Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 SF Earthquake?

Galileo · 1st January 2009, 06:35 PM

OK guys and gals, here is today's thought question!

Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the ensuing three-day fire?

Pros:

WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes, had fire-proofing, a water sprinkler system, and a fire alarm system to to quickly alert firemen.

On top of that, other tall steel-framed buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake and three-day fire, and still stand today.

Cons:

WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11. Surely the wallop of the 8.3 richter quake and three-day inferno would have taken Building 7 out.

Thoughts?

Bell · 1st January 2009, 06:46 PM

stateofgrace · 1st January 2009, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

OK guys and gals, here is today's thought question!

Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the ensuing three-day fire?

Pros:

WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes, had fire-proofing, a water sprinkler system, and a fire alarm system to to quickly alert firemen.

On top of that, other tall steel-framed buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake and three-day fire, and still stand today.

Cons:

WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11. Surely the wallop of the 8.3 richter quake and three-day inferno would have taken Building 7 out.

Thoughts?

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2550/sfingerzg2.jpg

Thoughts?

Sure, 2009 as come with a bang and you started the most pointless thread with the most ridiculous comparison/senario I have seen this year.

Well done, I am sure 2009 will bring you continuing success.

AJM8125 · 1st January 2009, 06:55 PM

Some stood some fell. What's your point?

I wonder how many of these buildings were built over a ConEd substation and shared the some of the same construction attributes with WTC7.

Grizzly Bear · 1st January 2009, 07:02 PM

[content rearranged for clarity]

Originally Posted by Galileo

WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes

It was?

Where is this mentioned???

Originally Posted by Galileo

On top of that, other tall steel-framed buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake and three-day fire, and still stand today.

Are you seriously trying to compare the designs of buildings constructed one hundred years ago with absolutely no differentiation between the specifications of them individually? IIRC didn't predominantly steel framed construction become common practice until much later?

Originally Posted by Galileo

Cons:
WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11. Surely the wallop of the 8.3 richter quake and three-day inferno would have taken Building 7 out.

Thoughts?

Manhattan is not located in a designated earthquake zone and the codes applied for earthquake resistant design are not implemented there like they are in San Francisco today. If it were required to follow the same codes it would receive a failing grade. The question as to whether it could survive an earthquake would be immensely reliant upon the magnitude, and the frame's ability to withstand the forced applied to it.

Originally Posted by Galileo

OK guys and gals, here is today's thought question!

Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the ensuing three-day fire?

The severity of an earthquake rises exponentially with each increase in magnitude so without considering earthquake resistant design, a building like WTC 7 would in all likelihood have suffered the same fate in an earthquake of similar magnitude to the 1906 event or greater.

Now what in blue hell does your question have any relevance to????

defaultdotxbe · 1st January 2009, 07:02 PM

id ask if the WTC was designed to withstand earthquakes (seeing as NYC is seismically stable) but instead ill just ask what is the point of this thread?

Grizzly Bear · 1st January 2009, 07:04 PM

Another one of those threads where the analogy is completely irrelevant to the the event it's being compared to?

firecoins · 1st January 2009, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes

Just the facts. WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand an accidental airplane crash with nothing figured in for the fuel. A smaller jet going in at slower speeds than what occurred on 9/11. WTC 7 was not designed to withstand any such event.

T.A.M. · 1st January 2009, 07:10 PM

If a steel framed skyscraper falls in the forest, does anybody here it fall.

TAM

JoeyDonuts · 1st January 2009, 07:15 PM

Nevermind your "small office fire" was a conflagration on multiple floors.

Nevermind that it had been impacted by falling debris with a force orders of magnitude above TNT.

Nevermind that the FDNY pulled the firefighting effort for fear of losing more precious personnel.

Your argument, like Galileo's finger, is withered, old, and not really relevant to anything.

WildCat · 1st January 2009, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Bell

♫♪♫And nothing changes, on New Year's Day...♪♫

beachnut · 1st January 2009, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

...

Cons:

WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11. Surely the wallop of the 8.3 richter quake and three-day inferno would have taken Building 7 out.

