The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community

The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/index.php)
-   War, Religion and Politics Thread (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   new study: insurance companies do not accept official WTC-7 collapse scenario (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=110931)

mhgaffney 05-07-2013 08:38 AM

new study: insurance companies do not accept official WTC-7 collapse scenario
 
A newly posted literature review of peer-reviewed articles about the World Trade Center collapse found that insurance companies do not accept the official explanation.
MHG

The authors concluded:

• If it is true that steel-frame buildings can collapse from fire alone, it is crucial for owners of existing structures and insurers to understand the risk of a sudden fire-induced collapse so that structural repairs and risk adjustments can be factored in. Given the official story, it is remarkable how little insurance premiums, or even design parameters and building construction codes,vi have been modified (if at all) to address the possibility of catastrophic fire-induced progressive collapse. The fact that they have not been modified indicates that insurance companies do not accept the Progressive Collapse hypothesis.


For the full paper go to:

Mechanisms of Destruction and Collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) Buildings on 9/11

An Analysis of Peer Reviewed Technical Literature 2001 - 2012

http://www.globalresearch.ca/mechani...on-911/5333553

orangeatheist 05-07-2013 08:42 AM

Why do the mods allow troll threads like these? Txtebow got his provocative threads sent directly to the 'butt; why not this similar crap from Gaffe?

W*GS 05-07-2013 08:48 AM

No kidding, orangeatheist.

gaffe goes wrong right off the bat - the WTC didn't collapse from "fire alone".

He's always pulling this ****. Time for gaffe to be relegated to the 'butt.

mhgaffney 05-07-2013 08:52 AM

FYI, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded in 2008 that WTC-7 collapsed from fire. Period.

According to NIST, the plane impacts and damage to WTC 1 & 2 played no role.

So "fire alone" is the correct wording.

You clowns are so illiterate that you don't even understand the OFFICIAL story.

MHG

W*GS 05-07-2013 09:12 AM

When was America at its apex, gaffe?

Explain your answer, please.

mhgaffney 05-07-2013 09:22 AM

Way back in 2002 the editor of Fire Engineering Magazine complained bitterly about the destruction of evidence at the WTC site (i.e., the rushed removal and export to China of the steel columns). The editor's motivation was public safety. If fires weakened had the steel -- building codes would have to be modified to prevent future collapses.

Needless to say, none had occurred before -- nor since. Duh...

MHG

Coverup at Ground Zero:

Selling Out the Investigation


by Bill Manning

Fire Engineering Magazine, January 2002


http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html

www.globalresearch.ca 25 September 2003
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

Maybe we should live and work in planes. That way, if disaster strikes, we will at least be sure that a thorough investigation will help find ways to increase safety for our survivors.

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer generated hypotheticals.

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.

Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.

Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.

The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.

The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.

Firefighters, this is your call to action. Visit WTC "Investigation"?: A Call to Action, then contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.

© Copyright Fire Engineering Magazine 2002

mhgaffney 05-07-2013 09:39 AM

According to NIST, fire alone caused the collapse of WTC-7.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi.../faqs_wtc7.cfm

NIST responded to Frequently Asked Questions, as follows:

22. Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of WTC 1?

Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.

21. Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?

The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

25. Did the electrical substation beneath WTC 7 play a role in the fires or collapse?

No. There is no evidence that the electric substation contributed to the fires in WTC 7. The electrical substation continued working until 4:33 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. Alarms at the substation were monitored, and there were no signals except for one event early in the day. No smoke was observed emanating from the substation.
Special elements of the building's construction—namely trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs, which were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—also did not play a significant role in the collapse.

7. How did the collapse of WTC 7 differ from the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event—the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections—which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.

The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.

8. Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?

The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9).

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

W*GS 05-07-2013 10:14 AM

Move this thread to the 'butt, mods. Please.

Rohirrim 05-07-2013 11:49 AM

Interesting that even Wiki tells the story of WTC7. Not difficult to figure out:

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[6] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2).[7] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[8] The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[9] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the 7th floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

orinjkrush 05-07-2013 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W*GS (Post 3844110)
Move this thread to the 'butt, mods. Please.

Jeez, dude.

just don't read it.

I wonder if you could do that?

Pony Boy 05-07-2013 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3844089)
FYI, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded in 2008 that WTC-7 collapsed from fire. Period.

According to NIST, the plane impacts and damage to WTC 1 & 2 played no role.

So "fire alone" is the correct wording.

You clowns are so illiterate that you don't even understand the OFFICIAL story.

MHG

I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7 — building 7, which collapsed in on itself — it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes — 7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible. — Rosie O’Donnell

mhgaffney 05-07-2013 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim (Post 3844149)
Interesting that even Wiki tells the story of WTC7. Not difficult to figure out:

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[6] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2).[7] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[8] The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[9] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the 7th floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

Don't know what the point of yer post is, and I suspect, neither do you.

FYI, here is what NIST said about the Con Edison sub station:

25. Did the electrical substation beneath WTC 7 play a role in the fires or collapse?

No. There is no evidence that the electric substation contributed to the fires in WTC 7. The electrical substation continued working until 4:33 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. Alarms at the substation were monitored, and there were no signals except for one event early in the day. No smoke was observed emanating from the substation.

Special elements of the building's construction—namely trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs, which were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—also did not play a significant role in the collapse.


http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi.../faqs_wtc7.cfm

W*GS 05-07-2013 08:09 PM

gaffe, here's an easy question for you.

When was America at its best?

Why do you find it soooooo difficult to answer? Why are you such a coward?

If anyone here is a brainwashed moron, it's you.

mhgaffney 05-07-2013 08:10 PM

Einstein said it:

"Only two things are infinite -- the universe and human stupidity..."

mhgaffney 05-07-2013 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangeatheist (Post 3844082)
Why do the mods allow troll threads like these? Txtebow got his provocative threads sent directly to the 'butt; why not this similar crap from Gaffe?

Since when is a substantive attempt to educate Americans about the most important (and least understood) historical event in the last 20 years a "troll thread..."?

W*GS 05-07-2013 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3844322)
Einstein said it:

"Only two things are infinite -- the universe and human stupidity..."

It takes stupid to know stupid, and buddy, you're the expert on stupid.

When was America at its zenith?

W*GS 05-07-2013 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3844326)
Since when is a substantive attempt to educate Americans about the most important (and least understood) historical event in the last 20 years a "troll thread..."?

Since it's you.

You're just trying to drum up book sales, ya cannibal.

orangeatheist 05-08-2013 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3844322)
Einstein said it:

"Only two things are infinite -- the universe and human stupidity..."

Oh! Oh! Can I play?

"All truth goes through 3 stages..." - McGruder (coined by Arthur Schopenhauer)

orangeatheist 05-08-2013 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3844326)
Since when is a substantive attempt to educate Americans about the most important (and least understood) historical event in the last 20 years a "troll thread..."?

In what alternate universe is it possible to equate "education" with the trash that you post? You've been here for years and have never "educated" anyone. You simply post for the attention. That's the definition of a troll. And, again, for the life of me I can't understand why it's allowed.

Txtebow posts a bunch of YouTube videos showing people going out of control at McDonalds and before anyone can comment, the thread is locked and dropped into the 'butt. Your filth, however, gets a pass and stays up in the forum. It simply defies comprehension. Txtebow was trying every bit as much as you to "educate" us on the dangers of going to McDonalds. I think there's a far better chance that one of us encounters an out-of-control patron at one of these fast food joints than one of us encountering prefabricated "terrorism" at the hands of our own government.

mhgaffney 05-08-2013 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangeatheist (Post 3844672)
In what alternate universe is it possible to equate "education" with the trash that you post? You've been here for years and have never "educated" anyone. You simply post for the attention. That's the definition of a troll. And, again, for the life of me I can't understand why it's allowed.

Txtebow posts a bunch of YouTube videos showing people going out of control at McDonalds and before anyone can comment, the thread is locked and dropped into the 'butt. Your filth, however, gets a pass and stays up in the forum. It simply defies comprehension. Txtebow was trying every bit as much as you to "educate" us on the dangers of going to McDonalds. I think there's a far better chance that one of us encounters an out-of-control patron at one of these fast food joints than one of us encountering prefabricated "terrorism" at the hands of our own government.

I've explained many times why I post here. If you choose not to believe it, that's your problem.

At least half of our countrymen and women are in denial about 9/11. You are obviously one of them. This is also your problem.

Instead of dealing with reality -- the substance of this thread -- you attack the messenger. So what else is new?

MHG

W*GS 05-08-2013 08:05 PM

gaffe, when was America at its zenith?

05-08-2013 10:59 PM

Can you say payment avoidance?

05-08-2013 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pony Boy (Post 3844234)
I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7 — building 7, which collapsed in on itself — it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes — 7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible. — Rosie O’Donnell

Rosie O'Donut - Structural engineer.

baja 05-09-2013 08:03 AM

Damn doesn't that insurance company know than when a big building gets hit by a plane that the smaller building next to it will fall down too.

orangeatheist 05-09-2013 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhgaffney (Post 3844881)
I've explained many times why I post here. If you choose not to believe it, that's your problem.

At least half of our countrymen and women are in denial about 9/11. You are obviously one of them. This is also your problem.

Instead of dealing with reality -- the substance of this thread -- you attack the messenger. So what else is new?

MHG



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.