It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of World Trade Center Building 7
page: 8share:
Oh are you talking about Paul and the rest of the amateurs who are not skilled in actual highrise construction? Cause last I checked, an architect is not one to do the actual math and physics like an actual engineer.
Or are you name calling? If so, well then the Mods are not going like it.
Originally posted by GenRadek
Cause last I checked, an architect is not one to do the actual math and physics like an actual engineer.
Really? Architects don't know the maths or physics involved in buildings they design?
Where have you been looking?
The architect is often the project manager, and they supervise the engineers to be sure they follow the plans he designed. The architect has to know building design inside out, he has to design it to fit safety requirements, building codes etc.
You have no idea what you're talking about as usual gen, or you're just trying to muddy the water and confuse people.
As professional experts in the field of building design and construction, architects use their unique creative skills to advise individuals, property owners and developers, community groups, local authorities and commercial organizations on the design and construction of new buildings, the reuse of existing buildings and the spaces which surround them in our towns and cities...
...The work of architects influences every aspect of our built environment, from the design of energy efficient buildings to the integration of new buildings in sensitive contexts. Because of their ability to design and their extensive knowledge of construction, architects' skills are in demand in all areas of property, construction and design. Architects' expertise is valuable when we need to conserve old buildings, redevelop parts of our of towns and cities, understand the impact of a development on a local community, manage a construction program or need advice on the use and maintenance of an existing building.
www.architecture411.com...
edit on 8/22/2011 by ANOK because: typo
Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh are you talking about Paul and the rest of the amateurs who are not skilled in actual highrise construction? Cause last I checked, an architect is not one to do the actual math and physics like an actual engineer.
Or are you name calling? If so, well then the Mods are not going like it.
Yea that's right hermit, make love to your laptop and sit there all day and night . Why don't you try to have a real job. Try working for GC on a real jobsite. Try learning the very crap you try to derail day in and out. I don't care about the mods. As far as I am concerned they are in it too. I have spent countless hours,,,time that should be spending on my family and work, on explaining to all you debunkers how obviously wrong you all are. None of you can explain any of my questions and known of you care for my explanations. Your not here to learn you are here to derail. What NIST,911report,FEMA and all debunkers say is not the truth. Plain and simple . Anyone with any education in construction/design or engineering will know the engineers working for NIST or the government are lying. Again I don't care if the MODS suspend me or whatever.
You are a hermit and a derailing nat that knows nothing about construction.
Originally posted by dilly1
Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh are you talking about Paul and the rest of the amateurs who are not skilled in actual highrise construction? Cause last I checked, an architect is not one to do the actual math and physics like an actual engineer.
Or are you name calling? If so, well then the Mods are not going like it.
Yea that's right hermit, make love to your laptop and sit there all day and night . Why don't you try to have a real job. Try working for GC on a real jobsite. Try learning the very crap you try to derail day in and out. I don't care about the mods. As far as I am concerned they are in it too. I have spent countless hours,,,time that should be spending on my family and work, on explaining to all you debunkers how obviously wrong you all are. None of you can explain any of my questions and known of you care for my explanations. Your not here to learn you are here to derail. What NIST,911report,FEMA and all debunkers say is not the truth. Plain and simple . Anyone with any education in construction/design or engineering will know the engineers working for NIST or the government are lying. Again I don't care if the MODS suspend me or whatever.
You are a hermit and a derailing nat that knows nothing about construction.
Just curious: is there anyone (besides yourself) who is NOT 'in on it'?
reply to post by ANOK
So maybe you can tell the difference between an architect's blueprints and an engineers?
I'll repost wmds' last quote
www.abovetopsecret.com...
So maybe you can tell the difference between an architect's blueprints and an engineers?
I'll repost wmds' last quote
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Well ya see, what had happened was...
An earth quake occured right when one of the core columns was super heated by the fires, causing the column to collapse, then sound waves from a blue whale hit the other columns causing them to collaspe. True story.
An earth quake occured right when one of the core columns was super heated by the fires, causing the column to collapse, then sound waves from a blue whale hit the other columns causing them to collaspe. True story.
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
So maybe you can tell the difference between an architect's blueprints and an engineers?
I'll repost wmds' last quote
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Well seeing as I have a two year degree in engineering drafting, and a two year degree in engineering fundamentals, I would hope so.
A few drawings from the net lol? How stupid can you get? I thought you guys were familiar with construction, and engineering, and you have to try to prove your point with some random picture someone found on teh net?
Get real Gen you are debating people, me, who has first hand experience in engineering I don't have to look for pics on teh net to try to prove a point.
Architects do all sorts of drawings, and so do engineers. Everything from hand drawn to full detailed Cad drawing, that you probably won't find on teh net.
You guys are hilarious. Why are you trying to argue this, just so you can feel justified discrediting someone?
All you're doing is discrediting yourself by showing you have no idea what goes on in the industry.
These are architectural drawing....
reply to post by ANOK
ANOK you do make me you linked to this drawing
The architect would have got the required information from the stone producers catalogues and guides what myself and others are saying is they DONT DO CALCULATIONS!!! is that clear enough for you.
Why do Architects send drawings to engineers for calculations to be done by the engineers?
Why do engineers I visit have lots of drawings for houses and commercial projects for the engineers to work out what steel section is required to take roof loads because of an open plan house extension OR what bracing and screws are required for wind loadings on a canopy over windows on an office building, what foundations are required to support walls etc etc etc.
Look at any major project entrance look at the notice boards the signs will be
Main Contractor, Architects, Structral Engineers, Mechanical Engineers etc etc etc.
ANOK you do make me you linked to this drawing
The architect would have got the required information from the stone producers catalogues and guides what myself and others are saying is they DONT DO CALCULATIONS!!! is that clear enough for you.
Why do Architects send drawings to engineers for calculations to be done by the engineers?
Why do engineers I visit have lots of drawings for houses and commercial projects for the engineers to work out what steel section is required to take roof loads because of an open plan house extension OR what bracing and screws are required for wind loadings on a canopy over windows on an office building, what foundations are required to support walls etc etc etc.
Look at any major project entrance look at the notice boards the signs will be
Main Contractor, Architects, Structral Engineers, Mechanical Engineers etc etc etc.
edit on 23-8-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by ANOK
So, its true that engineers don't make the calculations? Geeze I thought someone with your education background would at least know the difference between an architect and an engineer. And this from someone who still cannot correctly read a paper and understand what it says (cough cough: NIST vs FEMA theories).
Also, you cannot even correctly apply Newton's laws, or understand the complexities involved, and yet you bludgeon everyone with N3rdL as the magic bullet that somehow would arrest a collapse of the WTC. You still cannot even give me or anyone a straight answer to did WTC's floor truss seats get stronger the lower you went. You claimed that the resistance got bigger the lower in the tower you got. But what held up each and every floor were just floor truss seat/tabs that were welded onto the columns and then bolted together. So then according to you, those floor truss seats had to get somehow, stronger to give more resistance. But the fact that the only thing that held up the floors are the seat trusses. You keep ignoring the fact that the connections were not meant to take the brunt of 15-30 floors impacting them. How can someone with such education, ignore or forget such bare essentials? Or maybe you missed those lessons, or they didnt cover them yet. Whatever the reason, you obviously still dont get it.
So, its true that engineers don't make the calculations? Geeze I thought someone with your education background would at least know the difference between an architect and an engineer. And this from someone who still cannot correctly read a paper and understand what it says (cough cough: NIST vs FEMA theories).
Also, you cannot even correctly apply Newton's laws, or understand the complexities involved, and yet you bludgeon everyone with N3rdL as the magic bullet that somehow would arrest a collapse of the WTC. You still cannot even give me or anyone a straight answer to did WTC's floor truss seats get stronger the lower you went. You claimed that the resistance got bigger the lower in the tower you got. But what held up each and every floor were just floor truss seat/tabs that were welded onto the columns and then bolted together. So then according to you, those floor truss seats had to get somehow, stronger to give more resistance. But the fact that the only thing that held up the floors are the seat trusses. You keep ignoring the fact that the connections were not meant to take the brunt of 15-30 floors impacting them. How can someone with such education, ignore or forget such bare essentials? Or maybe you missed those lessons, or they didnt cover them yet. Whatever the reason, you obviously still dont get it.
edit on
8/23/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by wmd_2008
The architect would have got the required information from the stone producers catalogues and guides what myself and others are saying is they DONT DO CALCULATIONS!!! is that clear enough for you.
So what?
Architects do calculations, that is ridiculous. But regardless they still understand buildings, and how they are engineered. To think someone who works designing buildings wouldn't know the physics of building design is ridiculous. Physics is a pre-requirement for an architecture degree.
They need to know how a building works physically in order to design it. They need to know that their design fits the safety standards etc. They don't just take an engineers design and pretty it up.
