De grote 9/11 topic

[Akufen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Leg uit , ik begrijp u niet
Zo is het NIST rapport er gekomen, dankzij de nabestaanden.

Nee natuurlijk begrijp jij het niet. Jij kan beter eens gaan praten met die nabestaanden en vragen of ze het onderzoek hebben gekregen dat ze vroegen.

Het is trouwens niet het NIST rapport maar het commissie rapport dat een gevolg was van hun aandringen. Onder leiding van niemand anders dan Philip Zelikow. Met andere woorden, een onderzoek onder leiding van iemand die in bed ligt met de verdachten.

Maar laten we ons daar vooral geen vragen bij stellen…

[Gipsy]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Frank51

Four different fireproofing materials were used during the construction of the World Trade Towers.

The initial material used for most of the fireproofing (later withdrawn because it contained asbestos) was a mineral fiber formulation consisting of about 20 percent chrysotile asbestos, 60 to 65 percent mineral wool, and the remainder made of gypsum and Portland cement binder. This was sprayed on structural steel up to the 36th floor and parts of the 37th and 38th floors of the North Tower.

Above this point in the North Tower, and for the entire structure of the South Tower, the spray was an asbestos-free successor to the original product consisting of mineral wool and binder. These formulations were applied to core columns, the outside face of the exterior walls and columns, the long-span steel joists (trusses) that supported the concrete floors, and trench headers for the underfloor raceway system.

The third type of spray, a lightweight gypsum plaster with vermiculite aggregate, was used on the inside face of the exterior walls and columns and on the seats supporting the long-span joists. This material contained no asbestos.

The fourth formulation was a "hard coat" consisting of 80-percent chrysotile asbestos set in a matrix of Portland cement. This was sprayed over the mineral fiber fireproofing in locations where it was thought that the more friable fireproofing material could suffer from vibration or air erosion. As such, this "hard coat" was used in the high-speed elevator shafts between the concourse level and the 44th- and 78th-floor sky lobbies in both towers, where it was thought that air currents from the "piston effect" of the elevators could damage the fireproofing. This material was also applied to the ceilings of the four mechanical equipment floors (in both towers) and on the ceilings immediately below these floors.


Asbest zat dus wel in beide torens, tot de 78ste verdieping. De impact van de vliegtuigen gebeurde wel hoger, en de branden waren dus in de verdiepingen met de alternatieve isolatiespray. De RF was daar dus inderdaad minder.

Maar om nu te zeggen dat dit én de impacts de reden was voor een totale instorting, is te gek voor woorden..

U haalt dus selectief een deel uit het artikel waarvan u geen link plaatst. Ik zal het dus zelf doen: http://www.fireengineering.com/artic...tc-towers.html Wat op zijn minst intellectuele oneerlijkheid is. Laat ons dus doorgaan naar de conclusies van betrokken artikel waarvan u de link niet plaatst. Waarom niet? Omdat er nergens verwezen wordt in de conclusies naar aanbreng van explosieven wat uw paradepaardje is.


LESSONS LEARNED

In considering the possible causes of the collapse of the WTC towers, the possibility that the initial application of fire-resistive coatings was deficient must be considered. The implications of this are far ranging. The fire safety of buildings depends on the fire-resistance ratings' successfully resulting in buildings that stay standing despite fire damage. Prior to the collapse of the WTC towers, it was thought that adherence to the fire-resistance ratings in the building codes would result in buildings that were safe for occupants and for those who fight fires. However, the entire scheme currently used to make these determinations must be called into question. If the WTC towers were properly protected but fell anyway, then this would indicate that the fire-resistance ratings and structural reliability of buildings as they are now built are insufficiently protective. However, if the buildings failed because the fireproofing was improperly applied, then the standards for fireproofing application and maintenance need to be strengthened. Peoples' lives depend on properly analyzing these issues and then taking appropriate corrective action.

[Akufen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door parcifal

Geraakt worden door een ineenstortende WTC-toren zal toch ook geen deugd gedaan hebben, nietwaar?

WTC7 was een gebouw parcifal, die hebben geen gevoelens, dus je stopt best met je emotionele argumentering en beperk u liever tot de feiten.

7 Perimeter-kolommen werden geraakt, dat heeft geen impact op de structurele integriteit van dat gebouw.

[parcifal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Akufen

WTC7 was een gebouw parcifal, die hebben geen gevoelens, dus je stopt best met je emotionele argumentering en beperk u liever tot de feiten.

Nounou, wat zijn we droog vandaag.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Akufen

7 Perimeter-kolommen werden geraakt, dat heeft geen impact op de structurele integriteit van dat gebouw.

7 perimeter-kolommen : Mogelijk, ik ken de details niet vanbuiten.
In elk geval spreekt Peter Hayden die op 9/11 voor WTC 7 stond u nogal sterk tegen :

Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

De Southwest-corner dat is waar er schade was door debris en Hayden rapporteert een "visible bulge", dat is dus een structurele fout die al zichtbaar was voor 2pm. HEt was niet kritiek uiteraard, maar speelde wel mee.
Dat minimaliseren altijd, wordt je dat nooit beu?

[Akufen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door parcifal

HEt was niet kritiek uiteraard, maar speelde wel mee.

Hoezo het was niet kritiek? Hoe weet jij dat? En hoe weet jij dat het wel mee speelde?

[Akufen]

(Before 9:59 a.m.) September 11, 2001: EMT Worker Given Message That WTC Towers Are Going to Collapse; High-Level Officials Evacuate Lobby of North Tower
http://www.historycommons.org/contex...worker&scale=0

[parcifal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Akufen

Hoezo het was niet kritiek? Hoe weet jij dat? En hoe weet jij dat het wel mee speelde?

Het was niet kritiek omdat wtc7 niet instortte om 14h.
Het speelde mee omdat een 'bulge' beteketnt dat andere kolommen meer last te dragen krijgen.

En nu wil je daar vast gedetailleerd bewijs van van druksensoren op.alle kolommen in wtc7, he? Pech, zit er niet in.

[Frank51]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gipsy

U haalt dus selectief een deel uit het artikel waarvan u geen link plaatst. Ik zal het dus zelf doen: http://www.fireengineering.com/artic...tc-towers.html Wat op zijn minst intellectuele oneerlijkheid is. Laat ons dus doorgaan naar de conclusies van betrokken artikel waarvan u de link niet plaatst. Waarom niet? Omdat er nergens verwezen wordt in de conclusies naar aanbreng van explosieven wat uw paradepaardje is.


LESSONS LEARNED

In considering the possible causes of the collapse of the WTC towers, the possibility that the initial application of fire-resistive coatings was deficient must be considered. The implications of this are far ranging. The fire safety of buildings depends on the fire-resistance ratings' successfully resulting in buildings that stay standing despite fire damage. Prior to the collapse of the WTC towers, it was thought that adherence to the fire-resistance ratings in the building codes would result in buildings that were safe for occupants and for those who fight fires. However, the entire scheme currently used to make these determinations must be called into question. If the WTC towers were properly protected but fell anyway, then this would indicate that the fire-resistance ratings and structural reliability of buildings as they are now built are insufficiently protective. However, if the buildings failed because the fireproofing was improperly applied, then the standards for fireproofing application and maintenance need to be strengthened. Peoples' lives depend on properly analyzing these issues and then taking appropriate corrective action.

Dit is een mening van een brandweerman die de instorting van het gebouw tracht te verklaren. Net zoals een ingenieur zou zitten janken dat ze misschien te zwakke bouten gebruikt hebben.
Mocht de wind die dag zeer strak gestaan hebben, er zou een artikel verschenen hebben om de windbelasting van gebouwen aanzienlijk te verbeteren. Weet je wat mijn (fictieve) mening is? "Het papier die de kantoren gebruikten was te brandbaar waardoor enorm hoge temperaturen bereikt werden. Mocht men met onbrandbaar papier werken, de instorting zou nooit gebeurd zijn."

[Frank51]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Akufen

(Before 9:59 a.m.) September 11, 2001: EMT Worker Given Message That WTC Towers Are Going to Collapse; High-Level Officials Evacuate Lobby of North Tower
http://www.historycommons.org/contex...worker&scale=0

Inderdaad, zeer juist. Verschillende mensen waren duidelijk ingelicht over de instortingen. Zelfs burgemeester Mayor Giuliani werd op de hoogte gebracht.

1:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arVPrp5OzVs

"I .. I went down to the scene and we set up a headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna' to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit, got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us."

Het is duidelijk dat de 2 gebouwen er nog stonden toen hij deze warning kreeg.

Een inside job. Ontegensprekelijk. Wie dit nu nog niet inziet, is stekeblind of oerdom.

[Gipsy]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Frank51

Dit is een mening van een brandweerman die de instorting van het gebouw tracht te verklaren. Net zoals een ingenieur zou zitten janken dat ze misschien te zwakke bouten gebruikt hebben.
Mocht de wind die dag zeer strak gestaan hebben, er zou een artikel verschenen hebben om de windbelasting van gebouwen aanzienlijk te verbeteren. Weet je wat mijn (fictieve) mening is? "Het papier die de kantoren gebruikten was te brandbaar waardoor enorm hoge temperaturen bereikt werden. Mocht men met onbrandbaar papier werken, de instorting zou nooit gebeurd zijn."

"FIREPROOFING" AT THE WTC TOWERS
10/01/2002
BY ROGER G. MORSE

I investigated the fireproofing in both World Trade Center towers over approximately a 10-year period between the early 1990s and early June 2000, the last time I was in the towers.

There were problems with the fireproofing in the World Trade Towers that may have rendered them vulnerable to fire. These problems are not unique to the WTC; I have observed similar problems with the fireproofing in many high-rise buildings in the United States and Europe.

FIREPROOFING TYPES

(Editor's note: "Fireproofing" is the name commonly given to fire-resistive coatings applied to structural steel components of high-rise buildings to protect them from the heat of a fire. Fireproofing is a critical fire safety feature of steel high-rise structures because steel begins to elongate between approximately 800°F and 1,000°F, temperatures easily reached by normal residential and commercial contents fires. Building codes require its utilization as well as its proper application. Fire codes require its constant maintenance.

Four different fireproofing materials were used during the construction of the World Trade Towers.

The initial material used for most of the fireproofing (later withdrawn because it contained asbestos) was a mineral fiber formulation consisting of about 20 percent chrysotile asbestos, 60 to 65 percent mineral wool, and the remainder made of gypsum and Portland cement binder. This was sprayed on structural steel up to the 36th floor and parts of the 37th and 38th floors of the North Tower.

Above this point in the North Tower, and for the entire structure of the South Tower, the spray was an asbestos-free successor to the original product consisting of mineral wool and binder. These formulations were applied to core columns, the outside face of the exterior walls and columns, the long-span steel joists (trusses) that supported the concrete floors, and trench headers for the underfloor raceway system.

The third type of spray, a lightweight gypsum plaster with vermiculite aggregate, was used on the inside face of the exterior walls and columns and on the seats supporting the long-span joists. This material contained no asbestos.

The fourth formulation was a "hard coat" consisting of 80-percent chrysotile asbestos set in a matrix of Portland cement. This was sprayed over the mineral fiber fireproofing in locations where it was thought that the more friable fireproofing material could suffer from vibration or air erosion. As such, this "hard coat" was used in the high-speed elevator shafts between the concourse level and the 44th- and 78th-floor sky lobbies in both towers, where it was thought that air currents from the "piston effect" of the elevators could damage the fireproofing. This material was also applied to the ceilings of the four mechanical equipment floors (in both towers) and on the ceilings immediately below these floors.

The WTC towers were built at the time of transition from asbestos-containing fireproofing to nonasbestos formulations. The nonasbestos fireproofing protecting some of the floors, including the floors impacted by the airplanes, was in some ways inferior to asbestos-containing fireproofing. The nonasbestos materials are less dense, less uniform, and less cohesive to the surface. Nonasbestos fireproofing materials were rushed into use, in some instances without the benefit of full-scale fire tests. To make matters worse, there were no field tests to determine if fireproofing materials were properly installed until 1977, when the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) published tests for adhesion, cohesion, thickness, and density of applied fireproofing. If these tests had existed in the early 1970s, when the towers were built, then the deficiencies outlined below could have been discovered and corrected.

APPLICATION DEFICIENCIES

Fireproofing was applied directly to the long joists that supported each of the floors. Inspections of the floors with asbestos-containing fireproofing (up to the 38th floor in the North Tower) found that there were numerous areas where the fireproofing had never been applied. Top and bottom chords and truss web members were exposed, and the red lead on the trusses was clearly visible in many locations. Photo 1 shows a truss with fireproofing missing from its end where it meets the outside wall. Also, the fireproofing was frequently thinner than the 3/4 inch described in the Federal Emergency Management Agency-funded ASCE BPAT report on the collapse of the towers. Many of the problems observed were clearly the result of poor workmanship.

