I wrote this open letter to Professor John Thwaites, and sent it to his email address.
Dear Professor Thwaites,
I used to rent an apartment on Beaconsfield Parade in the same block you once owned one. I remember, many years ago, when the new fire alarm system was installed — and often wondered if I would be tasked to carry Nancy (then in her 90s) down from her top floor apartment in a fire emergency. However, I am writing to you today about fire risk in buildings across Melbourne.
Investigating Fire Risk
I read that you have been tasked, along with Mr Baillieu, to lead the investigation to identify any dangerous buildings in Victoria with regard to investigating fire risk.
The report (3/7/2017) said that “the task force will include the MFB, Fire Safety Victoria and a range of peak bodies and unions from the building industry, with a preliminary report due in three months.”
I would like to bring to your attention the catastrophic collapse of a building in 2001.
The Collapse of Building 7
Building 7 (WTC7) was 47 stories high – nearly the height of the Rialto’s 55 floors. The building, also known as the Salomon Brothers’ Building, was a 610 feet tall, 47 storey modern steel-framed high-rise, built in 1987. It was a class-A fully fire protected structure, with reinforced concrete floors.
At 5:21 pm on September 11th, 2001, the entire building suddenly and completely collapsed in just under SEVEN seconds. The cause of the collapse has been reported to be due to office fires, involving ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), founded in 1901 is one of the US’s oldest physical science laboratories – and was tasked to investigate the collapse.
NIST Reported:
“Debris from the collapse of WTC 1… ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building… These lower-floor fires… were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings… fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building’s collapse began.”
NIST explains how fires caused the collapse:
“The heat… caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building. …Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building… caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor…”
You may want to question in your report whether Building 7 did collapse as a result from fires burning office furnishings. One would expect a WORLDWIDE ALERT would have been sent out with suggestions for new building codes and restrictions. But this never happened.
There are approximate 120 high-rise fires each year, yet only one building – WTC7 – collapsed at free fall speeds from fire. Your task force may want to read this report and more information can be sourced here.
It may be worthy to note that Building 7’s fire alarm had been deactivated due to being set in test mode for 8 hours that day. Thus, the sprinklers did not activate.
This collapse is unprecedented, and so should be a warning to all architects and engineers in the construction industry. We also need to train experts to identify the dangers of high-rise fires. In New York that day, an unknown city official predicted the unprecedented fire-induced collapse of this building 5 hours in advance. This resulted in the evacuation of the building, saving lives — but prematurely curtailed fire-fighting operations, even though there was ample water.
I would urge you and your team to investigate Building 7, and make a note of it in your report. It is extremely important that we understand how the building came down — and how it might relate to our fire safety here in Victoria.
Sincerely
Dee McLachlan BSc (Hons)
About Prof Thwaites. He holds and has held many important positions:
- Professorial Fellow, Monash University
- Chair of ClimateWorks Australia, and
- the Monash Sustainable Development Institute.
- He is a consultant at Maddocks Solicitors,
- Co-Chairs the Leadership Council of the global Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN).
- Chairs the Australian Building Codes Board, and
- The Peter Cullen Water and Environment Trust
- Director of the Australian Green Building Council.
- He was Deputy Premier of Victoria from 1999 – 2007, and was
- Minister for Health,
- Minister for Planning,
- Minister for Environment,
- Minister for Water,
- Minister for Victorian Communities and
- Victoria’s first Minister for Climate Change.
Email address: ‘john.thwaites@climateworksaustralia.org’
We are hoping to get an explanation from ABC’s resident expert scientist on WTC7 — Dr Karl Kruszelnicki. (re: Gumshoe article “Dr Karl, Please Explain“)
I have added to this post a video one our readers (John) forwarded to me the other day on Firefighters’ Perspectives of High-Rise Fires — posted on the 28th of July, 2017.
Whom is guilty of malfeasance is a combination of government regulations or lack of? and capitalist profiteering, in having work and manufacturing done abroad, which lacks inspection and control of imports for one reason, profiteering, the fact that manufacturing became exported with government and trading corporations and others, knowing the outcome would be to avoid scrutiny and inspections of quality control are implicit and these two factors are whom are guilty of deaths and outcomes of imports that are inferior to what otherwise would become if made in domestic markets of greater quality manufacturing and made goods abroad.
To deny that no one knows who to blame is evading the obvious as I have outlined, greed and money making is the root cause of such manufacturing as the cladding that has now caused what I would define as intent of murder or party to manslaughter.
What?
Building No 7 was brought down with explosives full stop!
Just look and see.
Nothing in this case is related to anything you raise.
Ditto buildings 1 and 2.
Regardless of the building brought down by explosives, the investigation as the official ideology is given? we should be looking at whom were the pilots and details of how they became authorized and allowed to fly these aircraft.
The fact or otherwise of explosives used is not to distract from the case you outline? on the contrary if it becomes worthy of looking at what I suggest, would be significant to those whom are regarding your likely and yet not officially recognized as a important contribution, collaborating the Ned analysis.
The sad thing here is that a building can be DEMOLISHED in broad daylight at 5.20pm — with every news channel covering the event. Yet the populace, the ABC, BBC, CNN and the works — including Dr Karl et al — all look the other way. All with blinkers on and earplugs in.
https://daliamaelachlan.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/blinkers-horse.jpg
Dee, it sounds to me as if the authorities that are involved with some thing to hide? the cleaning and making the roads safe to travel on, the authorities of New York cannot keep the roads open for long durations of time, considering NY having to keep NY solvent, I am sure America would not let knowingly use its citizens to throw themselves out of windows, for political gain, or even money? would they?
