• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Plasco building collapse discussion...

gamolon said:
First, people have different definitions of what a "story" is in a building. Some people include basement levels in there description of how many stories there are and some don't. That is why I said "I normally go from the ground up".
Click to expand...

This is why I provided you with the CTBUH publication on how this is defined. And yes, different people and agencies define this differently, which is why I am ensuring that we are both clearly agreeing that the building is 43m from street laval at the South face, which is what I originally posted.

gamolon said:
Anyways, I say there are 16 levels or stories above the ground. Most people say 17. To me, 17 includes the one fountain level below the ground.
Click to expand...

To me, I would say that there were 2 usable levels below the ground floor tower level, but we will just have to agree to disagree on that and move on.

gamolon said:
There are 17 total "levels". Take your pick.
Click to expand...

I took my pick in my 2nd post in this thread. That hasn't changed.
 
gerrycan said:
To me, I would say that there were 2 usable levels below the ground floor tower level, but we will just have to agree to disagree on that and move on.
Click to expand...
Your math isn't adding up then.

14 levels above the ground floor.
2 levels within the ground floor
2 levels in the basement

That equals 18 "usable levels".
 
gamolon said:
Your math isn't adding up then.

14 levels above the ground floor.
2 levels within the ground floor
2 levels in the basement

That equals 18 "usable levels".
Click to expand...

Your example above equates to 19 usable levels. As you should have observed in the video that I provided you with.
the roof was a usable level - You can see the firefighters using it in 2017 for goodness sake.

It was used since the building was built and had a specific use purpose.

At least you have so far learned who designed the thing today, so that's progress. Of sorts.
 
6 pages of background on how many floors. When is the discussion going to get to the elephant in the room? That is what caused the collapse?
 
mike2810 said:
6 pages of background on how many floors. When is the discussion going to get to the elephant in the room? That is what caused the collapse?
Click to expand...

The cut on the SW corner (right hand side) and the corresponding one on the opposite side are suspicious to me.
 
gerrycan said:
The cut on the SW corner (right hand side) and the corresponding one on the opposite side are suspicious to me.
Click to expand...


Suspicious how? Are you using that as proof of CD?
 
mike2810 said:
Suspicious how? Are you using that as proof of CD?
Click to expand...

(The above should have read SE not SW for the RHS)
I wouldn't say it was proof of CD in and of itself no.
The top of the building is bowing outward, which is kind of hard to see from that angle, but if you were to look from the west you can see it. The core columns haven't failed at this point so floor failures must be what is causing the push out. The east face does not exhibit the same type of failure though, and I do find it strange, that part of the floor system which would be under the same stress as the South face and equally distant from the still surviving core columns wouldn't exhibit similar failure. As well as that, the failure in the North area of the building happened way before this so the floor on the east face would have had less integrity than the floor on the South.
Does that prove CD, No. Does it require further examination, definitely.
The earlier failure in the North of the building was certainly significant, and would have to have been confined to the floor system (by way of the core columns remaining) So how can the South face floor system exhibit a failure that precedes the weaker face failure at that height?
I don't know if you have seen the video of the earlier event that is described as the north failure, so I will load up a video of that to illustrate the point.
 
The first 20s of the video is the partial collapse viewed from the West. The rest of the video is the same event viewed from the East.
It's longer than it needs to be but what it illustrates is that the lower damage and ejections precedes the damage and ejections above, suggesting that this is caused by more than just a gravitational floor failure. The speed of the ejections is also telling. Also worth remembering that this is a good while before the global collapse of the building.
As I said above, the previous video is not proof of CD in and of itself, but I believe that this video, and the previous one in the context of it is very compelling evidence of collapse due to explosives.
There is no commentary on this yet as it forms part of a longer video that I am working on but I believe it speaks for itself.

I don't believe in the push button stabilisation thing but prefer old school methods, hence the green lines etc on the stabilised footage from the East view.
 
