Lafayette Building's top two floors subsiding?

**davewindsor** · July-20-09, 06:47 AM

I'm not going to comment on the roof prior to seeing a picture, but as for the comment below:

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I'm confused. If brick is piling up, how is that an indication of failure of the floor system? If the floors are collapsing in a pancake mechanism as you suggest, then you may want to report this to the building owner, lest a spontaneous progressive collapse [[think World Trade Center 1 and 2) occurs.

WTC and Lafayette are a ridiculous comparison. That's an apples and oranges comparison. WTC collapsed due to an explosion and poor and lax building codes, not wear and tear. The building standards with older buildings such as the Lafayette were significantly higher, not including the better architecture. This wasn't cheaply built, so don't confuse the two. They are different in two ways: one was due to a fire which played a significant role, the other was not; and the building codes of the Lafayette were a lot higher and very different than that of the WTC.

As a contrast to the WTC, in 1945 a loaded US B-25 bomber accidently lost direction in the fog and slammed into the Empire State Building on the 79th and the 80th floor. The building caught fire. Because of the concrete fire seperation between the hallways and units and concrete cladding around the steel and all the concrete used in the building it did not collapse and the fire was contained and put out and the building still stands today. The WTC was cheaply built--mostly steel and glass. The inherent problem was with structural steel. If structural steel is heated at 2000 degrees for a couple minutes, which is easily done when a fire breaks out in an enclosed unit, the steel bends like licorice and the above floor ends up collapsing into the one below because the steel lost its ability to support the weight above. When you have a couple floors plus the weight of several dozen floors above it collapse on floor below it, the whole thing comes down. BUT, concrete can protect against the immediate effects of that heat that structural steel cannot, so you're not going to have the kind of "spontaneous progressive collapse" in the Empire State Building like you did with WTC. Had the WTC been built with the higher building standards of the Empire State Building, it wouldn't have collapsed. The Lafayette was built to the standards of the Empire State Building with concrete fire seperation and concrete cladding around structural steel because that was the code back then. The Lafayette was built to last. I'd choose leasing in one of these old buildings versus the poorly built and unsafe crap they build today any day of the week. The Lafayette could easily support the weight of another floor collapsing on it just by design [[not that it happened anyway because I have to see someone produce a picture). It doesn't need to be taken care of right away. But, in any case, it is fixable and worth saving.

**Sebastian** · July-23-09, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by davewindsor

The WTC was cheaply built--mostly steel and glass. The inherent problem was with structural steel. If structural steel is heated at 2000 degrees for a couple minutes, which is easily done when a fire breaks out in an enclosed unit, the steel bends like licorice and the above floor ends up collapsing into the one below because the steel lost its ability to support the weight above. When you have a couple floors plus the weight of several dozen floors above it collapse on floor below it, the whole thing comes down. BUT, concrete can protect against the immediate effects of that heat that structural steel cannot, so you're not going to have the kind of "spontaneous progressive collapse" in the Empire State Building like you did with WTC.

You need to do a reality check, since you don't know what you're talking about. The WTC didn't collapse, it *exploded*. Didn't you notice the billowing clouds of concrete dust? Does concrete just explode when it collapses? No, it doesn't. it fractures and makes a big pile of rubble; it doesn't get ejected a hundred feet in a lateral direction. And where was all the concrete from all those floors? In a pile of rubble on the ground? No--because it had all blown away in clouds of dust. Pulverized -- by what?

No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to a fire, and yet we're supposed to believe that three of them collapsed on the same day - one of which had insignificant fire damage? Look at footage of WTC # 7 collapsing, and try to convince yourself that that building was not deliberately imploded. That's right, forget about the twin towers for a sec and just watch #7 coming down on that fateful day. And if you still believe that happened because of a couple small office fires, then I have nothing else to tell you.

