Until 911 - Fire has never collapsed a skyscraper

Originally posted by guardstarr
Anyway, I had never heard that the Empire State building was struck by a plane before. That is pretty amazing. I wonder why they never brought that up in the MSM? hmmmmmmm.

Google up "b-25 empire state building". Numerous articles still exist.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Rigel Kent

 

You forgot the structural damage part. WTC 1&2 had that in droves.

No I did not forget the structural damage on 1 & 2. Both of these buildings were designed to withstand the impact from commercial airliners during the FEED stage. They were vastly over engineered.

you can download and review all of the blueprints here:

911research.wtc7.net...

WTC 7 was not hit by an aircraft so I would be interested on hearing your views on why this building collapsed at near free fall of gravity speed into its own footprint due to fire.

FEED = Front End Engineering Design,

PEACE,
RK

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Kryties

 

Actually the facts as I see them discount CD, simple as that. But just because I believe conspiracy is possible does not mean I have to believe all conspiracy theories are.

But the facts, as I see them, do add up to something fishy. Obviously enough people think so for it to be deemed a conspiracy theory and for it discussed with such fervor on forums such as this. Obviously mainstream media is interested in the idea, inferred by their publication of an article on Architects for 9/11 Truth. You claim that such a large cover-up as hiding who created the structural weakness is possible, but claim it is impossible for those same people to lie about anything else?

Doesn't seem to add up to me.

reply to post by Rigel Kent


And the analysis could not be incorrect if not out and out lies? And even then, that does not mean the materials called for were the materials used or amendments made to the structure during construction?

Originally posted by ChrisF231
One of the things that is not widely known is that the company that built the WTC Twin Towers used cheaper materials and otherwise cut corners in the construction of the upper levels of both towers. This is turn ment they were structurally weaker then was claimed and contributed to the collapse on 9/11/2001.

Please can you provide evidence of this claim?

PEACE,
RK

reply to post by Rigel Kent


Was there another building built the same way as the WTC buildings? You cant compare apples and oranges. You need to find a building that used tube frame supports not steal girders.And make sure the building support is from the exterior and not the core of the building.With the open space design of the building its support was the exterior walls.Then you would have to see how many exterior columns were lost in comparison as well.

Whats that mean exactly there? That there will be nothing to comare it to and there will never be another fire like this since most engineers will avoid this design in the future due to obvious problems.

Originally posted by Rigel Kent

Originally posted by ChrisF231
One of the things that is not widely known is that the company that built the WTC Twin Towers used cheaper materials and otherwise cut corners in the construction of the upper levels of both towers. This is turn ment they were structurally weaker then was claimed and contributed to the collapse on 9/11/2001.

Please can you provide evidence of this claim?

PEACE,
RK

It's not true. This is not what led to the collapse of the building. While I'm sure if every stick of steel in the buildings was tested it would be found that some were below required rating, by and large the steel used in the building met the requirements placed on it.

reply to post by Kryties


Because you are somewhat distorting my statement. I of course could be wrong. I never claimed that it was impossible. I merely claimed that according to my knowledge it is incorrect to say that is what happend, meaning the theory of Controlled Demolition. Also covering up corners being cut in construction is a smaller thing to cover up than using explosives to bring them down.
As I said before, just because I believe in conspiracy doesn't mean I have to believe all conspiracy theory. You do me a disservice if you say that I say any other thing.

reply to post by Valhall


"A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link."

Originally posted by guardstarr
This is great! 1 said "No skyscraper ever fell due to fire." The retort to that was- "Well no building ever had that kind of structural damage before." Then someone brings up the fact that the Empire State building was hit by a plane. And the retort???? Uh....er.....well....you see....they were built differently......yeah that's it.....Give me a break....point, counter point. The debunkers will say anything when backed into a corner. It is really amusing to see. Anyway, I had never heard that the Empire State building was struck by a plane before. That is pretty amazing. I wonder why they never brought that up in the MSM? hmmmmmmm.

Yes in 1945, a B 25 bomber crashed into it causing a fire. Different building but still steel reinforced concrete, smaller plane but then again a smaller building.
Funny how the MSM has never covered that one in great depth during or since 911 isnt it?

PEACE,
RK

reply to post by dragonridr


And that in and of it's self is the most telling to me. That the design will not be used again. Though it could be argued otherwise.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Fair enough, I just wanted to be sure you knew the full implication of believing in the possibility of conspiracy theories.