I’m sure Dr Karl knows as well as Jon Faine does. Its not exactly in their interests to acknowledge any truth external to the official narrative, given the direct involvement of so many of their coreligionists.
Don — what pilots?
I thought Dee their was a list of terrorists that were named as being party on the plane? do you think America would lie about those on the list?
Don,
The alleged hijackers on the planes were not listed as passengers.
Where have you been?
And Don, they do not turn up on cctv at the departure gates!!!!!!!!
And Don two or more (?) alleged hijackers appear on cctv at an airport catching a flight to connect with a 911 flight on the same morning.
Fancy, driving to another city the day before a planned hijacking and flying to an airport to be on a plane they had intended hijacking.
Just furthervfancy, their luggage did not connect with the doomed flight and the contents of the luggage was used to suggest that they were on a doomed flight and hey presto: we found the ‘hijackers’
As I have stated, some would not identify a fish if they were slapped in the face with it……….even if it is a dead rotting fish!
And Don, look up what company controlled the security at the relevant departure airports.
Slap!
And the security at the wtc!
Slap slap!
Don, the planes that flew into the two buildings were military auto-piloted planes.
I think Dee’s idea of writing this letter is to get a person in a high position to prove and state that the official story is the load of crap, that it is.
That’s it… It is to alert Thwaites et al that NIST said a building collapsed at free fall because of fire… as I guess none of them have remembered or heard of Building 7. Maybe if they go to the links provided they would discover that the building was demolished. A letter full of sarcasm.
For the sixteenth anniversary I’ll now go out on a limb. Have been too shy till now to say it (tho I told it to Dee years ago).
On the evening new in Adelaide, at the wrap up of the half hour of news, they often show again the main story. I mean the ABC, which, being an educated person, was the only. channel I ever watched.
They showed a jumbo going into the tower, and coming out the other side — but coming out ghost-like, quickly.
I can’t describe ghostlike, I mean not-solid looking, just an outline and this outline disbursed. All in about one second.
I had no skepticism (till 2005) and was fascinated. I recall thinking “Wow, wait til our professors of physics see this.”
Note: each of Australia’s 7 capital cities broadcasts its own ABC evening news. Maybe Adelaide was the only city in which they tried this little experiment with our stupidity. As i said they recap the news, and they played this 3 x in a row, fast.
A few years ago a girl from Shanghai said when she saw it on TV, it was a plane that smashed into the outside of the walls and fell down to the ground. Another experiment? one that shows a bit more respect for the Shanghai brain.
The problem with television is that it was INTERLACED…. that means each frame (30f/s in US) has parts of another frame from before and then after. So you get anomalies forming, such as stripping and ghosting. The frame is not captured or broadcast as “frames”. So it is very difficult to pinpoint causation of any anomaly. When i saw the “nose” coming out — parts of the plane/drone could have gone across the office space and bits could have come out the other side. It went in the side — so much,I assume, missed the lift shaft area.
Mary… you mention the Shanghai girl told you what she saw…
a plane crashing down.. I wonder what everyone saw… or remembered what they saw. I saw the plane go into the 2nd building (live — which is not actually live)
There have been quite a few video parodys produced in regard to 911 to demonstrate how stupid and gullible are those who believe the official government tin foil hatters 911 conspiracy theory.
On building No 7 one may find a 4.14 minute video titled:
“Free Fallin; starring building No 7.”
No need for heaps of inane theoretical obfuscation in regard to 911……the video leaves the eye to believe that the official gullible skeptics are simply, simple or devious in protecting mass murderers……..i.e. aiding and abetting the protection of criminals who are armed, dangerous and still at large.
Sorry I cannot put in the link but some kind gumshoe will provide it to readers. I had to watch it in silence (library rules?) so I would appreciate being able to listen to the music in another place.
For another parody exposing the tin foil hatter conspiracy theorists, search Corbett’s ‘911 a conspiracy theory’. the music is catchy. be nice to see it here at gumshoe toremind people and demonstrate how stupid and gullible are our politicians, MSS journos and shock jokes, SBS and ABC with Jonathan Faine for example.
Not to mention our alleged scientific geniuses with their snouts in the trough posing scientific denial BS as science.
We are surrounded by idiots posing as experts on many subjects, some even claimed that we would not have any more snow!!
idiots!
That includes the majority of the legal profession who could not objectively consider the evidence that a fish is a fish even if they were smacked in the face with it.
Thinking of lawyers: try the Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull, The Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, ABC Jonathan Faine………….et.al.
Thankfully; the criminal trial system will be spared any chance of them having to appear on a jury panel at which time they would have a duty to use their brain and cary out heir duty examining the evidence.
Seems that because they are politicians they think they can ignore scientific evidence and find a justification to go invade, destroy, kill and maine a million of our fellow human beings all over the Middle East.
Ta FD.
It is better than I thought it would be.
Though Corbet’s ‘911 a conspiracy theory’ has more humour.
no worries, Ned, its a goodun for sure! 🙂
Very well put, Ned.
[FAIR USE is declared in sharing this document for criminal investigations and historic research.] Here’s a PDF of GELATIN: The B Thing The lesson is that you don’t want art students living in a high rise building doing their art project. https://www.dropbox.com/s/7n7pwq39sx3f5ju/GELATIN%20The%20B%20Thing%20memory%20book.pdf?dl=0
We know the official story is a lie. WHO are protected from accountability? Watch the video: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=157296
Christopher Bollyn’s presentation was perfect tonight.
He confirms that he is the “secret author” on whose PDF I built the article”Who Killed Cock Robin?”
Aw, gee, look what I found in the BOSTON GLOBE.
.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/11/16/the-truthers-and/Y3RrUaEHaOakG60crFM9bK/story.html