Thoughts?

What a false statement. Was there a massive release of truthers for the holidays? How many fell off the wagon? This is weird, there is not even a full moon.

There were office fires not fought, and the building was expected to fail or suffer damage that would be dangerous to people. Just like other buildings. There was no water for the sprinklers systems.

Oh, please tell me which 47 story steel building that burned in SF in 1906 is still standing. Go ahead, make my day.

beachnut · 1st January 2009, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

...
WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes, had fire-proofing, a water sprinkler system, and a fire alarm system to to quickly alert firemen.

Prove WTC7 was designed for an aircraft impact; show me.

OOPS, the water sprinkler system did not work on 9/11! Do you know why?

You threw in the fire alarm for what reason? What a great 9/11 truth post. wow

Björn Toulouse · 1st January 2009, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

Another one of those threads where the analogy is completely irrelevant to the the event it's being compared to?

Hey, it's the best they got left.

DavidJames · 1st January 2009, 10:09 PM

Is Galileo suggesting the 1906 Earthquake was an inside job?

Grizzly Bear · 1st January 2009, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by Björn Toulouse

Hey, it's the best they got left.

You mean the crippling limp from the start line?

firecoins · 1st January 2009, 11:38 PM

I see Galileo is a run and gun type of poster. Makes a false statement and runs.

Foolmewunz · 2nd January 2009, 12:22 AM

I think this can only be properly examined in one way.

This just cries out, of course, for MORE PIZZA BOXES!
And you could stack 'em on your old Norge washing machine, set on Spin, to get the vibrations right. I'm not sure if Galileo's up to it, but I'm sure someone around here would be.

eromitlab · 2nd January 2009, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by Galileo

On top of that, other tall steel-framed buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake and three-day fire, and still stand today.

Can you name one?

Originally Posted by Galileo

WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11.

Galileo · 2nd January 2009, 08:32 AM

UPDATE!

Pro:

If WTC 7 were in San Fran, it would NOT have been built upon a ConEd substation, and thus would have survived the ordeal.

Con:

The thermal expansion caused by the three-day inferno in SF would probably have exceeded the thermal expansion caused by the small office fire on 9/11.

Just some additional facts for ya to chew on and throw into the mix.

"Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the ensuing three-day fire?"

Bell · 2nd January 2009, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Galileo

"Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the ensuing three-day fire?"

What the hell kind of point are you trying to make

Grizzly Bear · 2nd January 2009, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Galileo

UPDATE!

Pro:

If WTC 7 were in San Fran, it would NOT have been built upon a ConEd substation, and thus would have survived the ordeal.

So now you're changing the design specifications of the building you're trying to compare to?

Originally Posted by Galileo

The thermal expansion caused by the three-day inferno in SF would probably have exceeded the thermal expansion caused by the small office fire on 9/11.

Uh... what? You do realize that thermal expansion is a function of temperature, not time right? (I really hope you do...)

Originally Posted by Galileo

Just some additional facts for ya to chew on and throw into the mix.

Changing the design isn't quite the way to do it... Then again, comparing the two events arbitrarily doesn't make much sense at all either...

twinstead · 2nd January 2009, 08:44 AM

LOL. Small office fire on 9/11. Priceless

peteweaver · 2nd January 2009, 09:02 AM

You ignore the way the building was built, you ignore the fact that none of the WTC's were designed to survive kamikaze attacks, you ignore the damage that was done to the WTC's, the comparison is just silly.

Older steel buildings were constructed using a grid, an immensely strong structure, but it doesn't provide that much floor space, to get around that the columns were shifted outwards, making a tube in a tube structure with floors suspended between outer columns and inner core columns. |--------------------------------|

This method hangs the floors like a suspension bridge.
Because of damage done to the supports and because of fire, sagging occurs, pulling on the remaining supports making them bow
)__________\this bit would sag most/___________(

Now only half the surface area of the column can actually bear the load, the rest is starting to suffer from a bending moment, with torsion and tension occuring, and not only that, at a molecular level, the metallurgical properties of the steel has been weakened by fire, losing its martensitic hardness that gives it rigidity.
Martensite is easily destroyed by heat leaving the steel too soft and bendy to do the job.

roundhead · 2nd January 2009, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by firecoins

Just the facts. WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand an accidental airplane crash with nothing figured in for the fuel. A smaller jet going in at slower speeds than what occurred on 9/11. WTC 7 was not designed to withstand any such event.

Yeah, they always figure planes dont have any fuel onboard when they are flying around.

Sharp engineers and planners alway forget to consider that

Bell · 2nd January 2009, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by roundhead

Yeah, they always figure planes dont have any fuel onboard when they are flying around.

Sharp engineers and planners alway forget to consider that

Oh wait! Burning fuel from a planecrash WAS concidered in the design of the WTC? Can you show me this? I bet you can't.

Earthborn · 2nd January 2009, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by roundhead

Yeah, they always figure planes dont have any fuel onboard when they are flying around.

Actually, that's not such an unreasonable assumption. If in an emergency the pilots know they are going to make a crash landing (especially in a city) they will dump the remaining fuel because they know that a crash landing with fuel is going to be much more devastating than one without.

To answer the OP, a quote from this:

Quote:

I can see the Twin Towers... They are still standing!

beachnut · 2nd January 2009, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by roundhead

Yeah, they always figure planes dont have any fuel onboard when they are flying around.

Sharp engineers and planners alway forget to consider that

WTC design was for a lost plane, in the weather (pilot can't see), low on fuel (cause if he was lost in the fog he would go where he would not be in the weather if he had lots of fuel), and landing, or lost trying to land. Landing speed is about 180 mph at 700 feet, and thus we have a low energy impact designed for in the WTC, and low fuel. However, the structural engineer for the WTC did say he did not plan for lots of fuel being injected (at high speed) into the WTC. He did not consider it, a slow speed aircraft impact low on fuel would not destroy the WTC, most the plane would fall to the ground and poke a few holes in the building, killing only those near the impact point.

The impact speed of the planes on 9/11 is what caused the damage and destroyed the fire systems in both towers. The fuel started fires on multiple floors.

Sorry, the design of the WTC was for a slow impact, and low fuel. Your point is lost on those who are not as smart as you are, or you say you are will all that common sense.

Where are the 47 story steel frame buildings that survived the SF fires and earth quake?

Galileo · 2nd January 2009, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

WTC design was for a lost plane, in the weather (pilot can't see), low on fuel (cause if he was lost in the fog he would go where he would not be in the weather if he had lots of fuel), and landing, or lost trying to land. Landing speed is about 180 mph at 700 feet, and thus we have a low energy impact designed for in the WTC, and low fuel. However, the structural engineer for the WTC did say he did not plan for lots of fuel being injected (at high speed) into the WTC. He did not consider it, a slow speed aircraft impact low on fuel would not destroy the WTC, most the plane would fall to the ground and poke a few holes in the building, killing only those near the impact point.

The impact speed of the planes on 9/11 is what caused the damage and destroyed the fire systems in both towers. The fuel started fires on multiple floors.

Sorry, the design of the WTC was for a slow impact, and low fuel. Your point is lost on those who are not as smart as you are, or you say you are will all that common sense.

Where are the 47 story steel frame buildings that survived the SF fires and earth quake?

WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane.

You lie. I never said there was a 47 story tall steel framed building in SF in 1906.

Grizzly Bear · 2nd January 2009, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane.

And it wasn't designed for it either. Unless you intend to provide the necessary design specifications that indicate otherwise in order to bolster your argument.

Originally Posted by Galileo

You lie. I never said there was a 47 story tall steel framed building in SF in 1906.

Everyone here is still trying to find where your comparison matches with WTC 7. All you did was point to an earthquake and subsequent fire and say "look at all these steel buildings that survived". Are you even trying anymore? If you want to make any legitimate comparison to WTC 7 you're going to have to do better than just point out that buildings survived both an earthquake and fire. Designs play every bit a role in structural performance, and I see nothing in your attempt that makes any effort to take that into account...

beachnut · 2nd January 2009, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane.