However, the nature of the structures that were fireproofed and application methods used could also contribute to the problem. Applying fireproofing to a long-span or any type of joist construction is difficult. The round rods and small angles making up a truss are difficult targets for the installer. Spray fireproofing materials are typically applied from the floor with an extended spray nozzle. The installer may be unable to reach or see certain areas of the trusses that must be covered. This frequently results in thin or absent fireproofing on surfaces hidden from the floor by the bottom of steel members (photo 2). In the WTC, this resulted in sections of the top surface of the bottom chord of the trusses receiving an inadequate coat of fireproofing. These are deficiencies that would have been easily discovered by the ASTM field quality assurance tests for adhesion, cohesion, thickness, and density had these test methods existed at the time of construction.



I inspected core columns up to the 78th floor but was unable to access them above that point. These inspections revealed that the bond of fireproofing on core columns had failed in many locations and the fireproofing was falling off the columns in floor-high sheets. Photo 3, taken in 1994, shows a core column from which the fireproofing had fallen off in a sheet that is several stories high. The red circle and date was the Port Authority's response to the missing fireproofing. This resulted because the steel had not been properly prepared at the time of the initial spray application. Rust scale had not been removed prior to applying the fireproofing. The fireproofing had adhered well to the rust scale, but the rust was coming loose from the steel (photo 4).

Examining the rust, I discovered that cement paste from the fireproofing had run behind flakes of the rust, indicating that the rust existed at the time the fireproofing was applied. The result was that the fireproofing adhered loosely to the columns and would fall off in large sheets. This defect was never corrected and still existed in June 2000 and probably at the time of the plane crashes. It is possible the fireproofing was missing from sections of columns on the impact floors or that some or all of the loosely adhered fireproofing fell off with the force of the impacts. This is a defect that would have been easily discovered by the ASTM adhesion and cohesion quality assurance test, had this standard existed at the time of construction.



In addition, there were a number of areas in the elevator shafts where fireproofing on core beams had been knocked off by elevator cables or had been damaged by foot traffic during installation of the elevator equipment (photo 5).

Fireproofing on joist-to-wall connections was also deficient. The long-span joists were supported by an angle seat welded to the face of the exterior columns. The fireproofing applied in some places was so thin that the angle seat, the shape of the bolts connecting the joist to the seat, and the bolts holding together the spandrel panels could be readily discerned. According to building drawings, these areas should have had a fire rating of four hours. For such a rating, properly applied fireproofing should be at least one to 11/2 inches thick. At this thickness, the bolts and even the angle seat itself would not be discernable (photo 6).

There were a number of locations in the WTC towers where the work of other trades obstructed the installation of the fireproofing. This is a common problem in high-rise construction in which ductwork, conduits, and piping are installed before the fireproofing. Building codes should be strengthened, requiring that fireproofing be installed prior to the work of other trades. This is the only way that a continuous and uniform layer of fireproofing can be applied.

LACK OF QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING

The WTC was built before there were accepted standards for determining if the fireproofing as applied in the field would perform properly. Would the material remain on the steel (adhesion), resist physical damage (cohesion), insulate properly (thickness and density), and behave as a fire retardant? Architects relied on the "testing" undertaken by Underwriters Laboratories. However, without field quality assurance tests, there was no way of knowing if the properties of the applied fireproofing matched those of the material subjected to the UL test. The previously discussed tests would not become available until years after the completion of the WTC. For example, the ASTM test for adhesion would have detected the bonding defects of the fireproofing on core columns. This test and the ASTM test for thickness and density would have determined the adequacy of the spray fireproofing on the floor joists.

The WTC should not be considered unique in this regard. The fireproofing in any building constructed before the ASTM standards became available in 1977 should be considered suspect.

ACCUMULATED DAMAGE TO FIREPROOFING

There is another important aspect to this issue. There is no existing requirement in any building or occupancy code to inspect the fireproofing in a building periodically to determine if it has degraded through gradual physical damage. This is even true for new construction where the fireproofing is installed and tested early in the construction process. Successive work by many trades often damages and removes whole sections of fireproofing. In the WTC, the fireproofing coatings had been damaged by later construction and renovation in many locations.