To me, it is logical to assume that if certain men had the ability and want to hide a catastrophic structural defect, it is therefore also logical to assume the possibility of their involvement in a Controlled Demolition. It really, to me, isn't that much of a stretch from one to the other.

reply to post by Rigel Kent


I remember it being mentioned multiple times. But ah well. Doesn't exactly make it fact to you. And nor should it.

reply to post by Kryties


For me it is a vast one, taking into account logistical concerns, actually placing the explosives, then there is the residues explosives leave and most likely a million other considerations. I cannot reconcile the situations as even remotely simular. Especially in light of the fact it takes away from other areas of concern. Like was there no response in what is supposed to be one of the most guarded air corridors in the United States. What I am seeing is manipulation done by a master.

But I will say thank for being agreeable in disagreement *IE not ad homming*. It's rare thing in this subject sadly enough.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Rigel Kent

 

I remember it being mentioned multiple times. But ah well. Doesn't exactly make it fact to you. And nor should it.

Quite correct Sir,
I also remember it being mentioned, but I have yet to see conclusive proof and truth is what we are all seeking. I do know one thing about construction though.
On large projects, clients will always have teams of QC personnel checking steels off against mill ladle analysis and mechanical test certs prior to their acceptance for use. There are quality related certificated for concrete too.
the 1970's were no different to the modern day methodology in that respect.
So you may forgive me for not blindly accepting the statement about inferior materials or workmanship as gospel.

All said and done, Since this thread is about Fire and skyscrapers, nobody yet has addressed my initial question about the photo in the link to the fire in the Oriental hotel in Beijing and I find that quite telling

PEACE,
RK

reply to post by Rigel Kent


I did actually. You discount it apparently. I would also like to point out that what you argue about QC and etc isn't full proof and corruption is rife.

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

Please scroll down the page and have a look at the photo of the Beijing Mandarin Oriental hotel inferno.

911research.wtc7.net...

For any members who think that fire weakened the steel columns & trusses of the WTC buildings sufficiently enough to cause collapse, I would be interested to hear your thoughts as to why the Mandarin did not collapse at free fall of gravity speed into its own footprint?

PEACE,
RK

So? You make it sound like the world is carpeted with skyscrapers that are constantly on fire giving us a wealth of comparative information from which we can easily contrast exceptions.

But there is not a wealth of history here. Very few skyscrapers, none are constructed exactly alike, very few catch fire and until 9/11 none has ever been subjected to the force of a large commercial jetliner crashing into the them at near the speed of sound. There is no exception here because there is no norm. Sorry.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Especially in light of the fact it takes away from other areas of concern. Like was there no response in what is supposed to be one of the most guarded air corridors in the United States. What I am seeing is manipulation done by a master.

I will absolutely agree with you there. Although I will say I share the concern equally with my opinion of "something fishy" happening on 9/11 (Note I say "something fishy" because I'm not entirely sold on the CD theory, but I don't believe planes brought down those towers alone - or at least without being allowed to.) It is extremely worthy to note the lack of air response in what is arguably one of the most guarded corridors in the world. The excuse of having "drills" on the same day (and remarkably the same thing happened on 7/7) is a little too thin for my taste I'm afraid.

But I will say thank for being agreeable in disagreement *IE not ad homming*. It's rare thing in this subject sadly enough.

No worries mate I see no reason to to attack someone or be forceful unless of course they attack me first for no reason Then all bets are off! (Not saying you are attacking me, just saying that for extra clarification )

addition to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


And actually there is just such a case.

The Hyatt Regency hotel walkway collapse was a major disaster that occurred on July 17, 1981 in Kansas City, Missouri, United States, killing 114 people and injuring more than 200 others during a tea dance. At the time it was the deadliest structural collapse in U.S. history.
Background
Construction on the 40-story Hyatt Regency Crown Center began in 1978, and the hotel opened in July 1, 1980 after construction delays including an incident on October 14, 1979, when 2,700 square feet (250 m2) of the atrium roof collapsed because one of the roof connections on the north end of the atrium failed.[2]

The building was part of a master plan devised by Edward Larrabee Barnes and specifically designed by the newly created architect firm PBNDML. It was Missouri's tallest building.

The collapse was the second major structural failure in Kansas City in a little more than two years. On June 4, 1979, the roof of the then-empty Kemper Arena in Kansas City had collapsed without loss of life. The architects and engineering firms at the two collapses were different.

One of the defining features of the hotel was its lobby, which featured a multistory atrium crossed by suspended concrete walkways on the second, third, and fourth levels, with the fourth level walkway directly above the second level walkway.

