• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

AIA Resolution

conarb

conarb

Registered User
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
3,505
Location
California East Bay Area
There has been lots of speculation and conspiracy theories as to the collapse of the World Trade Centers, the NIST report appears to be a whitewash claiming that it was the fires that destroyed the buildings, the AIA has passed a resolution to investigate it.

\ said:
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise building, suffered a complete collapse; andWHEREAS, on November 20, 2008, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released the final report of its three-year investigation into the complete collapse of 7 World Trade Center, which concluded that fires, an unprecedented cause of failure for a modern high-rise building, were the primary cause of failure; and

WHEREAS, the cause of failure identified by the NIST investigation would mean that hundreds of high-rise buildings in the United States are susceptible to similar failure from fire; and

WHEREAS, thousands of members of the architecture and engineering professions, including the 55 sponsors of this resolution, believe the NIST investigation did not adhere to the principles of the scientific method and, as a result, the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed. ¹
Click to expand...
If NIST is right something is drastically wrong, fire should not bring down steel buildings, I'm glad to see this for a variety of reasons.

¹ http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiab105885.pdf
 
fire should not bring down steel buildings,
Click to expand...
Why not? When the steel cannot dissipate the heat that was produced by the fire that was ongoing for about an hour. The steel will start to deform the structural strength of the steel it will no longer be able to support the weight it was designed to carry.

I read something about the installation of the spray on fire protection changed during construction of the building and the newer installation did not perform as intended during the actual fire.. If the spray on fire protection or even gypsum board was compromised by the impact of the plane then the heat would get to the steel and the steel protected by a spray on or gypsum wrap would not be able to dissipate the heat generated by the fuel loading in the fire and structural failure of a couple of componets would be a fact that other supporting members could not carry.

It is always good to have multiple professionals unbiased or non-agenda driven reviews and re-review disasters as we are constantly learning and that knowledge needs to be applied to past events. It is a way to get past theories and get to the facts.
 
Steel loses strength when heated sufficiently. The critical temperature of a steel member is the temperature at which it cannot safely support its load. Building codes and structural engineering standard practice defines different critical temperatures depending on the structural element type, configuration, orientation, and loading characteristics. The critical temperature is often considered the temperature at which its yield stress has been reduced to 60% of the room temperature yield stress.[17] In order to determine the fire resistance rating of a steel member, accepted calculations practice can be used,[18] or a fire test can be performed, the critical temperature of which is set by the standard accepted to the Authority Having Jurisdiction, such as a building code. In Japan, this is below 400 °C[citation needed]. In China, Europe and North America (e.g., ASTM E-119), this is approximately 1000–1300 °F[19] (530-810 °C). The time it takes for the steel element that is being tested to reach the temperature set by the test standard determines the duration of the fire-resistance rating. Heat transfer to the steel can be slowed by the use of fireproofing materials, thus limiting steel temperature
 
At the very least, if NIST is correct, fireproofing was inadequate. As I understand the reasoning the fuel from the tanks in the airplanes caused the unanticipated heat, but I've see reports claiming that the fuel present couldn't have caused the massive implosion, and of course claiming that buildings don't implode that way anyway. A subsequent issue that plays into this is that the fireproofing foams that were used have now been made illegal for health reasons, so if steel protection is going to be reformulated it might as well be done right. With the government anticipating civil insurrection (supplying cities with armored vehicles etc.) it seems logical to plan for such events in the future.
 
When those planes tore through the buildings, they took out a lot more than just the fireproofing on the steel. They took out significant portions of the steel. Then was added all of the fuel on-board the aircraft as well as the few hundred thousand pounds of aluminum and titanium. Granted a bunch of it came out the other side as a result of momentum but put it all together and it should be no surprise that the buildings failed when an entire floor gave way and the upper part collapsed onto the lower part.

This can't be extrapolated to the rest of the highrise buildings in the country as to just a fire. Add a airliner and I see the possibility.
 
What came first the chicken or the egg?

And what are they going to use to do the research?

Review reports already in place? Do some actual fire tests?

So what is the alternative theory? Planes never hit the buildings?
 
CDA:

There are lots of conspiracy theories that need to be put to bed, since the World Trade Center had been bombed with explosives in 1993 the most logical is that explosives were placed at the bases of columns and triggered by the plane.

\ said:
According to the journalist Steve Coll, Yousef mailed letters to various New York newspapers just before the attack, in which he claimed he belonged to 'Liberation Army, Fifth Battalion'. These letters made three demands: an end to all US aid to Israel, an end to US diplomatic relations with Israel, and a pledge by the United States to end interference "with any of the Middle East countries' interior affairs." He stated that the attack on the World Trade Center would be merely the first of such attacks if his demands were not met. In his letters Yousef admitted that the World Trade Center bombing was an act of terrorism, but this was justified because "the terrorism that Israel practices (which America supports) must be faced with a similar one."¹
Click to expand...
¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing
 
cda said:
And architects are going to lead us to the promised land
Click to expand...
CDA:

It surprised my as well, all I have been hearing from the AIA is ADA, ADA, ADA, I thought the AIA push for ADA was make-work agenda for un/under-employed architects, I suspect that they may want to defend the reputation of their profession with all the conspiracy theories running rampant, the AIA is a trade organization not Mother Teressa.
 