LESSONS LEARNED

In considering the possible causes of the collapse of the WTC towers, the possibility that the initial application of fire-resistive coatings was deficient must be considered. The implications of this are far ranging. The fire safety of buildings depends on the fire-resistance ratings' successfully resulting in buildings that stay standing despite fire damage. Prior to the collapse of the WTC towers, it was thought that adherence to the fire-resistance ratings in the building codes would result in buildings that were safe for occupants and for those who fight fires. However, the entire scheme currently used to make these determinations must be called into question. If the WTC towers were properly protected but fell anyway, then this would indicate that the fire-resistance ratings and structural reliability of buildings as they are now built are insufficiently protective. However, if the buildings failed because the fireproofing was improperly applied, then the standards for fireproofing application and maintenance need to be strengthened. Peoples' lives depend on properly analyzing these issues and then taking appropriate corrective action.

Deficient firestopping

Deficient firestopping provides an avenue for fire spread. Columns, girders and beams are commonly protected with spray asbestos insulation or a composition material. Spray insulation has been tested to offer four-hour test ratings on columns, three hours on beams and girders.

Test conditions, however, do not match actual conditions in the field. Insulation adhesion may be ineffective because of rust. Frequently, insulation is applied to rusted metal that has not been properly treated before application; the insulation's consistency may vary; its application may be inconsistent; or it may be dislodged during original and new construction and maintenance.

Source: HighRise/Fire & Life Safety, by John T. O'Hagan, Fire Engineering, 1977, pp. 23-28

ROGER G. MORSE is a member of the American Institute of Architects and director of Morse Associates, which focuses on forensic building investigation.



Om een of andere reden werkt de link niet meer dus is er geen andere keuze dan het volledig artikel te plaatsen.

1)Morse is geen brandweerman maar een architect gespecialiseerd in onderzoeken na rampen zoals het WTC. Dat is dus een leugen of een slordigheid, ik opteer voor het tweede in uw geval.

2)U hebt er in eerste instantie wel stellingen uitgehaald die in uw kraam pasten maar wijselijk de conclusies van Morse uitgelaten wat intellectueel oneerlijk is.

[atmosphere]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Akufen

Als we kunnen aantonen dat er geen bewijzen zijn voor het officiële verhaal dan is een nieuw onderzoek nodig. Ik hoef daarvoor niet aan te tonen wat er wel is gebeurd met die torens, daarom is precies dat nieuw onderzoek nodig.

Er is al een massa aaN ONDERZOEKEN GEDAAN , OOK NIET OFFICIËLE

Hier gaan we weer, tegen all bewijs in toch gaan claimen dat de vuren groot waren. Ik baseer mij niet op die quote, ALLE bewijs wijst daar op.

Waar dan op ? Die vrouw die in het gat staat?
De vergelijkingen met nachtfoto's van andere branden ?


Nog even een voorbeeld van instorting door brand
Hoofd gebouw van theater met stalen frame stort in:

[Frank51]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gipsy

2)U hebt er in eerste instantie wel stellingen uitgehaald die in uw kraam pasten maar wijselijk de conclusies van Morse uitgelaten wat intellectueel oneerlijk is.

Gaan we zo beginnen ja? Ik heb de FEITEN eruit gehaald ja.
95% van de architecten denkt waarschijnlijk dat de WTC torens door brand neergingen. So what? Het zijn ook maar mensen.

Moet ik even opsommen hoe jullie intellectueel oneerlijk tewerk gaan?
Begin dan eerst maar eens uit te leggen hoe het komt dat Giuliani op voorhand ingelicht werd.

[Gipsy]

[

[Gipsy]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Frank51

Gaan we zo beginnen ja? Ik heb de FEITEN eruit gehaald ja.
95% van de architecten denkt waarschijnlijk dat de WTC torens door brand neergingen. So what? Het zijn ook maar mensen.

Moet ik even opsommen hoe jullie intellectueel oneerlijk tewerk gaan?
Begin dan eerst maar eens uit te leggen hoe het komt dat Giuliani op voorhand ingelicht werd.

Ontwijking van het item en verlegging naar een ander pseudo feit. Klassiek.
Bovendien weerlegt u uw slordigheid niet dat Morse een architect, bovendien gespecialiseerd in dit soort rampen, en geen brandweerman is.

[Frank51]

http://www.demorgen.be/opinie/men-st...orie-a2300801/

Schitterend artikel van onze heren vrijmetselaars
Met Braeckman op kop. Van die man krijg ik letterlijk braeckneigingen en heb ik zin om op zijn wezen te slaan. En ik ben totaal niet agressief eigenlijk.
Zegt genoeg over die arme ziel. Manipulator van de media en pers. Triest figuur. Zouden ze in den bak moeten steken.