To get this tower to fall completely as it did and in the direction that it did, it has to first be detached from the mall building that frames into it from the North. I believe that this detachment was the earlier event that is shown in the video in my previous post. The transition pieces at the north face where the single vertical steels on that face do not exhibit deformation after collapse so were not subjected to the purchase that the single steels would have on them in a gravitational event causing the tower to fall slightly toward the car park and away from the front entrance direction. It is this detachment that ensured that the building did not fall into the street which would have naturally been it's weakest face.
 
Here is a video taken by the firefighters while the initial recovery operation is still going on.
It looks straight down into the main foundation of the tower. You can see a lot of red molten stuff there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB2yyFOe-2o
 
This is one of the most idiotic discussions I have read. Presumably the plans will show the story height. But what does that have to do with the mechanisms of collapse? minuscule if at all.

And why is this of interest? Because a building collapses and they're not supposed to?
 
SanderO said:
This is one of the most idiotic discussions I have read. Presumably the plans will show the story height. But what does that have to do with the mechanisms of collapse? minuscule if at all.

And why is this of interest? Because a building collapses and they're not supposed to?
Click to expand...
IMO, gerrycan was "Old Coarse Guy" (WAY too many clues) over at JREF when the thread started about the Plasco building and how tall it was. It had to do with what constitutes a high rise. Tony Szamboti was in that discussion as well as he and gerrycan are a tag team. It's all about Gage's group having to take the stance that Plasco was a demolition because if it wasn't, they can't use the "a steel framed high rise/skyscraper was never brought down by fire alone" crap.
 
gamolon said:
IMO, gerrycan was "Old Coarse Guy" (WAY too many clues) over at JREF when the thread started about the Plasco building and how tall it was. It had to do with what constitutes a high rise. Tony Szamboti was in that discussion as well as he and gerrycan are a tag team. It's all about Gage's group having to take the stance that Plasco was a demolition because if it wasn't, they can't use the "a steel framed high rise/skyscraper was never brought down by fire alone" crap.
Click to expand...


Explain the 110 degree bend in the SW corner steel please.
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
Here is a video taken by the firefighters while the initial recovery operation is still going on.
It looks straight down into the main foundation of the tower. You can see a lot of red molten stuff there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB2yyFOe-2o
Click to expand...


I watched the vid more than once. What "red molten stuff"?

Is it not possible the "red" is due to lighting conditions. Is there not a red tint as the camera moves around, but changes back to a white/grey in some spots.

If you are using this vid as "proof" of "molten red stuff", it fails the smell test..
 
mike2810 said:
I watched the vid more than once. What "red molten stuff"?

Is it not possible the "red" is due to lighting conditions. Is there not a red tint as the camera moves around, but changes back to a white/grey in some spots.

If you are using this vid as "proof" of "molten red stuff", it fails the smell test..
Click to expand...

No, this is the camera shots that led the chief investigating engineer on site at the time to release his statement citing the existance of molten iron at the "collapse" site.
Also, lighting conditions don't cause that kind of heat shimmer.
I do see what you mean about the red tint elsewhere though, which i presume is colour balance issues with the camera being so small and so well encapsulated/insulated.
 
mike2810 said:
Please do explain the 110 degree bend in the SW corner steel.
Click to expand...

I was looking for others opinions, but here's mine.
The penthouse structure has not fallen at the point where the SW corner steel (LHS) has bent 110 degrees. The PH structure is supported by mainly the far left core column of the building (one of four) roughly central to the building. There will be additional support provided to it by the elevator reinforcement which is on the LHS face as viewed, roughly centrally located.

The SW corner steel (LHS) pivots around the point at which an explosive ejection can be observed around the 14th floor on the LHS as viewed,and bends to at least 110 degrees. However, it cannot be being pulled by the falling floor system as there is no purchase to be had by same on the SW corner, by way of the elevator reinforcement and PH core support remaining structurally supportive at that point. ie the PH would have fallen if the floor system had failed at the West of the structure.

If the explosive event at the top of the building which disassociates the front face top horizontal steel from the from the SE corner (RHS as viewed) had not happened, there would be nothing to exert the gravitational pull on the opposite corner to cause the 110 degree pivot. The corner is relatively strong compared to the mid face, which bows out toward the view point initially. The sequential timing of these 2 events below prevents the building from falling forward into the street. LHS first 3 floors from the top, followed by RHS further up.

