collapses (maybe as much as all the way up to the impact zone in the south tower and about 60 floors in the north tower). The cores did collapse eventually, but not from the fires, likely from falling debris crushing their bases. So if truthers want to argue about fires only ever causing partial collapses in steel-framed buildings (even though this isn't true anyway), shouldn't we remember that in a sense, the collapse of the towers were partial collapses which left huge sections of the buildings still intact? And even once the cores failed, 6 floors of the north tower's core remained standing with 14 people inside, as did huge sections of the exterior facades which had to be cut with torches during cleanup.

Just something to remember, since truthers put so much emphasis on partial collapse.

[Blender Head]

On the topic of partial collapse versus complete collapse, we have to remember that a huge section of both tower cores survived the collapses (maybe as much as all the way up to the impact zone in the south tower and about 60 floors in the north tower). The cores did collapse eventually, but not from the fires, likely from falling debris crushing their bases. So if truthers want to argue about fires only ever causing partial collapses in steel-framed buildings (even though this isn't true anyway), shouldn't we remember that in a sense, the collapse of the towers were partial collapses which left huge sections of the buildings still intact? And even once the cores failed, 6 floors of the north tower's core remained standing with 14 people inside, as did huge sections of the exterior facades which had to be cut with torches during cleanup.

Just something to remember, since truthers put so much emphasis on partial collapse.

Truthers would tell you you're stretching it by claiming only six floors remaining in WTC 1 constitutes a "partial collapse".

[Myriad]

Wasn't anywhere near worth the losses just to prove a point but...

I'd like to ask the truth movement supporters here, especially those who have claimed engineering knowledge yet reject the notion of progressive collapse of the WTC towers sustained by gravity alone, a few questions about this recent event in the Netherlands:

1. Why didn't the intact unburned floors below the collapsing sections "arrest" the collapse? Why didn't the steel framework of the collapsing section get "tangled" in the intact framework below and remain standing?

2. How could it fall at near free-fall speed? What destroyed the "resistance" of the floors below the collapse initiation zone?

3. If the collapse was driven by gravity, how could all that debris have been ejected horizontally?

4. Since one column or another must have been the first to fail, how could the falling section remain nearly horizontal along the left-right axis as it fell? We can see at about 0:44 of the first video, all the front columns giving way almost simultaneously. Are we supposed to believe all those columns just happened to fail at the same moment?

5. And yet, it's also clear from the video that the columns on the wall nearer the camera failed first, with the center and rear layers of the wing falling later. Since the foreground columns gave way first, how come the whole upper section ended up falling straight down instead of toppling forward?

Could it be that (1) intact structures can't resist the dynamic load of several floors falling on them from above; (2) the resistance, while substantial and able to reduce the acceleration considerably, doesn't make much difference to the total collapse time; (3) collisions and the release of elastic strain energy during the collapse propel some debris (especially from exterior panels) sideways; (4) rapid load redistribution beyond the reserve capacity of the columns can result in a rapid horizontal progression of failure at the onset of the collapse; and (5) the top section cannot topple because the supposed pivot point for toppling cannot bear the strain and collapses downward before enough rotation can take place to cause toppling?

Or is the answer again (1) explosives, (2) explosives, (3) explosives, (4) explosives, and (5) explosives?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[DC]

On the topic of partial collapse versus complete collapse, we have to remember that a huge section of both tower cores survived the collapses (maybe as much as all the way up to the impact zone in the south tower and about 60 floors in the north tower). The cores did collapse eventually, but not from the fires, likely from falling debris crushing their bases. So if truthers want to argue about fires only ever causing partial collapses in steel-framed buildings (even though this isn't true anyway), shouldn't we remember that in a sense, the collapse of the towers were partial collapses which left huge sections of the buildings still intact? And even once the cores failed, 6 floors of the north tower's core remained standing with 14 people inside, as did huge sections of the exterior facades which had to be cut with torches during cleanup.

Just something to remember, since truthers put so much emphasis on partial collapse.


you like videos.

here a little video about the spire

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=nHxDdbdsCDY

[Blender Head]

you like videos.

here a little video about the spire

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=nHxDdbdsCDY

This video is a travesty.

[LashL]

This video is a travesty.


Considering the source, what more would one expect?

[GlennB]

The Delft Uni building only had fires on one floor (well, visible fires, that is)

[mrbaracuda]

The Delft Uni building only had fires on one floor (well, visible fires, that is)

How long was it burning for by the way?