[edit] Disaster
On July 17, 1981, approximately 2,000 people had gathered in the atrium to participate in and watch a dance contest. Dozens stood on the walkways. At 7:05 PM, the walkways on the second, third, and fourth floor were packed with visitors as they watched over the active lobby, which was also full of people. The fourth floor bridge was suspended directly over the second floor bridge, with the third floor walkway set off to the side several meters away from the other two. Construction issues led to a subtle but flawed design change that doubled the load on the connection between the fourth floor walkway support beams and the tie rods carrying the weight of the second floor walkway. This new design could barely handle the dead load weight of the structure itself, much less the weight of the spectators standing on it. The connection failed and both walkways crashed one on top of the other and then into the lobby below, killing 114 people and injuring more than 200 others.[3]

[edit] Investigation
Three days after the disaster, Wayne Lischka, a structural engineer hired by The Kansas City Star newspaper, discovered a significant change in the design of the walkways. Coverage of the event later earned the Star and its sister publication the Kansas City Times a Pulitzer Prize for local news reporting in 1982.[4]

The two walkways were suspended from a set of steel tie rods, with the second floor walkway hanging directly underneath the fourth floor walkway. The walkway platform was supported on 3 cross-beams suspended by steel rods retained by nuts. The cross-beams were box beams made from C-channels welded toe-to-toe. The original design by Jack D. Gillum and Associates called for three pairs of rods running from the second floor all the way to the ceiling. Investigators eventually determined that this design supported only 60 percent of the minimum load required by Kansas City building codes.[5]

Havens Steel Company, the contractor responsible for manufacturing the rods, objected to the original plan of Jack D. Gillum and Associates, since it required the whole of the rod below the fourth floor to be threaded in order to screw on the nuts to hold the fourth floor walkway in place. These threads would probably have been damaged beyond use as the structure for the fourth floor was hoisted into position. Havens therefore proposed an alternate plan in which two separate sets of tie rods would be used: one connecting the fourth floor walkway to the ceiling, and the other connecting the second floor walkway to the fourth floor walkway.[6]

This design change would prove fatal. In the original design, the beams of the fourth floor walkway had to support only the weight of the fourth floor walkway itself, with the weight of the second floor walkway supported completely by the rods. In the revised design, however, the fourth floor beams were required to support both the fourth floor walkway and the second floor walkway hanging from it. With the load on the fourth-floor beams doubled, Havens' proposed design could bear only 30 percent of the mandated minimum load.

The serious flaws of the revised design were further compounded by the fact that both designs placed the bolts directly in a welded joint between two facing C-channels, the weakest structural point in the box beams. Photographs of the wreckage show excessive deformations of the cross-section.[7] In the failure the box beams split at the weld and the nut supporting them slipped through.

Investigators concluded that the basic problem was a lack of proper communication between Jack D. Gillum and Associates and Havens Steel. In particular, the drawings prepared by Jack D. Gillum and Associates were only preliminary sketches but were interpreted by Havens as finalized drawings. Jack D. Gillum and Associates failed to review the initial design thoroughly, and accepted Havens' proposed plan without performing basic calculations that would have revealed its serious intrinsic flaws — in particular, the doubling of the load on the fourth-floor beams.[8]

[edit] Aftermath
The Missouri Board of Architects, Professional Engineers, and Land Surveyors convicted the engineers employed by Jack D. Gillum and Associates who had signed off on the final drawings of gross negligence, misconduct, and unprofessional conduct in the practice of engineering; they all lost their engineering licenses in the states of Missouri and Texas and their membership to ASCE.[9] While Jack D. Gillum and Associates itself was cleared of criminal negligence, it was stripped of its license to be an engineering firm.

At least $140 million was awarded to victims and their families in both judgments and settlements in subsequent civil lawsuits; a large amount of this money came from Crown Center Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hallmark Cards which was the owner of the actual hotel franchise (like most hoteliers, Hyatt runs on the franchisor/franchisee system). Life and health insurance companies probably absorbed even larger uncompensated losses in policy payouts.

The Hyatt tragedy remains a classic model for the study of engineering ethics and errors. Gillum's chief engineer continues to share his experiences with others, in the hope that the mistakes which led to the Hyatt disaster will not be repeated.

After the disaster, the lobby was reconstructed with only one crossing on the second floor. Unlike the previous walkways, the new bridge is supported by several columns underneath it rather than being suspended from the ceiling. As a result, some floors of the hotel now have disconnected sections on opposite sides of the atrium, so it is necessary to go to the second floor to get to the other side.

The hotel later reopened, and has been renamed Hyatt Regency Crown Center. It has since been renovated and now serves as one of the city's most luxurious hotels.

[edit] Memorial
The accident is not marked in any way in the hotel. In 2008 the Skywalk Memorial Foundation announced a fundraising drive to build a garden and a fountain in Washington Square Park, about a block from the hotel commemorating the event. Hallmark had pledged $25,000 and the city has offered $200,000.[11] A Korean War memorial is now planned for the park and in May 2009 city officials said they were considering locating the memorial in Hospital Hill Park at 22nd Street and Gillham Road.

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...

And I remember stories about the inspectors not doing their jobs.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Kryties


Oh I agree the attack was allowed to be sucessful.
This is a naughty second line that must be whipped like the wretch it is.