You lie. I never said there was a 47 story tall steel framed building in SF in 1906.

The point is WTC7 was not designed for and aircraft impact, the towers were. But you have no idea what you are talking about.

Please show me by name the steel frame buildings in SF that survived the fires in 06, fires not fought. Please take your time.

Originally Posted by Galileo

...

Originally Posted by Galileo

Pros:

WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes, had fire-proofing, a water sprinkler system, and a fire alarm system to to quickly alert firemen.

On top of that, other tall steel-framed buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake and three-day fire, and still stand today.

Cons:

WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11. Surely the wallop of the 8.3 richter quake and three-day inferno would have taken Building 7 out.

No your post, your OP was a lie. WTC7 was not designed for aircraft impacts, and you have not shown any steel frame buildings that survived fires not fought in SF.

Plus WTC7 was not a small office fire. Strike three.

Strike four - no fire sprinklers worked, there was no water! Have to revise this ball game.

Were there any 47 story buildings in SF in 06? Great comparison.

Bell · 2nd January 2009, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

I never said there was a 47 story tall steel framed building in SF in 1906.

There also was no earthquake in New York on 9/11.

What the hell is the point you are trying to make?

HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP · 2nd January 2009, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

OK guys and gals, here is today's thought question!

is it.......Why are you wasting time coming here to JREF?

AJM8125 · 2nd January 2009, 09:37 PM

I live in San Francisco. There are no 47 story high rises here. There's a 48 story one. There's a 52 story one. There's a brand new 60 story one that's just about finished and ready to occupy. For Bell's sake, there's less than 100 million chinese here. Another useless point, I wasn't alive during the 1906 quake, but did experience the 1989 7.2 quake from inside a 29 story high rise. It did not collapse. I did not die. What's my point? I don't know. What's yours?

Galileo · 2nd January 2009, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

And it wasn't designed for it either.

No airplanes flew into tall buildings in S.F. during the '06 earthquake. You are fighting the straw man.

Galileo · 2nd January 2009, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

[color=black]

[color=black][font=Verdana]Strike four - no fire sprinklers worked, there was no water! Have to revise this ball game.

What's your evidence the WTC 7 water sprinklers would not have worked during the '06 quake or the ensuing fire?

beachnut · 2nd January 2009, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

What's your evidence the WTC 7 water sprinklers would not have worked during the '06 quake or the ensuing fire?

...

Just say no.

The sprinklers did not work in WTC7 on 9/11, there was no water; WTC7 fires were not fought by firemen.

Grizzly Bear · 2nd January 2009, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

No airplanes flew into tall buildings in S.F. during the '06 earthquake. You are fighting the straw man.

Originally Posted by Galileo

WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes, had fire-proofing, a water sprinkler system, and a fire alarm system to to quickly alert firemen.

You made the claim... whether it refers to the 1906 earthquake or not... Do yourself a favor and look up what a strawman is, because clearly you missed something when you read my posts.

Not that it matters, you've yet to demonstrate what examples specifically represent a comparison to WTC 7 and you've apparently ignored all comments criticizing your lack of emphasis on any one particular design that makes you case viable,

Cl1mh4224rd · 2nd January 2009, 11:11 PM

You know Galileo's just making these threads as an excuse to repeatedly post that picture of Mr. Galilei's finger.

dtugg · 2nd January 2009, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

You know Galileo's just making these threads as an excuse to repeatedly post that picture of Mr. Galilei's finger.

Well wouldn't it be his finger since he is the Galileo? Yes, he has said this before.

1st January 2009, 06:35 PM	#1
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 SF Earthquake? OK guys and gals, here is today's thought question! Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the ensuing three-day fire? Pros: WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes, had fire-proofing, a water sprinkler system, and a fire alarm system to to quickly alert firemen. On top of that, other tall steel-framed buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake and three-day fire, and still stand today. Cons: WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11. Surely the wallop of the 8.3 richter quake and three-day inferno would have taken Building 7 out. Thoughts?