[metamars]

All along 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.



Do you mean all 'truthers', or just some of them? Because if you mean all, you're lying.

BTW, wtc7.net says


According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.


So, if this building qualifies as a skyscraper, he's going to have to change that. Does it?

[metamars]

Can anybody post close-ups of the rubble? I'd be very interested to see this.

[gumboot]

Do you mean all 'truthers', or just some of them? Because if you mean all, you're lying.

BTW, wtc7.net says



So, if this building qualifies as a skyscraper, he's going to have to change that. Does it?



Actually he should change it regardless. The government does not contend that it was primarily fires that levelled the building.

[mrbaracuda]

Do you mean all 'truthers', or just some of them? Because if you mean all, you're lying.

I assume you're a twoofer, since you can't seem to read.
Now, read it with me!

All along
"truthers"

That's what he's saying!


All along 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.

See?

Two parts! You see? Even a German can do it and if a German can do it, you can, too! :)

[Firestone]

Is it certain that the building in Delft was steel-framed?

In this (http://www.cobouw.nl/cobouw/nieuws/toonnieuwsartikel.jsp?di=416264) article, faculty head Wytze Patijn says it had a concrete frame:
Het gebouw is veertig jaar oud en bestaat uit dertien etages en heeft een betonskeletbouwconstructie met liftschachten die voor de stabiliteit zorgen.Translated (by me): The building is 40 years old and consists of 13 floors and has a concrete frame with elevator-shafts providing stability.

[theauthor]

So the title of this thread is a lie.

OP get the thread title changed to concrete building partially collapsed.

[psikeyhackr]

That fire lasted for how many HOURS?

There was enough steel on the 81st level of the south tower to hold how many more stories?

But the south tower collapsed after 56 MINUTES destroying 70+ stories below which couldn't have been affected by the fire.

Whose side does this example help?

psik

[metamars]

I assume you're a twoofer, since you can't seem to read.
Now, read it with me!

All along
"truthers"

That's what he's saying!



See?

Two parts! You see? Even a German can do it and if a German can do it, you can, too! :)

You haven't answered my question. Believe it or not, the English language allows for a lot of ambiguity. That's one reason a lot of arguments get bogged down in word parsing - it's not necessarily an attempt to be difficult.

I doubt the situation is much different in German, but you be the judge of that, OK?

When I read

All along 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.


the question that arises in my mind is whether the author means

All along all 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.


or

All along some 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.


If the former, then the author is lying. At least in English....

[uk_dave]

If the former, then the author is lying. At least in English....

Quite frankly, the author doesn't give a toss :cool:

[gumboot]

There was enough steel on the 81st level of the south tower to hold how many more stories?


11 stories statically loaded or 6 stories dynamically loaded, according to NIST.

[-hp-]

Is it certain that the building in Delft was steel-framed?

In this (http://www.cobouw.nl/cobouw/nieuws/toonnieuwsartikel.jsp?di=416264) article, faculty head Wytze Patijn says it had a concrete frame:
Translated (by me): The building is 40 years old and consists of 13 floors and has a concrete frame with elevator-shafts providing stability.
Turns out I was wrong :o. I guess I got a little too exited yesterday when I heard bystanders making jokes about the burning building and WTC7.

The fire was finally contained at 6:00 AM this morning, you can see the concrete floor slabs hanging:

http://www.nu.nl/img.db/1566153+s(345!x243!)
http://www.nu.nl/img.db/1566155+s(345!x243!)

http://www.nufoto.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/img_2111_c8ca522301873c4a117e5cddabdbe8ae53553a95. JPG

[RedIbis]

Why didn't the steel framework of the collapsing section get "tangled" in the intact framework below and remain standing?



What steel framework?

[RedIbis]

Turns out I was wrong :o. I guess I got a little too exited yesterday when I heard bystanders making jokes about the burning building and WTC7.


At least you had the integrity to admit you were wrong. Let's see how many people who also rushed to make an inaccurate comparison also admit their error.

[Dave Rogers]

When I read

All along 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.


the question that arises in my mind is whether the author means

All along all 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.


or

All along some 'truthers' have been assuring us that steel framed structures cannot collapse through fires and that the sounds of explosions must be bombs.

If the former, then the author is lying. At least in English....


An alternative example may help to clarify the fact that there is, in fact, no ambiguity in this perfectly clear and common piece of English. If I say, "All day long seagulls have been flying over my house", do you take it as a claim that every seagull in the world has flown over my house in the last 24 hours? Personally, I wouldn't dream of interpreting it that way, and neither would anybody else who understands simple English.

