scienceplease 2
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 1702
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:45 pm Post subject: Scientific American Letter confronts 9/11 Skyscaper Safety |
 |
|
It's nice to know that we could all qualify as "Senior Research Fellow in Structures and Fire" at Universities.
Here is Luke Bisby's assessment of the three tower collapses on 9/11 and grapples with the issue that if you believe the official story of 9/11 then all skyscrapers are fundamentally unsafe!
Note the 4 comments afterwards that pour scorn on the concept of fire blowing up buildings with symmetrical precision....
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=letters-jan-12
| Quote: | Letters to the Editors | More Science
Readers Respond to "Bigger Cities Do More with Less" and Other Articles
Letters to the editor from the September 2011 issue of Scientific American
By The Editors | December 23, 2011 | 4
SUPERTALL SCRUTINY
In presenting the changes that have occurred in the design of skyscrapers since September 11, 2001, in “Castles in the Air,” Mark Lamster notes three threats: aircraft impact, earthquakes and wind. He correctly claims that structural engineers are now able to effectively design against them.
Unfortunately, the Twin Towers collapsed primarily because of fire, and nowhere in the article is fire explicitly mentioned as a structural threat. On 9/11 we clearly saw that fire can cause entire modern high-rise buildings to collapse. (Indeed, 7 World Trade Center, a steel-framed high-rise, was not struck by an aircraft but collapsed because of fire ignited by debris from the Twin Towers.) To ensure safety in ever taller buildings, the potential impacts of uncontrolled fire need to be explicitly considered during the structural design process with the same care as earthquakes and wind. While changes in escape-stair width, firefighter communications systems and the addition of sky bridges (all noted by Lamster) can only improve life safety in tall buildings, they do not prevent structural collapse resulting from fire.
Preventing another 9/11 requires that the structural engineering and architecture communities own up to the reality of what uncontrolled fire can do to tall buildings and take the necessary actions.
Luke Bisby
Senior Research Fellow in Structures and Fire
University of Edinburgh
|
| Quote: |
4 Comments
Add Comment
View
1. Andy Swamp 05:04 PM 12/30/11
Finally, with the publication of Luke Bisby's letter, Scientific American has dared to touch (however obliquely) the scientific question of what happened to cause three steel superstructure buildings to collapse on September 11th of 2001. The official pronouncements from our government are that somehow three steel frame buildings of two different construction designs collapsed completely and symmetrically due to fires on that day. They were--supposedly--the first three steel superstructure buildings ever to completely collapse due to fire.
With the collapses of the twin towers we are asked to believe that buildings damaged high up in the structure could burn for an hour to an hour and a half and then collapse completely to the ground at or near free fall speed. This would mean that each of the 47 huge steel columns in the center of the building for all those lower floors--undamaged by either the airplane crash or the fire--snapped on each floor in anticipation of the falling debris, otherwise the resistance from these central columns would certainly have slowed (and probably stopped) the collapses. And, they all had to snap simultaneously on each floor because otherwise the collapse would have been asymmetrical.
Of course, Building 7--the third building that fell that day--also collapsed absolutely symmetrically and for at least eight floors fell at free fall speed. Supposedly, this building also fell because of the effects of fire on a single column. However, the government's report stops short of saying how a collapse of a single column could lead to the instantaneous collapse of all the columns on eight floors of the building.
After over a decade of silence on this issue--to disastrous effect to our political and economic environments--Scientific American should bring this issue into the light. Mr. Bisby is absolutely correct in saying architects and engineers should face up to this issue. What Mr. Bisby and Scientific American fail to mention is that over 1,600 architects and engineers have indicated that there is no way that fires brought down these buildings. This magazine should be at the forefront in demanding a scientific investigation into the causes of these collapses, not bringing up the rear. It's just like Galileo all over again, Scientific American can either side with science or with the dictates of the political authorities of our time. It's way past time that the magazine spoke up for science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
2. UncleJoe223 12:17 AM 1/3/12
What is absurd is the belief that the three WTC buildings collapsed due to fire. So far, I have seen no evidence to support this outlandish claim, but have seen over a thousand architects and engineers sign a petition sighting the obvious flaws in such an account and demanding a new explanation.
Chief among the multitude of attributes of the collapses that point to explosive demolition is the free-fall, symmetrical collapse of WTC 7. Fire cannot achieve this, but I would expect Un-Scientific American to recognize this simple fact.
Additionally, fires have occurred that burned longer and hotter in a myriad of other steel framed skyscrapers (including, ironically, the WTC) none of which resulted in sudden, progressive collapses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
3. Matt Muellenkamp 01:07 AM 1/3/12
Well, I can't top the comments left by Andy Swamp and Uncle Joe, but I thought I'd offer them my support. One day, the real truth about what really happened on 9/11 WILL come out, and people like Luke Bisby and organizations like Scientific American will one day be regarded much the same way as we now regard the people who opposed Galileo. First, the fires were not "uncontrolled" nor were the buildings a raging inferno. Most of the jet fuel was gone in the initial fireball, and the fires were mostly smoke (indicating a cool oxygen-starved fire). Burning furniture, office equipment, etc. is not going to cause a skyscraper to completely explode.
9/11 is a wake up call to just how the govt can deceive the people and tightly control the media, even in a supposedly "free" society with an "open press."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
4. De Vries 05:43 AM 1/3/12
Matt, Scientific American and Popular Mechanics - along with the world's media which shamefully self-censors this story - already look bad because they fail to grasp Newtonian physics our grade-school physics students can grasp.
The Laws of Conservation mean that the Towers could not have totally dismembered in 11 seconds without any resistance - absent an extra energy force.
The Towers - with dozens of massive cold steel columns in the bottom two-thirds of the structure - were shredded and pulverised in the time it takes to clap your hands 11 times.
Then you have Building Seven, not hit by a plane, imitating a text-book implosion in the time it takes for your phone to ring three times. If random, asymetrically burning fires on a limited number of floors can sink a building symmetrically into its own footprint, then why has the world wasted time on expensive demolition companies for decades? Set the office furniture on fire, wait a couple of hours and voila! Global, vertical, rapid implosion. All Demolition Companies out of business forthwith.
The problem for America and Scientific American is that many rational people in the rest of the world, those with basic science and physics under their belts, are shaking their heads in astonishment and sadness at the ignorance and naivete on display. Wondering when Mickey Mouse and Daffy Duck are going to grow up and apply their minds to the scientific method.
The United States Department of Commerce NIST report is a political - not scientific - document.
Read "The Mysterious Collapse of Building Seven: Why the Official Report is Unscientific and Fraudulent" by Dr David Ray Griffin. The physics teacher at our kids' school has read it, digested it and is using the WTC building implosions as a successful teaching tool for the Newton module. |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