1st January 2009, 06:46 PM	#2
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 20,465
	__________________ Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life. I♥NY You gotta love cops.

1st January 2009, 06:49 PM	#3
stateofgrace Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Scotland Posts: 3,847	Originally Posted by Galileo OK guys and gals, here is today's thought question! Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the ensuing three-day fire? Pros: WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes, had fire-proofing, a water sprinkler system, and a fire alarm system to to quickly alert firemen. On top of that, other tall steel-framed buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake and three-day fire, and still stand today. Cons: WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11. Surely the wallop of the 8.3 richter quake and three-day inferno would have taken Building 7 out. Thoughts? http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2550/sfingerzg2.jpg Thoughts? Sure, 2009 as come with a bang and you started the most pointless thread with the most ridiculous comparison/senario I have seen this year. Well done, I am sure 2009 will bring you continuing success.
	Last edited by stateofgrace; 1st January 2009 at 06:55 PM.

1st January 2009, 07:02 PM	#5
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	[content rearranged for clarity] Originally Posted by Galileo WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes It was? Where is this mentioned??? Originally Posted by Galileo On top of that, other tall steel-framed buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake and three-day fire, and still stand today. Are you seriously trying to compare the designs of buildings constructed one hundred years ago with absolutely no differentiation between the specifications of them individually? IIRC didn't predominantly steel framed construction become common practice until much later? Originally Posted by Galileo Cons: WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11. Surely the wallop of the 8.3 richter quake and three-day inferno would have taken Building 7 out. Thoughts? Manhattan is not located in a designated earthquake zone and the codes applied for earthquake resistant design are not implemented there like they are in San Francisco today. If it were required to follow the same codes it would receive a failing grade. The question as to whether it could survive an earthquake would be immensely reliant upon the magnitude, and the frame's ability to withstand the forced applied to it. Originally Posted by Galileo OK guys and gals, here is today's thought question! Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the ensuing three-day fire? The severity of an earthquake rises exponentially with each increase in magnitude so without considering earthquake resistant design, a building like WTC 7 would in all likelihood have suffered the same fate in an earthquake of similar magnitude to the 1906 event or greater. Now what in blue hell does your question have any relevance to????
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D

1st January 2009, 07:02 PM	#6
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	id ask if the WTC was designed to withstand earthquakes (seeing as NYC is seismically stable) but instead ill just ask what is the point of this thread?
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

1st January 2009, 06:55 PM	#4
AJM8125 NWO Black Ops Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: **** Creek, California Posts: 15,250	Some stood some fell. What's your point? I wonder how many of these buildings were built over a ConEd substation and shared the some of the same construction attributes with WTC7.

1st January 2009, 07:04 PM	#7
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	Another one of those threads where the analogy is completely irrelevant to the the event it's being compared to?
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D

1st January 2009, 07:09 PM	#8
firecoins Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Nyack, NY Posts: 3,191	Originally Posted by Galileo WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes Just the facts. WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand an accidental airplane crash with nothing figured in for the fuel. A smaller jet going in at slower speeds than what occurred on 9/11. WTC 7 was not designed to withstand any such event.
	__________________ NY Paramedic, skeptic, 9/11/01 Reality-ist. I am both right wing nut and left wing lunatic. Deal with it.

1st January 2009, 07:10 PM	#9
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	If a steel framed skyscraper falls in the forest, does anybody here it fall. TAM

1st January 2009, 07:15 PM	#10
JoeyDonuts Frequencies Not Known To Normals Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Parts Unknown Posts: 10,636	Nevermind your "small office fire" was a conflagration on multiple floors. Nevermind that it had been impacted by falling debris with a force orders of magnitude above TNT. Nevermind that the FDNY pulled the firefighting effort for fear of losing more precious personnel. Your argument, like Galileo's finger, is withered, old, and not really relevant to anything.
	__________________ _{EXIT STAGE LEFT! EXIT STAGE RIGHT! THERE IS NO PLACE TO RUN; ALL THE FUSES IN THE EXIT SIGNS HAVE BEEN BURNED OUT!}