This is just about you trying to discredit someone because you think they wouldn't know how buildings collapse, which is complete nonsense. Even a layman who knows basic physics can tell you how a building collapses. You all act like it's super secret information only the most highest of job descriptions would be able to understand.
So architects have to be good artists and good scientists when they design a building. The building must be pleasant to look at, pleasant to work in and strong enough to be safe from most natural disasters.
Trying to do all these things at the same time is part of the challenge and excitement of being an architect.
www.his.com...
Architects may be involved in all phases of a construction project, from the initial discussion with the client through the final delivery of the completed structure. Their duties require specific skills—designing, engineering, managing, supervising, and communicating with clients and builders. Architects spend a great deal of time explaining their ideas to clients, construction contractors, and others. Successful architects must be able to communicate their unique vision persuasively.
www.studentscholarships.org...
An architect will create the overall aesthetic and look of buildings and structures, but the design of a building involves far more than its appearance. Buildings also must be functional, safe, and economical and must suit the specific needs of the people who use them. Most importantly, they must be built with the public’s health, safety and welfare in mind.
www.ncarb.org...
An architect has to be licensed to work, NCARB, and the test for that license is mostly knowledge of structures and safety. Nothing to do with aesthetics.
reply to post by ANOK
Actually I agree with you to a point. All architects had to study basic physics and structures at some point or another. Most structural acrchitects (as opposed to interior or landscape) are pretty good with underlying design to the extent that they need to be. Some get pigeon holed in their careers and forget about some of the basics but that is far from being a structural engineer and understanding building demolition.
Actually very few layman understand how or why a building would collapse. They may think they do, but they really don't. It is much, much, much more complicated than you make it out to be.
Architects do calculations, that is ridiculous. But regardless they still understand buildings, and how they are engineered. To think someone who works designing buildings wouldn't know the physics of building design is ridiculous. Physics is a pre-requirement for an architecture degree.
They need to know how a building works physically in order to design it. They need to know that their design fits the safety standards etc. They don't just take an engineers design and pretty it up.
This is just about you trying to discredit someone because you think they wouldn't know how buildings collapse, which is complete nonsense. Even a layman who knows basic physics can tell you how a building collapses. You all act like it's super secret information only the most highest of job descriptions would be able to understand.
Actually I agree with you to a point. All architects had to study basic physics and structures at some point or another. Most structural acrchitects (as opposed to interior or landscape) are pretty good with underlying design to the extent that they need to be. Some get pigeon holed in their careers and forget about some of the basics but that is far from being a structural engineer and understanding building demolition.
Actually very few layman understand how or why a building would collapse. They may think they do, but they really don't. It is much, much, much more complicated than you make it out to be.
reply to post by hooper
And "Laymens terms" you also watch the collapse of building 7 and quite easily see that it was caused by controlled demolition. You dont need a degree, the official reports are beyond fantastical. The building gives way at all four sides at the same time. No other explanation is fitting, it was a controlled demolition. Even a child could see it. There is no topple, no sway, the speed of the collapse witnessed beggars belief. Let's leave out the BBC reports of collapse already occurring before it actually did - that's just a coincidence - apparently Or Silversteins' infamous words. Building 7 is blatant. It is only the tip of the iceberg in many respects but is so obvious it's painful to watch people try and argue otherwise.
And "Laymens terms" you also watch the collapse of building 7 and quite easily see that it was caused by controlled demolition. You dont need a degree, the official reports are beyond fantastical. The building gives way at all four sides at the same time. No other explanation is fitting, it was a controlled demolition. Even a child could see it. There is no topple, no sway, the speed of the collapse witnessed beggars belief. Let's leave out the BBC reports of collapse already occurring before it actually did - that's just a coincidence - apparently Or Silversteins' infamous words. Building 7 is blatant. It is only the tip of the iceberg in many respects but is so obvious it's painful to watch people try and argue otherwise.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
Architects do calculations, that is ridiculous. But regardless they still understand buildings, and how they are engineered. To think someone who works designing buildings wouldn't know the physics of building design is ridiculous. Physics is a pre-requirement for an architecture degree.
They need to know how a building works physically in order to design it. They need to know that their design fits the safety standards etc. They don't just take an engineers design and pretty it up.
This is just about you trying to discredit someone because you think they wouldn't know how buildings collapse, which is complete nonsense. Even a layman who knows basic physics can tell you how a building collapses. You all act like it's super secret information only the most highest of job descriptions would be able to understand.