**Trumpeteer** · July-24-09, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Sebastian

You need to do a reality check, since you don't know what you're talking about. The WTC didn't collapse, it *exploded*. Didn't you notice the billowing clouds of concrete dust? Does concrete just explode when it collapses? No, it doesn't. it fractures and makes a big pile of rubble; it doesn't get ejected a hundred feet in a lateral direction. And where was all the concrete from all those floors? In a pile of rubble on the ground? No--because it had all blown away in clouds of dust. Pulverized -- by what?

No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to a fire, and yet we're supposed to believe that three of them collapsed on the same day - one of which had insignificant fire damage? Look at footage of WTC # 7 collapsing, and try to convince yourself that that building was not deliberately imploded. That's right, forget about the twin towers for a sec and just watch #7 coming down on that fateful day. And if you still believe that happened because of a couple small office fires, then I have nothing else to tell you.

An airliner crashing into an office tower fully loaded with fuel does a tad more than cause " a couple small oddice fires". Now your thoughts on jet contrails?

**davewindsor** · July-24-09, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by Sebastian

You need to do a reality check, since you don't know what you're talking about. The WTC didn't collapse, it *exploded*. Didn't you notice the billowing clouds of concrete dust? Does concrete just explode when it collapses? No, it doesn't. it fractures and makes a big pile of rubble; it doesn't get ejected a hundred feet in a lateral direction. And where was all the concrete from all those floors? In a pile of rubble on the ground? No--because it had all blown away in clouds of dust. Pulverized -- by what?

No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to a fire, and yet we're supposed to believe that three of them collapsed on the same day - one of which had insignificant fire damage? Look at footage of WTC # 7 collapsing, and try to convince yourself that that building was not deliberately imploded. That's right, forget about the twin towers for a sec and just watch #7 coming down on that fateful day. And if you still believe that happened because of a couple small office fires, then I have nothing else to tell you.

That's the most idiotic statement I heard yet. The NY Fire Chief determined caused of WTC 7's collapse was due to fire, not an exlposion. Why would I try to convince myself otherwise? Are you a Fire Marshall? Have you even bothered to read the articles posted in this thread posted by rsa and ghetto? RSA's diagram from the Science Times article showed a comparison between 70 West with WTC 7 and how the spray on fire proofing could have fallen off the steel support beams to lead to its collapse during a fire versus the 4-6 inch clay block tile that protected the steel support beams on 70 West. An unsafe and cheap modern building practice that caused WTC 7 to collapse while 70 West remained standing.

Ghetto's Popular Mechanic's article stated that the "one primary reason for the building's failure" were "the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor" and according to their "preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors, it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

One column is damaged by a piece debris from another building and the whole thing collapses. That is called modern ways of building on the cheap: engineers trying to find cheaper ways to build buildings that end up collapsing from their own weight. Quite unlike the older buildings which are many more times safer, solid and built to last.

**Sebastian** · July-24-09, 09:17 AM

As I said, watch any video of WTC 7 collapsing. And if you still believe it was not deliberately imploded, then I have nothing else to say. But buildings that collapse do not fall straight down in a few seconds.

And as for the other poster, the 'small office fires' I referred to were in WTC #7, if you had read my post carefully. Also, I'm sure you're aware that the jet fuel from the twin tower crashes burned off in a few minutes, leaving only office fires, which are not hot enough to deform steel. And no fire or ordinary collapse is capable of pulverizing concrete. Seriously, just look at the videos, while the towers are allegedly 'collapsing'. Compare the towers to a steel-and-concrete building that collapses in an earthquake. Then look at videos of imploded buildings. Do some research. You really shouldn't believe everything the government tells you.

**Novine** · July-24-09, 10:24 AM

Do we really have to have the 9/11 crazy conspiracy theorists debate here? Aren't there a million places on the web where you can talk to the fellow nuttos about how we can prove that the WTC collapse was deliberate?

**Sebastian** · July-24-09, 10:48 AM

The terms 'crazy' and 'nutto' are very prejudicial. I have only stated facts. Until you have examined all the evidence, you should keep an open mind.

But as I said, watch the videos with a skeptical eye, then believe what you want to believe. I'll go back to lurking now, and you fine folks can go back to talking about more current demolition of buildings. Have a nice day in Detroit :-)