1st January 2009, 08:09 PM	#11
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,998	Originally Posted by Bell ♫♪♫And nothing changes, on New Year's Day...♪♫

1st January 2009, 08:21 PM	#12
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,890	Originally Posted by Galileo ... Cons: WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11. Surely the wallop of the 8.3 richter quake and three-day inferno would have taken Building 7 out. Thoughts? What a false statement. Was there a massive release of truthers for the holidays? How many fell off the wagon? This is weird, there is not even a full moon. There were office fires not fought, and the building was expected to fail or suffer damage that would be dangerous to people. Just like other buildings. There was no water for the sprinklers systems. Oh, please tell me which 47 story steel building that burned in SF in 1906 is still standing. Go ahead, make my day.

1st January 2009, 08:26 PM	#13
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,890	Originally Posted by Galileo ... WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes, had fire-proofing, a water sprinkler system, and a fire alarm system to to quickly alert firemen. Prove WTC7 was designed for an aircraft impact; show me. OOPS, the water sprinkler system did not work on 9/11! Do you know why? You threw in the fire alarm for what reason? What a great 9/11 truth post. wow

1st January 2009, 09:19 PM	#14
Björn Toulouse Cavitus Rectum Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: miles from Nowhere Posts: 1,406	Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear Another one of those threads where the analogy is completely irrelevant to the the event it's being compared to? Hey, it's the best they got left.
	__________________ The most complete and happy victory is this: to compel one's enemy to give up his purpose, while suffering no harm oneself. Belisarius

1st January 2009, 10:09 PM	#15
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,083	Is Galileo suggesting the 1906 Earthquake was an inside job?
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.

1st January 2009, 10:27 PM	#16
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	Originally Posted by Björn Toulouse Hey, it's the best they got left. You mean the crippling limp from the start line?
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D

1st January 2009, 11:38 PM	#17
firecoins Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Nyack, NY Posts: 3,191	I see Galileo is a run and gun type of poster. Makes a false statement and runs.
	__________________ NY Paramedic, skeptic, 9/11/01 Reality-ist. I am both right wing nut and left wing lunatic. Deal with it.

2nd January 2009, 12:22 AM	#18
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,511	I think this can only be properly examined in one way. This just cries out, of course, for MORE PIZZA BOXES! And you could stack 'em on your old Norge washing machine, set on Spin, to get the vibrations right. I'm not sure if Galileo's up to it, but I'm sure someone around here would be.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

2nd January 2009, 02:06 AM	#19
eromitlab Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: north Alabama Posts: 921	Originally Posted by Galileo On top of that, other tall steel-framed buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake and three-day fire, and still stand today. Can you name one? Originally Posted by Galileo WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11.
	__________________ With my reputation, I do expect everyone to take what I say at face value. -Galileo

2nd January 2009, 08:32 AM	#20
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	UPDATE! Pro: If WTC 7 were in San Fran, it would NOT have been built upon a ConEd substation, and thus would have survived the ordeal. Con: The thermal expansion caused by the three-day inferno in SF would probably have exceeded the thermal expansion caused by the small office fire on 9/11. Just some additional facts for ya to chew on and throw into the mix. *"Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the ensuing three-day fire?"*

2nd January 2009, 08:35 AM	#21
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 20,465	Originally Posted by Galileo *"Would WTC 7 have survived the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the ensuing three-day fire?"* What the hell kind of point are you trying to make
	__________________ Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life. I♥NY You gotta love cops. Last edited by Bell; 2nd January 2009 at 08:36 AM.