Actually I agree with you to a point. All architects had to study basic physics and structures at some point or another. Most structural acrchitects (as opposed to interior or landscape) are pretty good with underlying design to the extent that they need to be. Some get pigeon holed in their careers and forget about some of the basics but that is far from being a structural engineer and understanding building demolition.
Actually very few layman understand how or why a building would collapse. They may think they do, but they really don't. It is much, much, much more complicated than you make it out to be.
Hooper, are you an architect or engineer? Also who is considered a "laymen?" Please enlighten me, thanks.
ok, enough about who is a structural engineer, you want structural engineers to tell you about the collapses being demo'd? here ya go......
cms.ae9... 11truth.org/index.php/news/41-articles/288-ae911truth-structural-engineer-dismantles-the-nist-analysis-of-wtc-7.html
here's a bunch of videos from STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS about the collapses.....
you'll have to copy paste this url into your browser.....
www.google.com...=en&cp=25&gs_id=2x&xhr=t&q=structural+engineers+9+11&qe=c3RydWN0dXJhbCBlbmdpbmVlcnMgOS8xMQ&qesig=VUpjkjLOWG0HfVAnGn2Obw&pkc=A FgZ2tkGwL0Q0KyiSD1m-s-xR5vAUMLnDrBUlOpNUlv8ro770mHknvAaRieus_m137xKqx0IU7cLhr3WbRWl6ZP9KK0eNo7FnA&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=vid&source=og &sa=N&tab=wv&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bad9d29ca8348ac6&biw=988&bih=588]http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=25&gs_id=2x&xhr=t&q=structural+engineers+9+11& qe=c3RydWN0dXJhbCBlbmdpbmVlcnMgOS8xMQ&qesig=VUpjkjLOWG0HfVAnGn2Obw&pkc=AFgZ2tkGwL0Q0KyiSD1m-s-xR5vAUMLnDrBUlOpNUlv8ro770mHknvAaRieus_m137xKqx0IU7cLhr3 WbRWl6ZP9KK0eNo7FnA&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=vid&source=og&sa=N&tab=wv&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bad9d29ca8348ac6&biw=988&bih=588[editby ]edit on 23-8-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)
cms.ae9... 11truth.org/index.php/news/41-articles/288-ae911truth-structural-engineer-dismantles-the-nist-analysis-of-wtc-7.html
Brookman is one of over 40 structural engineers who have signed the AE911Truth petition calling for a truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11, with emphasis on the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC building 7
here's a bunch of videos from STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS about the collapses.....
you'll have to copy paste this url into your browser.....
www.google.com...=en&cp=25&gs_id=2x&xhr=t&q=structural+engineers+9+11&qe=c3RydWN0dXJhbCBlbmdpbmVlcnMgOS8xMQ&qesig=VUpjkjLOWG0HfVAnGn2Obw&pkc=A FgZ2tkGwL0Q0KyiSD1m-s-xR5vAUMLnDrBUlOpNUlv8ro770mHknvAaRieus_m137xKqx0IU7cLhr3WbRWl6ZP9KK0eNo7FnA&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=vid&source=og &sa=N&tab=wv&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bad9d29ca8348ac6&biw=988&bih=588]http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=25&gs_id=2x&xhr=t&q=structural+engineers+9+11& qe=c3RydWN0dXJhbCBlbmdpbmVlcnMgOS8xMQ&qesig=VUpjkjLOWG0HfVAnGn2Obw&pkc=AFgZ2tkGwL0Q0KyiSD1m-s-xR5vAUMLnDrBUlOpNUlv8ro770mHknvAaRieus_m137xKqx0IU7cLhr3 WbRWl6ZP9KK0eNo7FnA&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=vid&source=og&sa=N&tab=wv&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bad9d29ca8348ac6&biw=988&bih=588[editby ]edit on 23-8-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)
reply to post by patternfinder
40 structural engineers in 10 years now what percentage of the structural engineers who practice in the USA or the rest of the world does that represent?
ANOK what about these floor connections you love to avoid any thoughts yet ?
Lets look at the OP video suggest you watch on youtube fullscreen go to 2:34 look at top left of building on the roof look at what happens a few seconds before the full collapse! 8 seconds of internal collapse before the rest fell.
Then have a look at the steelwork for this building.
So what does that mean well the building DIDN'T collapse in 7 seconds as some claim on the video and all the columns didin't fail at the same time as some claim on the video! 8+7 = 15!
40 structural engineers in 10 years now what percentage of the structural engineers who practice in the USA or the rest of the world does that represent?
ANOK what about these floor connections you love to avoid any thoughts yet ?