Dave

[uk_dave]

At least you had the integrity to admit you were wrong. Let's see how many people who also rushed to make an inaccurate comparison also admit their error.

What error? We were advised that it was a steel framed structure and, since the bit which collapsed isn't shown in any of the above pictures, I'm inclined to believe that it was indeed a steel frame.

Why? Well, reinforced concrete performs much better in fire than (even fireproofed) steel does, so for a RC frame structure to fail in this fire is very interesting and does make any sane person wonder just how sooner a steel framed version would have failed.

The fact that the floors are concrete does not mean that the whole structure would have been. Precast concrete floor slabs are not uncommon, but they have to be supported on something, and that something appears to have collapsed. What was it?

If it was concrete then that was a vicious fire.

[psikeyhackr]

11 stories statically loaded or 6 stories dynamically loaded, according to NIST.

I was obviously talking about the time it takes to heat quantities of steel not dynamic vs static loading. Dynamic loading isn't magic. Every static level overcome would still slow the mass down. Notice they don't advertise the quantity of steel and concrete on every level below the impact zone.

psik

[twoofer]

Just the balconies fell.

[DGM]

Just the balconies fell.
Welcome twoofer (seems strange to say)

Looking at those pictures it seems they dragged some of the rest of the building with them. Do you know if they were cantilevered?

[phunk]

Every static level overcome would still slow the mass down.
And every 12 feet or so of falling between those levels speeds the mass up. And every level it overcomes adds additional falling mass.

Which is greater, the reduction in momentum from breaking through another floor, or the increase in momentum from falling farther and having mass added?

[Zorglub]

Well, let us just say that my plastic garden table never ever would have collapsed during the same circumstances.

Btw, I´m sure I see a pyroclastic flow in the video. Mininukes?

[twoofer]

DGM,

I don't know the structure of the balconies, but yes I would agree with you that it looks like they also took with them their side walls.

[Myriad]

What steel framework?


Okay, for the time being let's assume that there was none.

That takes care of half of question 1. Any answers for the other half, and the other four questions?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[RKOwens4]

you like videos.

here a little video about the spire

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=nHxDdbdsCDY

You know that feeling you have when you watch a YouTube video of some idiots doing something so stupid that after the video ends, you're sitting there speechless thinking, "What was the point of all that?" This is exactly the feeling I have after watching this video.

It's two minutes long, and doesn't even attempt to make a point. It just shows videos and photos of the cores and then says "maybe the core couldn't pancake itself". Well, that's exactly what I was saying in my initial post. The cores probably failed from falling debris crushing their base. Do you believe this "controlled demolition" initially set off charges on the perimeter columns and the people pushing the button forgot to set off the charges for the cores (and that they forgot this in BOTH cases), and then about 15 seconds later remembered to detonate the cores? What would be the point of this? Why not just demolish the building all at once?

The pancaking of the floors explains why the cores initially remained standing (don't confuse this as the initial, rejected pancake theory...the floors did pancake once the collapse began though). A controlled demolition does not. Can you provide me with a link to a website or video on a controlled demolition where a building has ever been taken down and the core remained standing, only to be taken down about 15 seconds later? I thought they took out the core first. Guess the standing cores shows that "all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition" is wrong from the very beginning.

[DC]

You know that feeling you have when you watch a YouTube video of some idiots doing something so stupid that after the video ends, you're sitting there speechless thinking, "What was the point of all that?" This is exactly the feeling I have after watching this video.

It's two minutes long, and doesn't even attempt to make a point. It just shows videos and photos of the cores and then says "maybe the core couldn't pancake itself". Well, that's exactly what I was saying in my initial post. The cores probably failed from falling debris crushing their base. Do you believe this "controlled demolition" initially set off charges on the perimeter columns and the people pushing the button forgot to set off the charges for the cores (and that they forgot this in BOTH cases), and then about 15 seconds later remembered to detonate the cores? What would be the point of this? Why not just demolish the building all at once?

The pancaking of the floors explains why the cores initially remained standing (don't confuse this as the initial, rejected pancake theory...the floors did pancake once the collapse began though). A controlled demolition does not. Can you provide me with a link to a website or video on a controlled demolition where a building has ever been taken down and the core remained standing, only to be taken down about 15 seconds later? I thought they took out the core first. Guess the standing cores shows that "all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition" is wrong from the very beginning.

achim spok videos and calculations are ways better than your wannabe debunking videos :)

try harder

[metamars]

An alternative example may help to clarify the fact that there is, in fact, no ambiguity in this perfectly clear and common piece of English. If I say, "All day long seagulls have been flying over my house", do you take it as a claim that every seagull in the world has flown over my house in the last 24 hours? Personally, I wouldn't dream of interpreting it that way, and neither would anybody else who understands simple English.

Dave

No, and neither would I interpret it as meaning that, over a 24 hour period, there was always at least a part of a seagull intersecting an imaginary, vertical structure rising from your house's footprint.

[1337m4n]

Myriad is correct. If we assume this was a concrete-framed building, Truthers still have to answer:

1. Why didn't the intact unburned floors below the collapsing sections "arrest" the collapse?

2. How could it fall at near free-fall speed? What destroyed the "resistance" of the floors below the collapse initiation zone?

3. If the collapse was driven by gravity, how could all that debris have been ejected horizontally?

4. Since one column or another must have been the first to fail, how could the falling section remain nearly horizontal along the left-right axis as it fell? We can see at about 0:44 of the first video, all the front columns giving way almost simultaneously. Are we supposed to believe all those columns just happened to fail at the same moment?

5. And yet, it's also clear from the video that the columns on the wall nearer the camera failed first, with the center and rear layers of the wing falling later. Since the foreground columns gave way first, how come the whole upper section ended up falling straight down instead of toppling forward?

Remember, Truthers, you claim that the collapse of the WTC buildings defied the laws of physics. Are concrete structures somehow immune to the laws of physics?

Back up your claims, please.

[uk_dave]

Remember, Truthers, you claim that the collapse of the WTC buildings defied the laws of physics. Are concrete structures somehow immune to the laws of physics?

Back up your claims, please.

Would that be "all truthers"? ;)

[RedIbis]

This is incredible.

It is amazing that people like theauthor would rather nitpick at inconsequential details than accept the obvious reality.

What's wrong with them? Do they WANT 9/11 to be an inside job? Does that thought actually make them HAPPY?

Is it nitpicking to point out the inconsequential detail that bldg is not steel framed?

I don't see in this thread where you admit you're wrong and there's very little reason to compare the two.

[1337m4n]

At least you had the integrity to admit you were wrong. Let's see how many people who also rushed to make an inaccurate comparison also admit their error.

"Inaccurate"?

Tell me, what holds up better in fires: a concrete framed structure or a steel framed structure?

(Hint: look at the Windsor building)

If this building is concrete, that changes nothing. You Truthers still have quite a bit of explaining (away) to do.

[1337m4n]

Would that be "all truthers"? ;)

Well, most. Max Photon is at least one exception; he pretty much agrees that fire brought down the Towers, except that they were thermite-assisted.

[1337m4n]

Is it nitpicking to point out the inconsequential detail that bldg is not steel framed?

I don't see in this thread where you admit you're wrong and there's very little reason to compare the two.

Everything is nitpicking until you explain the relevance.

Concrete buildings hold up better than steel buildings in fire. Do you dispute this?

[Mangoose]

Here is what one of the geniuses at ATS said about the Delft fire/collapse:

That in no way resembles how the world trade centers collapsed. The towers collapsed into their own footprint. Like other people that is what I expected to happen to the twin towers. I did not expect them to collapse into their own footprint.


I don't know how people could watch the WTC collapse footage and think that they towers "fell into their own footprint". In both cases peripheral debris fell "outside the footprint". And there are some striking parallels in the two collapses. For example, in both the Twin Towers and the Delft building, some peripheral debris hit the ground much faster (quasi-"free fall speed") than the progression of the collapse itself. In both cases, the collapse took quite a bit longer than the time it took for the first debris to make landfall.

[1337m4n]

I'm beginning to think that the Truthers won't be satisfied until they see a completely identical collapse of a completely identically designed building.



...and then they'll just say THAT building must have been an inside job too.

I'm about ready to give up trying to satisfy their inconsistent and constantly shifting demands. They've been shown Kader, they've been shown Nasr City, they've been shown Windsor, and now they've been shown this. Yet still they persist with the "first time and history" and related claims.

[gumboot]

I was obviously talking about the time it takes to heat quantities of steel not dynamic vs static loading.

No you weren't. You asked how many floors the steel on a given floor could support. I told you. Deal.