2nd January 2009, 08:41 AM	#22
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	Originally Posted by Galileo UPDATE! Pro: If WTC 7 were in San Fran, it would NOT have been built upon a ConEd substation, and thus would have survived the ordeal. So now you're changing the design specifications of the building you're trying to compare to? Originally Posted by Galileo The thermal expansion caused by the three-day inferno in SF would probably have exceeded the thermal expansion caused by the small office fire on 9/11. Uh... what? You do realize that thermal expansion is a function of temperature, not time right? (I really hope you do...) Originally Posted by Galileo Just some additional facts for ya to chew on and throw into the mix. Changing the design isn't quite the way to do it... Then again, comparing the two events arbitrarily doesn't make much sense at all either...
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D

2nd January 2009, 08:44 AM	#23
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,572	LOL. Small office fire on 9/11. Priceless
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

2nd January 2009, 09:02 AM	#24
peteweaver Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: UK Posts: 1,005	You ignore the way the building was built, you ignore the fact that none of the WTC's were designed to survive kamikaze attacks, you ignore the damage that was done to the WTC's, the comparison is just silly. Older steel buildings were constructed using a grid, an immensely strong structure, but it doesn't provide that much floor space, to get around that the columns were shifted outwards, making a tube in a tube structure with floors suspended between outer columns and inner core columns. \|--------------------------------\| This method hangs the floors like a suspension bridge. Because of damage done to the supports and because of fire, sagging occurs, pulling on the remaining supports making them bow )__________\this bit would sag most/___________( Now only half the surface area of the column can actually bear the load, the rest is starting to suffer from a bending moment, with torsion and tension occuring, and not only that, at a molecular level, the metallurgical properties of the steel has been weakened by fire, losing its martensitic hardness that gives it rigidity. Martensite is easily destroyed by heat leaving the steel too soft and bendy to do the job.

2nd January 2009, 01:17 PM	#25
roundhead Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 824	Originally Posted by firecoins Just the facts. WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand an accidental airplane crash with nothing figured in for the fuel. A smaller jet going in at slower speeds than what occurred on 9/11. WTC 7 was not designed to withstand any such event. Yeah, they always figure planes dont have any fuel onboard when they are flying around. Sharp engineers and planners alway forget to consider that
roundhead Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 824

2nd January 2009, 01:49 PM	#26
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 20,465	Originally Posted by roundhead Yeah, they always figure planes dont have any fuel onboard when they are flying around. Sharp engineers and planners alway forget to consider that Oh wait! Burning fuel from a planecrash WAS concidered in the design of the WTC? Can you show me this? I bet you can't.
	__________________ Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life. I♥NY You gotta love cops.

2nd January 2009, 01:56 PM	#27
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 5,646	Originally Posted by roundhead Yeah, they always figure planes dont have any fuel onboard when they are flying around. Actually, that's not such an unreasonable assumption. If in an emergency the pilots know they are going to make a crash landing (especially in a city) they will dump the remaining fuel because they know that a crash landing with fuel is going to be much more devastating than one without. To answer the OP, a quote from this: Quote: I can see the Twin Towers... They are still standing!
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli

2nd January 2009, 03:57 PM	#28
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,890	Originally Posted by roundhead Yeah, they always figure planes dont have any fuel onboard when they are flying around. Sharp engineers and planners alway forget to consider that WTC design was for a lost plane, in the weather (pilot can't see), low on fuel (cause if he was lost in the fog he would go where he would not be in the weather if he had lots of fuel), and landing, or lost trying to land. Landing speed is about 180 mph at 700 feet, and thus we have a low energy impact designed for in the WTC, and low fuel. However, the structural engineer for the WTC did say he did not plan for lots of fuel being injected (at high speed) into the WTC. He did not consider it, a slow speed aircraft impact low on fuel would not destroy the WTC, most the plane would fall to the ground and poke a few holes in the building, killing only those near the impact point. The impact speed of the planes on 9/11 is what caused the damage and destroyed the fire systems in both towers. The fuel started fires on multiple floors. Sorry, the design of the WTC was for a slow impact, and low fuel. Your point is lost on those who are not as smart as you are, or you say you are will all that common sense. Where are the 47 story steel frame buildings that survived the SF fires and earth quake?
	Last edited by beachnut; 2nd January 2009 at 03:58 PM.