= & = & =



Switching gears, ...somewhat, but a quick show of hands,

...How many people actually believe that the collapse of the

World Trade Towers and the associated events of that

day was an "inside job" by our own gub`mint ?

= & = & =
 
North Star:

Since I started this thread I'll take you up on your challenge, I am finding myself agreeing with Noam Chomsky more and more these days, in the past I associated his anarchy with such social activists as Saul Alinsky, but as we've descended into fascism through regulation in this country, telling people how much energy they can use, how much water they can use, telling us that we have no more first amendment right of association and have to associate with minorities, the disabled etc., I am starting to agree with Chomsky's views. Here is his position:

\ said:
Speaking at the University of Florida a few weeks ago, Chomsky – a well-known and often outspoken scholar and political commentator – was asked by “9/11 truther” Bob Tuskin if he was ready to join activists in their belief that the government played a hand in the destruction of WTC 7, also known as Building 7, and that its role was covered up by the media.Tuskin pointed to a group of construction experts who claim Building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition, but Chomsky dismissed the assertion. He acknowledged that “a minuscule number of architects and engineers” agree on this issue, but said they’re not doing what scientists should do after making a new discovery.

“What you do when you think you’ve discovered something is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies, go to the civil engineering department at MIT or Florida or wherever you are, and present your results, then proceed to try to convince the national academies, the professional society of physicists and civil engineers, the departments of the major universities, convince them that you’ve discovered something,” he said, according to Raw Story.¹
Click to expand...
I used to wonder why MIT kept him on it's faculty as an emeritus professor, now I think MIT has taken the right course. Since many engineers have said the building shouldn't have collapsed like that the AIA is taking the right course in investigating it.

¹ http://rt.com/usa/noam-chomsky-911-truthers-342/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Never account to a conspiracy what can easily be explained by incompetence.

Bill Clinton couldn't keep a blowjob secret. The complexity and secrecy required for some kind of black op of multiple planes crashing into skyscrapers, the pentagon, and random fields simply could not exist.

Brent.
 
\ said:
Never account to a conspiracy what can easily be explained by incompetence.
Click to expand...
If the design professional were incompetent the AIA has good cause to know why. In fact if they are proven to be incompetent there would be good cause for both criminal and civil liability on the part of some who could even be their members. There is no statute of limitations on involuntary manslaughter, or whatever they call it in New York.
 
& ~ ~ &





Brent,

Do not sell short the determination of evil people, and

level of greed amassed and present in the world today.

North Korea. ...Russia, ...Iran, ...Libya, ...Yemen, ...Syria,

...China and others are not the only evil nations present.

The U.S. of A has a very strong presence in designing

& carrying out a "laundry list" of atrocities too, ...Black

Ops and otherwise.

Regarding the World Trade Towers and other events,

...IMO, there are just too many inconsistencies to ignore.

Those two buildings should not have collapsed, ...at least

not in the time frame in which they did......[ FWIW, ...and

Lee Harvey Oswald was the "lone gunman" too !........Yeah,

right ! ].

P.S., ...Thanks **conarb** for your input !

& ~ ~ &
 
I do not understand the thinking that these buildings should not have collapsed? I was convinced they would collapse once I saw the impacts. It was just a matter of time. It was a well designed attack. The spray on fireproofing was no match for that fire after the physical damage that was inflicted on the members. The structural steel that was supporting the top third of the building was compromised by the heat and turned into silly putty. Top third of building collapses and pancakes every floor below it that cannot support the mass. It was a terrible day.
 
I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but seriously?

If 7 WTC was rigged with explosives, when do you suggest "they" went in and did all the prep? For planned demolition, companies spend weeks inside rigging, wiring, and doing light demo to make sure it all goes as planned. You think someone might have noticed this was going on?

Or, are you suggesting elite demolition teams swooped into play immediately after the evacuation to load up? How many pounds of explosive do you suppose they carried in to level the building?

I just don't see it.
 
MJ....What Conarb is getting at is: (I believe) in a noncombustible, protected structure, there should almost never be a catastrophic/collapse failure, which is why they get some of the leeway in the codes. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, it may have been hit by debris, but it did collapse, and if a semi normal fire condition caused it, we need to look closer at our codes to see if something needs to change and if we give noncombustible building too much credit.

I have No theory, just a lack of answers.....The building in between 1 and 7 (6WTC) was a partial collapse being closer and probably hit by more building debris on collapse, And 7 waited until 5PM to totally collapse. It is weird and I can certainly see how construction minded people would look for more information
 
If they want to look closer to see how the materials failed to gain a more comprehensive data set, I'm onboard.

To think there were elite teams performing demolition operations while nobody noticed?

No.

Brent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top