Ik ben er vrijwel zeker van dat hij en zijn mannetjes hier vertoeven

[Frank51]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gipsy

Ontwijking van het item en verlegging naar een ander pseudo feit. Klassiek.
Bovendien weerlegt u uw slordigheid niet dat Morse een architect, bovendien gespecialiseerd in dit soort rampen, en geen brandweerman is.

Ja ik was mis ja. Het is nog slechter. Wat weet een architect van branden af??

[Gipsy]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Frank51

Ja ik was mis ja. Het is nog slechter. Wat weet een architect van branden af??

Weeral mis dus. Een architect zelfs in Belgie moet op de hoogte zijn van de kwaliteit en de plaatsing van brandwerend materiaal.

Morse heeft jarenlang in opdracht gewerkt om regelmatige controles uit te voeren oa wat de brandveiligheid betreft van de Twins toen ze er nog stonden. Zijn rapporten en foto's waren vernietigend.

The consultant, Roger G. Morse, said years of inspections had revealed that whole sections of the original fireproofing had fallen away and other sections had deteriorated, leaving the steel inadequately protected.

Mr. Morse says Mr. DiBono's firm had improperly sprayed the fireproofing onto rusted steel, which would have caused it to slough off.

Mr. Morse recently contacted experts working on the federally financed investigation of the collapses and turned over hundreds of photographs that he said depicted the failure to repair the problems with the fireproofing.

One expert helping lead the investigation, Frederick W. Mowrer, said Mr. Morse's material had convinced him that the fireproofing had to be scrutinized as a potential contributor to the failures of the buildings.




http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/14/nyregion/14TOWE.html

We komen op een terrein waar ik als ex New Yorker een zekere kennis van had. Kom dus niet af met met eender wat. Buildings in New York worden elk jaar grondig gescreend binnen en buiten.

[hogesaII]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Akufen

Het is trouwens niet het NIST rapport maar het commissie rapport dat een gevolg was van hun aandringen. Onder leiding van niemand anders dan Philip Zelikow. Met andere woorden, een onderzoek onder leiding van iemand die in bed ligt met de verdachten.

Nog een voor in de conspiracy dat maakt al 95863 insidejob'ers ondertussen zeker?

[hogesaII]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gipsy

U haalt dus selectief een deel uit het artikel waarvan u geen link plaatst. Ik zal het dus zelf doen: http://www.fireengineering.com/artic...tc-towers.html Wat op zijn minst intellectuele oneerlijkheid is. Laat ons dus doorgaan naar de conclusies van betrokken artikel waarvan u de link niet plaatst. Waarom niet? Omdat er nergens verwezen wordt in de conclusies naar aanbreng van explosieven wat uw paradepaardje is.


LESSONS LEARNED

In considering the possible causes of the collapse of the WTC towers, the possibility that the initial application of fire-resistive coatings was deficient must be considered. The implications of this are far ranging. The fire safety of buildings depends on the fire-resistance ratings' successfully resulting in buildings that stay standing despite fire damage. Prior to the collapse of the WTC towers, it was thought that adherence to the fire-resistance ratings in the building codes would result in buildings that were safe for occupants and for those who fight fires. However, the entire scheme currently used to make these determinations must be called into question. If the WTC towers were properly protected but fell anyway, then this would indicate that the fire-resistance ratings and structural reliability of buildings as they are now built are insufficiently protective. However, if the buildings failed because the fireproofing was improperly applied, then the standards for fireproofing application and maintenance need to be strengthened. Peoples' lives depend on properly analyzing these issues and then taking appropriate corrective action.

Deze komt hard aan voor Frankske

[Frank51]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gipsy

Weeral mis dus. Een architect zelfs in Belgie moet op de hoogte zijn van de kwaliteit en de plaatsing van brandwerend materiaal.

We komen op een terrein waar ik als ex New Yorker een zekere kennis van had. Kom dus niet af met met eender wat. Buildings in New York worden elk jaar grondig gescreend binnen en buiten.

Goed voor u
Ik werk dagelijks met architecten en die weten daar heel weinig van, dat kan ik u verzekeren... Het enige wat die doen is RF van x aantal u op hun plannen zetten. Als we willen weten als een gebouw voldoet aan brandveiligheid, weet je wat een architect doet? De plannen doorsturen naar een BRANDWEERMAN.