2nd January 2009, 09:02 PM	#29
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by beachnut WTC design was for a lost plane, in the weather (pilot can't see), low on fuel (cause if he was lost in the fog he would go where he would not be in the weather if he had lots of fuel), and landing, or lost trying to land. Landing speed is about 180 mph at 700 feet, and thus we have a low energy impact designed for in the WTC, and low fuel. However, the structural engineer for the WTC did say he did not plan for lots of fuel being injected (at high speed) into the WTC. He did not consider it, a slow speed aircraft impact low on fuel would not destroy the WTC, most the plane would fall to the ground and poke a few holes in the building, killing only those near the impact point. The impact speed of the planes on 9/11 is what caused the damage and destroyed the fire systems in both towers. The fuel started fires on multiple floors. Sorry, the design of the WTC was for a slow impact, and low fuel. Your point is lost on those who are not as smart as you are, or you say you are will all that common sense. Where are the 47 story steel frame buildings that survived the SF fires and earth quake? WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane. You lie. I never said there was a 47 story tall steel framed building in SF in 1906.

2nd January 2009, 09:08 PM	#30
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	Originally Posted by Galileo WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane. And it wasn't designed for it either. Unless you intend to provide the necessary design specifications that indicate otherwise in order to bolster your argument. Originally Posted by Galileo You lie. I never said there was a 47 story tall steel framed building in SF in 1906. Everyone here is still trying to find where your comparison matches with WTC 7. All you did was point to an earthquake and subsequent fire and say "look at all these steel buildings that survived". Are you even trying anymore? If you want to make any legitimate comparison to WTC 7 you're going to have to do better than just point out that buildings survived both an earthquake and fire. Designs play every bit a role in structural performance, and I see nothing in your attempt that makes any effort to take that into account...
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,689	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D

2nd January 2009, 09:09 PM	#31
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,890	Originally Posted by Galileo WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane. You lie. I never said there was a 47 story tall steel framed building in SF in 1906. The point is WTC7 was not designed for and aircraft impact, the towers were. But you have no idea what you are talking about. Please show me by name the steel frame buildings in SF that survived the fires in 06, fires not fought. Please take your time. Originally Posted by Galileo ... Originally Posted by Galileo Pros: WTC 7 was a steel framed building designed to withstand multiple fully-loaded airplane strikes, had fire-proofing, a water sprinkler system, and a fire alarm system to to quickly alert firemen. On top of that, other tall steel-framed buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake and three-day fire, and still stand today. Cons: WTC 7 fell down from a small office fire on 9/11. Surely the wallop of the 8.3 richter quake and three-day inferno would have taken Building 7 out. No your post, your OP was a lie. WTC7 was not designed for aircraft impacts, and you have not shown any steel frame buildings that survived fires not fought in SF. Plus WTC7 was not a small office fire. Strike three. Strike four - no fire sprinklers worked, there was no water! Have to revise this ball game. Were there any 47 story buildings in SF in 06? Great comparison.
	Last edited by beachnut; 2nd January 2009 at 09:13 PM.

2nd January 2009, 09:12 PM	#32
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 20,465	Originally Posted by Galileo I never said there was a 47 story tall steel framed building in SF in 1906. There also was no earthquake in New York on 9/11. What the hell is the point you are trying to make?
	__________________ Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life. I♥NY You gotta love cops.

2nd January 2009, 09:23 PM	#33
HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 460	Originally Posted by Galileo OK guys and gals, here is today's thought question! is it.......Why are you wasting time coming here to JREF?

2nd January 2009, 09:37 PM	#34
AJM8125 NWO Black Ops Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: **** Creek, California Posts: 15,250	I live in San Francisco. There are no 47 story high rises here. There's a 48 story one. There's a 52 story one. There's a brand new 60 story one that's just about finished and ready to occupy. For Bell's sake, there's less than 100 million chinese here. Another useless point, I wasn't alive during the 1906 quake, but did experience the 1989 7.2 quake from inside a 29 story high rise. It did not collapse. I did not die. What's my point? I don't know. What's yours?

2nd January 2009, 10:41 PM	#35
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear And it wasn't designed for it either. No airplanes flew into tall buildings in S.F. during the '06 earthquake. You are fighting the straw man.