Through the afternoon haze, the aftermath of the fire left the building in its bare shell state. The claddings of the façade remain mostly intact although replacements are most definite. Local sour...
Through the afternoon haze, the aftermath of the fire left the building in its bare shell state. The claddings of the façade remain mostly intact although replacements are most definite. Local sources say the structure of the building remains sound and Ove Arup (the structural engineers of the building) have yet to make an official statement on this. Local police and military guards have been posted every 20 meters around the perimeter of the whole site.
Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Do forget that Popular Mechanics even contradict NIST, who say that the debris was "no significant factor". Don't forget that the supposed tank that fed the fires did not even get the fires hot enough to break windows (only 1300ºF)!
>Do forget that Popular Mechanics even contradict NIST, who say that the debris was "no significant factor".
Oh, really? I just re-read the PM article & I can't find any such statement. In fact, they cite NIST as a source that building 7 was MORE badly damaged than originally thought:
"NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris..."
Can you tell us where this "no significant factor" quote comes from?
Did damage from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the collapse? "...this structural damage did not initiate the collapse." Right from NIST's own website!
The top of Building 7 was damaged by debris. If it did contribute, then lets see the south side of the top of 7 topple while the fire causes different damage and an asym. collapse. Is that what happened? Nope.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Don't forget to drop a huge chunk of a collapsing 110-story skyscraper on it first!
Don't forget to provide a huge supply of diesel fuel to feed the fires & leave them unfought for 6 hours!
Oh, really? I just re-read the PM article & I can't find any such statement. In fact, they cite NIST as a source that building 7 was MORE badly damaged than originally thought:
"NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris..."
Can you tell us where this "no significant factor" quote comes from?
Last I checked, "contribute to" and "initiate" were not the same thing.
Did the falling debris from tower 1 *initiate* the collapse? No.
Did it CONTRIBUTE TO the collapse? Absolutely!