Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Creative Speculation

whitefordmd

(102 posts)

1. using the maximum amounts allowed in the building codes

Reply to JohnyCanuck (Original post)

Sun Sep 11, 2016, 08:08 AM

Sep 2016

Except that criteria is pretty useless and would for practical reasons tell you the building should not have failed if it was built to code

For these interested try here

Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1A)

https://www.nist.gov/node/599811

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Canadian Civil Engineering Researchers Disprove Official Explanation of WTC 7’s Destruction [View all] JohnyCanuck Sep 2016 OP

using the maximum amounts allowed in the building codes whitefordmd Sep 2016 #1

University of Alaska Prof and forensic engineering specialist says fires did not bring down WTC 7. JohnyCanuck Sep 2016 #2

so tell me something I don't know! I already knew that official nonsense was wrong so... wildbilln864 Sep 2016 #3

The professor gives NIST an F for their WTC 7 computer model. JohnyCanuck Sep 2016 #4

Hulsey gets an F in logic William Seger Sep 2016 #5

what I do realize is that some message board posters wildbilln864 Sep 2016 #6

Exactly William Seger Sep 2016 #7

yes exactly! I have been finding more credibility in wildbilln864 Sep 2016 #8