Dynamic loading isn't magic. Every static level overcome would still slow the mass down. Notice they don't advertise the quantity of steel and concrete on every level below the impact zone.


What has this got to do with anything? Every "static level overcome" does indeed slow the mass down, but every "static level overcome" also adds substantial mass to the preceeding mass, and immediately after every "static level overcome" the mass gains an additional 8.8m/s-1 of velocity.

Let's pretend, for a moment, that a floor weights 1000kg.

Ten floors fall 4m to an intact floor reaching a velocity of 8.8m/s and impacting with a KE of 392 KJ. Let's say the failure of that floor exactly consumes all 392 KJ and the mass precisely slows to a velocity of zero (if the arresting capabilities of the first intact floor were greater than this the first intact floor would not fail and the collapse would stop immediately).

The new mass - 11 floors, now falls a further 4m to the next floor, again reaching a velocity of 8.8m/s, and this time having a KE of 431.2 KJ. This second impact, therefore, has exceeded the intact floors ability to arrest its descent by about 10%. Therefore this impact will not slow the descending mass to zero, meaning when the new mass of 12 floors falls a further 4m to the next intact floor it will now be travelling at more than 8.8m/s in addition to having more mass, and thus will exceed the arresting capabilities of this floor by an even greater margin. And so on.

And this is, in excruciatingly simple terms, why the collapse could not be arrested once it had passed the first intact floor.

Now, you might argue that debris was ejected from the footprint of the building, thus reducing the mass as it fell. Fair enough. However in the case of the WTC the mass that was ejected was almost exclusively perimeter columns, which are load bearing - carrying approximately 50% of the gravity load of the building, and thus representing 50% of the building's ability to arrest the collapse.

Given that steel has the property of being able to support far more load than its own weight (otherwise it would make a totally useless building product) every perimeter column that falls away from the building reduces the building's ability to arrest the collapse much more substantially than it reduces the mass contributing to the collapse.

[uk_dave]

'Truther' to claim that the structure was stronger towards ground level and was designed to support the weight of all the mass above so couldn't have failed in 5....4.....3....

I've come to the conclusion that some people cannot be educated .

[-hp-]

They've started cleanup and demolishing today. Pretty fast if you ask me, are they covering up the real cause of the fire and subsequent collapse? ;) It's a pity they won't demolish it with explosives, I would haved loved to see Jowenko do is his magic in action.

[uk_dave]

But ....but.... it's a crime scene!!

Do they know what caused it? And if they do, have they investigated every other possibility, including space beams, elves and unicorns?

[Architect]

Say what you want, these Elves are wee buggers once they get their teeth into the steelwork.....

[Phaedrus74]

But ....but.... it's a crime scene!!

Do they know what caused it? And if they do, have they investigated every other possibility, including space beams, elves and unicorns?

The cause was a short-circuit in a coffee-maker....


[No-planers in 3...2...1.... ]

[Zorglub]

[No-planers in 3...2...1.... ]
Ah but there clearly was no plane.
I take it the hologram machinethingy was out of order.

[uk_dave]

The cause was a short-circuit in a coffee-maker....


[No-planers in 3...2...1.... ]

But coffee can't get HOT enough to melt concrete!!!!

[Zorglub]

But coffee can't get HOT enough to melt concrete!!!!

Have a steel framed building ever in history collapsed due to a malfunctioning espresso machine? Surely not!

[Darkhole]

Didn't you see the squibs?

http://b.imagehost.org/0799/squibs.jpg

Clearly it was an inside-job.
Oh and you might also notice the kink in the middle. And I bet some Steven Jones could find some sulphur.

Can't wait for whatever loose change would translate to in Dutch! :popcorn1


Danny Jowenko (also dutch) did it.;)

[DC]

Loose Change in Dutch would be something like "afval geld"

[LashL]

The cause was a short-circuit in a coffee-maker....


But, but, no coffee maker has ever caused the collapse of, or even a partial collapse of, any building in the history of ever. ;)


ETA: Heh, I probably should have read the entire thread before posting, but this was just such a 'gimme'....

[WildCat]

Is it nitpicking to point out the inconsequential detail that bldg is not steel framed?

I don't see in this thread where you admit you're wrong and there's very little reason to compare the two.
It's hilarious that you think it would make your case stronger if it is concrete construction. It's like claiming that just because the big bad wolf blew down the wood house it couldn't have possible blew down the straw house.