The building has been biased to fall to the right toward the car park and adjacent shops, by a cutting of the core columns some time prior to the "collapse". This is the event that trapped the firefighters in the building and prevented egress via established routes by which they entered. If this had not happened, the mall face of the tower would have been too strong for the building NOT to fall forward.

The core columns were cut at different heights to achieve the above mentioned bias in collapse direction. the tower fell to where the lowest core column remaIns can be observed post collapse.

The firefighter on the platform at the front of the building was no doubt lucky not to be knocked over, as were some of those at the West face at the time. But certainly if this "collapse" had been a purely gravitational driven event, he and more at the West face would have been knocked over.

These 2 cleverly timed sequential destructive events on the South face of the building remain the tell tale sign of it's controlled demolition, and especially the SE corner event (RHS as viewed). There were no firefighters at the North or the East faces of the building at the time of the collapse. Someone knew what was going down here and exactly what direction it was taking in doing so.
 
SanderO said:
This is one of the most idiotic discussions I have read. Presumably the plans will show the story height. But what does that have to do with the mechanisms of collapse? minuscule if at all.

And why is this of interest? Because a building collapses and they're not supposed to?
Click to expand...

You don't know, SanderO, that steel framed high rises are not only not supposed to collapse from fires, they never have.

Notice that much of the discussion you reference is led by folks who always try to massage the topic away from the highly salient to the totally inane. It's their science.

Notice how gerrycan addresses the science while others employ "hey look, a squirrel" science.
 
No building is designed to collapse from fire. Most building employ strategies to contain, suppress and protect vulnerable components from the heat of fire... and combusting from fire. All of these strategies are in the building codes and employed as best practices.

When fire is out of control the situation enters a territory outside of the design spec / parameters. Elements begin to fail. The structure begins to come "undone"... floor collapses ensue... usually partial where the worst conditions present... and these failing falling floor damage and destroy what the fall on and this can lead to a runaway collapse. This occurred 3 times on 911... to high rises.... which inadequate fire protection.
 
SanderO said:
No building is designed to collapse from fire. Most building employ strategies to contain, suppress and protect vulnerable components from the heat of fire... and combusting from fire. All of these strategies are in the building codes and employed as best practices.

When fire is out of control the situation enters a territory outside of the design spec / parameters. Elements begin to fail. The structure begins to come "undone"... floor collapses ensue... usually partial where the worst conditions present... and these failing falling floor damage and destroy what the fall on and this can lead to a runaway collapse.
Click to expand...

Fires don't get out of control in steel framed high rises. That is why there has never ever been any gravity collapses for steel framed high rises [SFHR] in the history of the world. As NIST states, fires in SFHRs typically last 20 minutes and then move on as the fuel sources are exhausted.

buildingfirememe.jpg


This occurred 3 times on 911... to high rises.... which inadequate fire protection.
Click to expand...

The nanothermite found in WTC dust tells us that you are badly mistaken. As does the molten/vaporized WTC structural steel. As does the free fall of WTC 7, as does the ... , as does the ... .
 
camlok said:
The nanothermite found in WTC dust tells us that you are badly mistaken. As does the molten/vaporized WTC structural steel. As does the free fall of WTC 7, as does the ... , as does the ... .
Click to expand...


no NT found - truther fantasy
no molten steel or vaporized steel... there was aluminum which did melt.
the only part of the 7wtc which descended at FF was the moment frame and attached curtain wall and it dropped from floor 8 to the ground when the columns beneath it were pushed put from under it by the collapse of the debris from the interior floor collapse.

there... fixed that.
 
SanderO said:
no NT found - truther fantasy
no molten steel or vaporized steel... there was aluminum which did melt.
the only part of the 7wtc which descended at FF was the moment frame and attached curtain wall and it dropped from floor 8 to the ground when the columns beneath it were pushed put from under it by the collapse of the debris from the interior floor collapse.

there... fixed that.
Click to expand...

How did you fix it, Sander? With your extensive evidence? Where is your evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom