Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[Norseman]

Thanks Chris, I'll look it up. I am sure it will be instructive. However I asked Zig about demolitions of long span, not 'natural collapses'.

I have already looked it up, so I can just as well post the link for anyone interested.

NIST Releases Final Report on Charleston Sofa Store Fire:
http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research/20110315_charleston.cfm

 

[pgimeno]

Oystein, take a chillpill. This refers to the ONE gash at the south west corner, and NIST literally drew a picture of it, which you can see for yourself as figure 12-33. There is just ONE gash at the corner, and it extends slightly into the west face, and into the south face, the descriptions of which may have confused you into thinking there were two seperate gashes. The 2004 report did say there was another truly huge gash that scooped out 25% of the middle of the south face, but that non sense story had been abandoned in the final report.

P.152:

There is insufficient information in the image to identify the exact horizontal location of the damage on the face. However, it is likely that the damage area is a downward extension of the opening visible in Figure 5-47 and Figure 5-49 to the immediate left of Column 20. If this is correct, the opening in this area extends from at least the 5th floor to the 15th floor.​

NIST does not deny reality.

 

[pgimeno]

And as for all your noise about a gash and fire spreading between floors, why not answer

NIST documented the south west gash and still did not think the fire could spread between floors. You think NIST came to that conclusion for no reason at all?

I've been looking for a reference that NIST did not think the fire could spread between floors, but I couldn't find anything. All I have found so far is this:

Closer inspection of Figure 5-118 reveals that three windows appear to be open on the 13th floor. The glass in window 13-31 is missing, while there appears to be fire visible in windows 13-33 and 13-34. These are the first indications that a fire may be growing on the east side of the 13th floor, in addition to those evident on the 11th and 12th floors. Since windows 13-28A to 13-30 seem to be intact, it is possible that these fires spread in the interior from fires on the south side of the building or that the window breakage and fire ignitions on the 13th floor were due to heat transfer from flames extending upward from open windows on the 12th floor.
​

(pp.201-202)

 

[pgimeno]

Regarding Tony's arson claim, I've also found this:

Subsequent to the collapse of WTC 2, numerous fires were reported to the south and southwest of the WTC site. There is some ambiguity as to ignition sources, since some of these fires could have been ignited by burning materials released when WTC 1 collapsed 29 min later. Large fires grew in the ruins of WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel), which was adjacent to both WTC 1 and WTC 2. (See Figure 5-2.) WTC 4 was heavily damaged by debris from WTC 2, and the remaining structure subsequently burned. Fires also grew on multiple floors in buildings located one block south of WTC 2 at 90 West Street and 130 Cedar Lane. Fires apparently did not develop in the Bankers Trust Building located just to the east at 130 Liberty Street. Fires were reported at an apartment house located to the southwest of the WTC site on the corner of Liberty Street and South End Avenue. Numerous vehicles parked along West Street to the south of the WTC site were consumed by fire. The locations of all of these fires seem to be related to the locations of active fires in WTC 2 at the time of its collapse.
​

(P.194)
The arsonist must have been really busy lighting all these fires to cover up the fact that the gypsum dust would smother the burning debris on its way down.

 

[Norseman]

I've been looking for a reference that NIST did not think the fire could spread between floors, but I couldn't find anything. All I have found so far is this:

Closer inspection of Figure 5-118 reveals that three windows appear to be open on the 13th floor. The glass in window 13-31 is missing, while there appears to be fire visible in windows 13-33 and 13-34. These are the first indications that a fire may be growing on the east side of the 13th floor, in addition to those evident on the 11th and 12th floors. Since windows 13-28A to 13-30 seem to be intact, it is possible that these fires spread in the interior from fires on the south side of the building or that the window breakage and fire ignitions on the 13th floor were due to heat transfer from flames extending upward from open windows on the 12th floor.
​

(pp.201-202)

In addition on page 365 NIST NCSTAR 1-9:

The fires on the 11th, 12th, and 13th floors were all first observed between 2:08 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. near the southeast corner of WTC 7. Thus, it is conceivable that a single fire started on the 11th floor following the collapse of WTC 1 and that the fire had spread to the 12th and 13th floors by the time the fires emerged from the dust-blocked south side of the building.

 

[JayUtah]

Invisible arsonists, selective gypsum dust, similarly invisible demolitionists, exotic thermite...

I have to think William of Occam is turning over in his grave about now, except that I'm sure someone would accuse the corpse of being a vicsim.

 

[chrismohr]

The evidence seems overwhelming that NIST thinks there were big gashes, that fires may well have spread from floor to floor, and that they started from fires in the collapsing Tower. Add to the NIST Report the firefighters' testimony of seeing flames before noon. The arsonists seem to be unnecessary to create fires in Building 7. Now we have to figure out how the pre-arranged thermate detonators could have been controlled in the face of NIST's claim of debris from the collapsing Tower going all the way into the core area of Building 7 on several floors. It seems impossible to me.
I know Tony and Ziggi consider it impossible that the asymmetrical interior collapse could have been followed by a symmetrical perimeter collapse. I guess the one thing we have in common is incredulity. But coming back to the question I started dealing with, maybe I'm not really qualified to understand why an asymmetrical interior collapse HAS to create an asymmetrical perimeter wall collapse, and also why six seconds of so of hanging up there with no lateral support from the interior is so impossible? Especially because there was at least some lateral support from the two perimeter walls perpendicular to it. At least it wasn't completely standalone...

 

[NoahFence]

The evidence seems overwhelming that NIST thinks there were big gashes, that fires may well have spread from floor to floor, and that they started from fires in the collapsing Tower. Add to the NIST Report the firefighters' testimony of seeing flames before noon. The arsonists seem to be unnecessary to create fires in Building 7. Now we have to figure out how the pre-arranged thermate detonators could have been controlled in the face of NIST's claim of debris from the collapsing Tower going all the way into the core area of Building 7 on several floors. It seems impossible to me.
I know Tony and Ziggi consider it impossible that the asymmetrical interior collapse could have been followed by a symmetrical perimeter collapse. I guess the one thing we have in common is incredulity. But coming back to the question I started dealing with, maybe I'm not really qualified to understand why an asymmetrical interior collapse HAS to create an asymmetrical perimeter wall collapse, and also why six seconds of so of hanging up there with no lateral support from the interior is so impossible? Especially because there was at least some lateral support from the two perimeter walls perpendicular to it. At least it wasn't completely standalone...

Who cares about NIST?
They're not needed to understand the collapse for the layman. Common sense is plenty.

 

[ozeco41]

Who cares about NIST?
They're not needed to understand the collapse for the layman. Common sense is plenty.

Not only the layman Noah.

There are two distinct and separate issues viz:
1) Understand and explain how WTC 7 collapsed; Versus
2) Did NIST get the explanation right.

NIST is irrelevant to defining the mechanism. The collapse occurred 9/11 2001. The facts written in history on that date. Nothing written later by NIST can change history whether NIST is right or wrong.

If NIST wrote "Santa's Custard caused the WTC collapses" it would not be true. Nor would it result in 9/11 2001 history being rewritten to make use of Custard.

That is the constant idiotic implication of truther claims. The idea that somehow what happened in history depends on what NIST wrote years later.

Stated as bluntly as I just did may get outraged truther denials. But that is the essential false claim they are implying with much of this NIST picking.

 

[ozeco41]

Invisible arsonists, selective gypsum dust, similarly invisible demolitionists, exotic thermite...

I have to think William of Occam is turning over in his grave about now, except that I'm sure someone would accuse the corpse of being a vicsim.

Given the work out that truthers give him he could probably use a rotisserie.

 

[jaydeehess]

P.152:

There is insufficient information in the image to identify the exact horizontal location of the damage on the face. However, it is likely that the damage area is a downward extension of the opening visible in Figure 5-47 and Figure 5-49 to the immediate left of Column 20. If this is correct, the opening in this area extends from at least the 5th floor to the 15th floor.​

NIST does not deny reality.

It acknowledges reality in vertical fgire spread, damage to the south face of WTC7, and in the "highly likely" ignition sources for the fires in WTC7 and elsewhere being burning debris from the towers.

For some incredible reason Ziggi denies all of this going as far as to quote NIST on that last point and claim they are saying the opposite. The rational mind reels. Then we get Tony's proclamation that dust settles and extiguishes burning material in a sec or so and therefore arson spooks to add to demolition spooks, and aircraft debris spooks, for more mind reeling nonsense.

ETA: " covert agent = spook " a term used by the CiT re: Pentagon lamp pole downing.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Oystein, take a chillpill. This refers to the ONE gash at the south west corner, and NIST literally drew a picture of it, which you can see for yourself as figure 12-33. There is just ONE gash at the corner, and it extends slightly into the west face, and into the south face, the descriptions of which may have confused you into thinking there were two seperate gashes. The 2004 report did say there was another truly huge gash that scooped out 25% of the middle of the south face, but that non sense story had been abandoned in the final report.

Or all that smoke that wasn't coming from WTC 7 but instead from 5 & 6 - oh wait.,....

 

[jaydeehess]

Given the work out that truthers give him he could probably use a rotisserie.

That's the source of the rumbling sound I've been hearing since shortly after 9/11/01

 

[Oystein]

In addition on page 365 NIST NCSTAR 1-9:

Yes, on one hand, floor-to-floor spread was conceivable, on the other hand, on page 341 they write "in WTC 7 there was no evidence of floor-to-floor fire spread in the photographic and videographic records".

On yet another hand: "Initially, the Investigation Team hypothesized that it was unlikely that fires, once ignited on a given floor but prior to the initiation of the total building collapse, would have spread to an adjacent floor once they had moved past the gash in the south face." Sounds like they except the gash from that unlikelihood.

Be it as it may: The gash was there, and would have provided plausible means for a) larger amounts of fiery debris to conveniently enter coming from WTC1 and b) floor-to-floor spread of fires. Both real-world factors that Tony and posse deny when they declare certain "impossibilities"

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You are almost certainly correct that weld strength is a central technical point. But one of them not the only one.

HOWEVER

There are two main reasons why I would caution challenging Tony. One technical the other debating pragmatics.

Main reason #1
For the technical issue I went and read some of the 2007 debate with D Benson which focussed on weld strength as one issue. That debate was set in the climate of understanding which prevailed in 2007. It was not specific to WTC7 but more relevant to this current situation is that it does not reflect the simplicity and clarity of understanding of the Twin Towers collapse mechanisms which we would have today.

Clarity in separation of "initiation" stage from "progression" stage. Column axial overload in compression was the key factor in "initiation" - not weld strength and not something that any of us would have stated simply and explicitly in 2007.

Weld strength was an issue which was possibly central to "progression". Put simply the progression stage was a combination of three mechanisms. The leading one best IMO described as ROOSD. That failure was dominated by joist to column connection failures. Just as you identified - with weld failure a possibility. But simple gusset plate shearing also on the cards. And it doesn't matter what the detail was. So if you argue one aspect with Tony the stage is set for him to shift goalposts to other aspects if he will even engage in reasoned discussion.

The Benson 2007 comments on "core strip down" were also heading in the right direction. Despite the 2007 lack of clarity of the overall mechanism.

Main reason #2
Debating pragmatics. Do you want to face pseudo engineering gobbledegook? And do you anticipate even getting reasoned discussion? Would you even get a response to a challenge? History says the BETTER the challenge the less likely you would get a response.

Yes but since ductibility has no relationship to weld strength or to energy transmitted to cause connection failure at 5100ms, I thought Tony's obviously flawed
Argument might give me an edge as the dumb layman in the debate.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not really qualified to understand why an asymmetrical interior collapse HAS to create an asymmetrical perimeter wall collapse...

It has do to with how one visualizes the structural behavior of perimeter. You can do it in any of several ways, and each way sets up a different expectation for how the building collapse should look.