[Phaedrus74]

But, but, no coffee maker has ever caused the collapse of, or even a partial collapse of, any building in the history of ever. ;)


ETA: Heh, I probably should have read the entire thread before posting, but this was just such a 'gimme'....

Well it was offered as a springboard for silly suggestions :D

I don't know if it's been mentioned but despite initial fears that the collection of (amongst others) Corbusier and Rietveld chairs as well as the student work might have been destroyed, the library has survived!! This means that a lot of student won't have to redo their work over the holidays...

[DC]

amazing.

first we have a crush up
and we have floor below the collapse zone that is actually arresting a collapse.
strange that JREFers think this collapse is a good point for them.

actually once again, reality is contradicting Bazant and NIST.
i think reality has still to learn alot from NIST and Bazant.

[mrbaracuda]

amazing.

first we have a crush up
and we have floor below the collapse zone that is actually arresting a collapse.
strange that JREFers think this collapse is a good point for them.

actually once again, reality is contradicting Bazant and NIST.
i think reality has still to learn alot from NIST and Bazant.

No DC, amazing is you seem to directly compare this case with the WTCs. That is amazing. And, well, I won't say it. :rolleyes:

[Phaedrus74]

amazing.

first we have a crush up
and we have floor below the collapse zone that is actually arresting a collapse.
strange that JREFers think this collapse is a good point for them.

actually once again, reality is contradicting Bazant and NIST.
i think reality has still to learn alot from NIST and Bazant.

Yeah it's that or...

They actually designed the library to take the load in such an eventuality, something that makes pretty good sense if you ask me, especially if you take into account what is taught at that particular university (structural engineering for one).

[DC]

Yeah it's that or...

They actually designed the library to take the load in such an eventuality, something that makes pretty good sense if you ask me, especially if you take into account what is taught at that particular university (structural engineering for one).

they designed it not only to take the static loads, they also designed it to take dynamic loads of the impact upper building part.

amazing. if it was not het "Bouwkunde" building it would have collapsed progressively and global?

[DC]

No DC, amazing is you seem to directly compare this case with the WTCs. That is amazing. And, well, I won't say it. :rolleyes:

eeerm lol?

who was using it against the twoofers?
now i use it against you Conspiracy-Deniers.

[DC]

also funny to see how JREFers like to point out when a twoofer says , never before a steelframe building collapsed do to fire. they point finger laugh, some even insult.

but do you point fingers laugh and even insult when Dr. Bazant said the exact same thing?

[peteweaver]

DC the wtc's didn't collapse from fire, they collapsed from structural damage AND fire.

On a trivial note, steel structures have collapsed during fires before 2001.

In 1992, a steel framed factory in Bradford (west yorkshire) caught fire.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_15490482d49e673793.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12225)

As is clear the collapsed steel did not melt, but it did warp, buckle, and oxidise.

[Phaedrus74]

they designed it not only to take the static loads, they also designed it to take dynamic loads of the impact upper building part.

amazing.


Not being an architect or structural engineer, I'm not qualified to judge whether this is amazing or just foresight.

Anybody in the know want to chime in regarding the question whether this is something you can design for?


if it was not het "Bouwkunde" building it would have collapsed progressively and global?

How does this follow?

[DC]

DC the wtc's didn't collapse from fire, they collapsed from structural damage AND fire.

On a trivial note, steel structures have collapsed during fires before 2001.

In 1992, a steel framed factory in Bradford (west yorkshire) caught fire.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_15490482d49e673793.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12225)

As is clear the collapsed steel did not melt, but it did warp, buckle, and oxidise.

ah sorry my fault, No skyscraper ever collapsed before do to fire.

[chillzero]

Not being an architect or structural engineer, I'm not qualified to judge whether this is amazing or just foresight.

I'm not qualified either, but I wonder if all tall buildings have a requirement for this, to take on board the effect of high winds, etc?

ah sorry my fault, No skyscraper ever collapsed before do to fire.

again ... fire.... AND structural damage. Good grief.

[DC]

hey its not my grief :(
always when i qoute Dr. Bazant i get called liar and griefer etc.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/328231/Mechanics-of-Progressive-Collapse-Learning-from-the-World-Trade-Center-and-other-Buildings

[Phaedrus74]

I'm not qualified either, but I wonder if all tall buildings have a requirement for this, to take on board the effect of high winds, etc?


Yeah I'm hoping Architect or one of the other experts drops in to comment, I'm really curious as to what eventualities they can realistically design for without turning every building into a concrete pillbox.

