Re: To Adamski
Posted by Tomski on September 15, 2021, 1:20 pm, in reply to "To Tomski"
Hi Adamski, |
This article verges on being a 'puff piece' but it does have seemingly adequate references/links, most of which one cannot access. Somewhere it says:
The debris from the collapse of the North Tower set at least ten floors alight in the nearby World Trade Center 7, or “Building 7”, which also collapsed about seven hours later.
While there are different theories regarding how the progressive collapse of Building 7 was initiated, there is consensus among investigators fire was the primary cause of failure.
A little quibble if I may. WTC7 collapse was not a 'progressive collapse' or 'pancaking' as they say across the pond. It was a 'freefall collapse'. Well documented.
Ref 'consensus among investigators' link, it seems to direct one to University of Queensland website, which I can't open. All that I am aware of is Uni of Alaska Fairbanks produced report that shows that fire was not the cause of collapse and that columns on two sets of floors failed simultaneously. I am not aware of any 'peer reviewed' dissent on that. Unlike NIST, UofA have given the data (570 odd Gb) for input/output of their simulations. One needs to have ABAQUS, SAP2000 and SOLIDWORKS software to be able to replicate the simulations using UofA data. I don't have access to these, but serious researchers do. If you can point me to a report that refutes UofA findings using their data sets, I'd be happy to look at it and give you my opinion.
I think in the particle there is also a claim that national/international codes have been changed as a result of NIST findings (twin towers and WTC7). As far as I know nothing of structural significance has been changed. Just 'cosmetic' stuff like stairwells i.e. access.
Not sure why they try to bring in Grenfell and combustible facade into it. It bears no relationship to twin towers etc. A different cattle of fish imo.