Lets look at the OP video suggest you watch on youtube fullscreen go to 2:34 look at top left of building on the roof look at what happens a few seconds before the full collapse! 8 seconds of internal collapse before the rest fell.
Then have a look at the steelwork for this building.
edit on 24-8-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
So what does that mean well the building DIDN'T collapse in 7 seconds as some claim on the video and all the columns didin't fail at the same time as some claim on the video! 8+7 = 15!
edit on 24-8-2011 by wmd_2008 because: lines added
edit on 24-8-2011 by wmd_2008 because:
(no reason given)
Originally posted by wmd_2008
ANOK what about these floor connections you love to avoid any thoughts yet ?
What about the floor connections?
Didn't I explain already that the connections had nothing to do with the ability of 15 concrete and steel slabs to crush and eject 95 concrete and steel slabs out of the footprint?
Or cause the 47 massive core columns to telescope down through an increasing mass, an increasing path of most resistance?
Why do you keep thinking you have some important point? You have to consider the whole picture mate, look at every point from every angle to see if it had flaws. Your point has flaws, time to move on...
So what does that mean well the building DIDN'T collapse in 7 seconds as some claim on the video and all the columns didin't fail at the same time as some claim on the video! 8+7 = 15!
So what? The collapse time is irrelevant. The post collapse pics is what shows what happened. The columns had to have failed in a timed sequence, technicality not at the same time but damn close, in order to cause the building to fall symmetrically into its own footprint (as evidenced by post collapse pics).
I got to say mate that is a pretty lame attempt at debunking lol.
edit on 8/24/2011 by ANOK because: Anarchy Peace and Bananas
Originally posted by ANOK
What about the floor connections?
Didn't I explain already that the connections had nothing to do with the ability of 15 concrete and steel slabs to crush and eject 95 concrete and steel slabs out of the footprint?
the most critical design flaw of the WTC, and you say they had nothing to do with the collapse? That is like saying the iceberg had nothing to do with the Titanic sinking. And where the heck are you pulling this BS about 95 concrete and steel slabs being ejected out of the footprint? You are just pulling this out of your backside, because this did NOT happen and there is NO evidence of this happening. Why are you lying ANOK? On every thread where you bring this nonsense up, I have to catch you and call you on your nonsense. First off, explain how the floor slabs can get ejected through the exterior columns? Because from what is seen in the collapse, the floors collapse before the exterior columns peel away. So explain how an acre of steel and concrete slabs can ejected outside a wall, when that wall was still standing? Did it somehow squeeze through the narrow windows? As usual, you make up garbage to bolster up the nonsense idea of controlled demolition. Why lie and make up crap to support a made up idea? That is not denying ignorance ANOK. That is embracing and encouraging ignorance.
Or cause the 47 massive core columns to telescope down through an increasing mass, an increasing path of most resistance?
Really? where the heck did that happen? In the videos of the core remaing and collapsing, you can see the core columns tilting over and falling over, like a telephone pole tipping over. If the failure happened below, the columns would fall over more straight down. I dont see them "telescoping" into themselves. Pictures of the core columns pulled from the wreckage show how some were bent over backwards from the sheer weight and force of the collapse. And again with this "through the increasing path of resistance" nonsense. Once again, making stuff up to support something else that was made up.
So what does that mean well the building DIDN'T collapse in 7 seconds as some claim on the video and all the columns didin't fail at the same time as some claim on the video! 8+7 = 15!
So what? The collapse time is irrelevant. The post collapse pics is what shows what happened. The columns had to have failed in a timed sequence, technicality not at the same time but damn close, in order to cause the building to fall symmetrically into its own footprint (as evidenced by post collapse pics).
I got to say mate that is a pretty lame attempt at debunking lol.
Well gee, was always being told by the truthers that a fast collapse time = CD. Now its irrelevant? Twisting, turning, jumping and switching, all to try to keep the fairy tale of CD going. Also, ANOK, you have yet to explain how explosives can be planted inside a burning tilting building, without incident, and how they can survive the fires. 7 hours of fires and not one misfire? Fairy tales to support more fairy tales.
Originally posted by GenRadek
the most critical design flaw of the WTC, and you say they had nothing to do with the collapse?
So you can CLAIM something is a design flaw without even knowing the layout of the horizontal beams in the core and the distribution of steel down the building.
This debate isn't about physics and how reality works it is semantic and psychological bullsh#.
Talk about connections of the floors and never hear a number for how many there were. How could fire make them all come loose simultaneously? Oh, that isn't worth mentioning either.
psik