[DC]

Yeah I'm hoping Architect or one of the other experts drops in to comment, I'm really curious as to what eventualities they can realistically design for without turning every building into a concrete pillbox.

i think the biggest diffrence to the WTC would be that in Delft, it is "only" the facade and the floor from facade to first row of columns that collapsed.

[mrbaracuda]

eeerm lol?

El Oh El indeed, but at you.

who was using it against the twoofers?
now i use it against you Conspiracy-Deniers.

Difference is, you are comparing the structures themself, which is absurd. The, who you call "Conspiracy-Deniers" (Funny, got any evidence? Thought as much!) use this to directly counter the assumption no steel-framed building (whether or not this incident falls into this category; but as noted, concrete alone would be even more disastrous for twoofers) has ever collapsed (even if only partially) due to fire. Sorry to see you don't see this and apparently rather keep grasping at straws to keep up your delusion.

[DC]

El Oh El indeed, but at you.



Difference is, you are comparing the structures themself, which is absurd. The, who you call "Conspiracy-Deniers" (Funny, got any evidence? Thought as much!) use this to directly counter the assumption no steel-framed building (whether or not this incident falls into this category; but as noted, concrete alone would be even more disastrous for twoofers) has ever collapsed (even if only partially) due to fire. Sorry to see you don't see this and apparently rather keep grasping at straws to keep up your delusion.

Boah eh

Its the conspiracy Deniers that started the comparing, i dont compare the structure itself, i dont even know if it was steel or concrete framing.

[Brainache]

i think the biggest diffrence to the WTC would be that in Delft, it is "only" the facade and the floor from facade to first row of columns that collapsed.

So, any idea why this building partially collapsed Dick? Would the fire have anything at all to do with it? It wasn't a total collapse, it wasn't a steel framed skyscraper and the fires were nowhere near as big as the WTC fires, so why did it collapse at all? Were there explosives or thermite involved?

Did this building house secret Dutch architectural documents?

[DC]

So, any idea why this building partially collapsed Dick? Would the fire have anything at all to do with it? It wasn't a total collapse, it wasn't a steel framed skyscraper and the fires were nowhere near as big as the WTC fires, so why did it collapse at all? Were there explosives or thermite involved?

Did this building house secret Dutch architectural documents?

where can i read the report?
where can i find details to the construction, and the fires etc?

[Brainache]

where can i read the report?
where can i find details to the construction, and the fires etc?

Not sure. Have you looked?

I only expect speculation at this point. Any ideas? Do you think the fire could have been a factor in the collapse, or would it require explosives/thermite in your opinion?

[DC]

Not sure. Have you looked?

I only expect speculation at this point. Any ideas? Do you think the fire could have been a factor in the collapse, or would it require explosives/thermite in your opinion?

i think we can be pretty sure one of the factors, propably even the main factor would be the fire.
and a partial collapse is nothing new.

[Brainache]

i think we can be pretty sure one of the factors, propably even the main factor would be the fire.
and a partial collapse is nothing new.

So imagine that the fire was much much bigger, burned for longer, the building was steel framed, and had already been damaged severely. Might a collapse under those conditions be more than partial?

[mrbaracuda]

So imagine that the fire was much much bigger, burned for longer, the building was steel framed, and had already been damaged severely. Might a collapse under those conditions be more than partial?

Yes DC, tell us! Could something buckle and initiate a global collapse on a much taller and heavier, yet rather weak in terms of sturdiness, building hit by a large plane?

[DC]

So imagine that the fire was much much bigger, burned for longer, the building was steel framed, and had already been damaged severely. Might a collapse under those conditions be more than partial?

it might be more partial yes.

but it will never be they way WTC7 collapsed.

[DC]

Yes DC, tell us! Could something buckle and initiate a global collapse on a much taller and heavier, yet rather weak in terms of sturdiness, building hit by a large plane?

weak in terms of what? Sags mal auf Deutsch bitte.

[Brainache]

it might be more partial yes.

but it will never be they way WTC7 collapsed.

You seem very sure on this point Dick. Why?

[chillzero]

it might be more partial yes.

but it will never be they way WTC7 collapsed.

How do you know this?

[DC]

You seem very sure on this point Dick. Why?

very not, pretty yes.

do to the way it came down, nearly symmetrical.

