Life After People - U.S. Bank Tower

Originally posted by ridgeback
What kind of structure is the US bank tower? Is the main structure internal like most buildings or the external walls like the wtc ? Then crash a 757 at around 570 mph into it and see how long it stands.

To be clear, what you have to do to make a 1000 ft steel skyscraper fall is:

1. Pick the highest speed possible for a plane in your failure model.
2. Pick the highest possible weight for a plane in your failure model.
3. Pick the highest possible strength for the plane's structure in your failure model.
4. Pick the lowest possible strength for the tower structure in your failure model.
5. Reject all models that don't come remotely close to inducing failure.
6. Run your model repetitively with the failure model steps 1-5 give you and when you can't initiate failure, start cranking the internal temperature up 300% over what you have data to support. If that doesn't initiate failure, go higher. If that doesn't work throw in words that people think you're using correctly, but aren't, like "creep", etc.
7. That just initiates localized failure...not global failure, so this step involves..."it can easily be shown that" or "therefore" or "verily verily we say" - "the whole damned thing fell in on itself."

Now those are the required steps... to make it glitzy you throw in lying, changing your reasoning, and retracting complete statements for rejecting models that didn't initiate failure. You refuse to disclose needed data to review your work, you discard evidence (i.e. the steel of the structures) so that no one else can verify your data, and you reject scientific data that contradicts your statements....without any real scientific basis for doing so.

So, I'm sorry, but it takes a hell of a lot more than one 757 going 570 mph (pffft) to bring a skyscraper down...just ask NIST. They threw everything but the kitchen sink at the building to get it to fall...and then put a LOT of time into obfuscating that very point.

[edit on 5-19-2009 by Valhall]

Am I missing something or the OP is full of sarcasm?

although people seem to claim apples and oranges I can see the conection of structural failure do to fire damage, what i dont really understand is, is the OP claiming NIST is true and the HC show is just full of BS or the other way around?

anyway, I can see the building collapsing sideways with an earthquake and I can also see the towers being demolished.

Originally posted by Arsenis
Am I missing something or the OP is full of sarcasm?
although people seem to claim apples and oranges I can see the conection of structural failure do to fire damage, what i dont really understand is, is the OP claiming NIST is true and the HC show is just full of BS or the other way around?

I believe it's the other way around. The show showed buildings collapsing according the laws of physics, NIST wants us to believe 3 buildings fell in a way that is not consistent with the laws of physics.

BTW it's due not do, as in due to fire damage. Completely different words. Sry I keep seeing that a lot and I don't know why, probably because you Americans insist on pronouncing everything wrong...

Originally posted by Arsenis
Am I missing something or the OP is full of sarcasm?

although people seem to claim apples and oranges I can see the conection of structural failure do to fire damage, what i dont really understand is, is the OP claiming NIST is true and the HC show is just full of BS or the other way around?

anyway, I can see the building collapsing sideways with an earthquake and I can also see the towers being demolished.

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. And I think the NIST report is the one full of BS.

reply to post by CityIndian


Yeah, thats what i thought, plus i just saw the responce that says it was sarcasm.

You know, that is correct, it is 'due' and not 'do' I guess i just kept reading it and it completely sticks one way or another. It's like on some other threads I keep on reading 'marshall law' inteads of 'martial law'.

back on topic.

there is a picture of one of the towers, you can see the top falling on its side but it didn't.

Originally posted by Arsenis
You know, that is correct, it is 'due' and not 'do' I guess i just kept reading it and it completely sticks one way or another. It's like on some other threads I keep on reading 'marshall law' inteads of 'martial law'.

Hehe yeah sry for being a grammar nazi but I just keep seeing that a lot.

there is a picture of one of the towers, you can see the top falling on its side but it didn't.

Yep that is WTC2 and the tilt. There is no way that could have become a global collapse by itself. It should have continued it's path as angular momentum cannot be changed without another force acting on it.
Also if it did suddenly become too heavy for the rest of the building to hold it up it would not cause global collapse as it wasn't sitting true. It would have taken the corner off and some of the facade as it continued to drop, not take the whole building down.

It also again begs the question of how all those 47 columns failed as Val mentioned. The only response we get is 'it was the fire and the columns lost their strength'. But there's a problem with this, not only do office fires not get hot enough, but steel when heated does not suddenly and violently fail. We would have seen a slow progressive local collapse of steel members as they bend and warp from the heat. Just study the Windsor tower fire and you can see this happening, and it didn't turn into a global collapse but sustained local collapses over a long period of time.

Also the whole top had to be severed, all 47 core columns, and the faced columns, all the way around. How did that happen?

[edit on 20-5-2009 by CityIndian]