[DC]

How do you know this?

i will ignore you now :D
you called me griefer for quoting Dr. Bazant :(

[peteweaver]

ah sorry my fault, No skyscraper ever collapsed before do to fire.

Does that mean that steel skyscrapers (not all are steel) are incapable of collapsing due to fire ? I don't think so. If they were incapable of collapsing due to fire, there wouldn't be any need for fireproofing, sprinklers, hose pipes etc.

[chillzero]

i will ignore you now :D
you called me griefer for quoting Dr. Bazant :(

You'll ignore me for asking a perfectly reasonable question? :rolleyes:


Why would you not just answer the question? How can you possibly know how this building would have reacted under extra stresses?


(I never called you a 'griefer', whatever that is. I don't resort to name calling.)

[Brainache]

very not, pretty yes.

do to the way it came down, nearly symmetrical.

So you are pretty sure that WTC7 should have, what? Fallen apart in mid air? Toppled sideways? Only half collapsed? What? and why do you think that?

[DC]

Does that mean that steel skyscrapers (not all are steel) are incapable of collapsing due to fire ? I don't think so. If they were incapable of collapsing due to fire, there wouldn't be any need for fireproofing, sprinklers, hose pipes etc.

you best tell that to Dr. Bazant, it is actually his strawman, i just borowed it to upset JREFers :D

[DC]

You'll ignore me for asking a perfectly reasonable question? :rolleyes:


Why would you not just answer the question? How can you possibly know how this building would have reacted under extra stresses?


(I never called you a 'griefer', whatever that is. I don't resort to name calling.)

yes to be honest it is a reasonable question :)

and i dont know. but i think it is very very unlikely that a onesided damaged and uncontroled burning building will result in a symmetric total collapse. normally we see that only in CD's and 9/11.

[DC]

So you are pretty sure that WTC7 should have, what? Fallen apart in mid air? Toppled sideways? Only half collapsed? What? and why do you think that?

toppeled to the side is not exactly how we should call it, but it should have collapsed to the damaged side alot more than it did.

[chillzero]

yes to be honest it is a reasonable question :)

and i dont know. but i think it is very very unlikely that a onesided damaged and uncontroled burning building will result in a symmetric total collapse. normally we see that only in CD's and 9/11.

You weren't asked if it would collapse symmetrically. You were asked Might a collapse under those conditions be more than partial?

[Darkhole]

Funny blog but, sorry for most people here, in Dutch.
http://zaplog.nl/zaplog/article/wubbo_oksels_vs_de_complotwereld

[Phaedrus74]

Funny blog but, sorry for most people here, in Dutch.
http://zaplog.nl/zaplog/article/wubbo_oksels_vs_de_complotwereld

Great read! Thanks for the heads-up...

Jeroen.

[mrbaracuda]

weak in terms of what? Sags mal auf Deutsch bitte.

Gerne doch. Was ich meine ist, dass es keine solide Struktur war, die einen Einschlag solch eines Flugzeuges plus den Brand und das Gewicht der oberen Stockwerke und dessen kinetische Energie verkraftet hat.

Wie du sicher weißt, waren WTC 1 & 2 so konstruiert, dass möglichst viel Bürofläche, bzw. kommerziell nutzbare Fläche entsteht. Die Außenwände dienten meines Erachtens nach als das zentrale Stück für den Zusammenhalt, zusammen mit den Bodenplatten und dem Stahlkern.

Nu, Flugzeug rein, Brand, Außenwand wird verschoben durch durchgebogene Bodenplatten bzw. dessen Träger, der Zusammenhalt fehlt, es knickt etwas ein, die oberen Stockwerke kommen dazu und die Bodenplatten und -träger brechen ab und der zentrale Zusammenhalt durch die Außenwand fehlt - es kommt alles runter durch das eigene Gewicht und den verlorenen Halt.

Die Struktur der TU Delft jetzt mit dem WTC zu vergleichen ist Unsinn, aber darum geht es auch gar nicht. Es geht darum, dass ein durchaus robusteres Gebäude wie die TU in diesem Falle teilweise durch Feuer so sehr geschwächt werden kann, dass es zusammenstürzt (wenn auch nur teilweise, aber das ist ja auch der Knackpunkt: Es waren 1. die Balkone wie es scheint und 2. ist das ganze Gebäude viel robuster als das WTC 1 & 2, da auf Betonwänden aufgebaut. Dass solche Gebäude wie das WTC jedoch je durch Feuer zusammenstürzten, bestreiten die Twoofer).