Imagine one of those lightweight plastic structural grids like you often see as part of trade-show booths. Now imagine a large sheet of paper attached to the front of a fairly broad expanse of it. Think of the paper attached by little rolled up loops of tape joining the paper to the grid at various points, just enough to hold it up and keep it flat.

Now go in and judiciously cut enough of the plastic grid pieces so that half the structure supporting your facade collapses while the other half stays standing. What happens to the paper? You might be able to imagine several things. The paper might tear, in which case the portion that was connected to the failed structure will fall with it, leaving the other part still attached to the still-standing structure. Or the failing structure might pull the whole sheet of paper away, severing the connections between the paper and the still-standing structure. Or at the opposite extreme, the failing structure may tear its little tape wads away, leaving the paper intact, still stuck eccentrically to the surviving structure, and roughly in its previous shape, if otherwise crinkled and now waving in the breeze.

The Truther proposition seems to be a scenario along the lines of the first two, where the perimeter should fail in a way that reveals any asymmetric nature of interior failure. The debunker proposition is more like the latter, where the perimeter stays intact but deformed and poorly supported. To understand how those can legitimately differ, imagine the thickness of the paper in the scenario varying between tissue paper and cardstock. Those are kinds of paper that would have different mechanical properties in this toy example. The tissue paper would be less likely to stay in place and more likely to follow the falling plastic grid. The cardstock would be more apt to hold its shape and stay in place even if much of the structure behind it had failed.

So I think it may be fair to say that the expectations regarding the perimeter wall vary according to how people intuitively envision the specific strength of the wall itself.

 

[Animal]

It has do to with how one visualizes the structural behavior of perimeter. You can do it in any of several ways, and each way sets up a different expectation for how the building collapse should look.

Imagine one of those lightweight plastic structural grids like you often see as part of trade-show booths. Now imagine a large sheet of paper attached to the front of a fairly broad expanse of it. Think of the paper attached by little rolled up loops of tape joining the paper to the grid at various points, just enough to hold it up and keep it flat.

Now go in and judiciously cut enough of the plastic grid pieces so that half the structure supporting your facade collapses while the other half stays standing. What happens to the paper? You might be able to imagine several things. The paper might tear, in which case the portion that was connected to the failed structure will fall with it, leaving the other part still attached to the still-standing structure. Or the failing structure might pull the whole sheet of paper away, severing the connections between the paper and the still-standing structure. Or at the opposite extreme, the failing structure may tear its little tape wads away, leaving the paper intact, still stuck eccentrically to the surviving structure, and roughly in its previous shape, if otherwise crinkled and now waving in the breeze.

The Truther proposition seems to be a scenario along the lines of the first two, where the perimeter should fail in a way that reveals any asymmetric nature of interior failure. The debunker proposition is more like the latter, where the perimeter stays intact but deformed and poorly supported. To understand how those can legitimately differ, imagine the thickness of the paper in the scenario varying between tissue paper and cardstock. Those are kinds of paper that would have different mechanical properties in this toy example. The tissue paper would be less likely to stay in place and more likely to follow the falling plastic grid. The cardstock would be more apt to hold its shape and stay in place even if much of the structure behind it had failed.

So I think it may be fair to say that the expectations regarding the perimeter wall vary according to how people intuitively envision the specific strength of the wall itself.

Five pages of posts from now, TZ, Z, and /or GC will question your credibility because you said the WTC was constructed from plastic tubing and paper.


Repeat after me....Troofers do not understand similes.

 

[JayUtah]

Repeat after me....Troofers do not understand similes.

They don't seem to understand the real thing either, so I'm not concerned. The post was intended mostly for Chris, of course, and not especially partisan. Sometimes the most helpful thing you can do in a debate is help one person understand why another person might believe something, even if you yourself disagree with the beliefs and reasons.

 

[Ziggi]

The evidence seems overwhelming that NIST thinks there were big gashes, that fires may well have spread from floor to floor, and that they started from fires in the collapsing Tower....

Chris, it may seem so if you have been paying attention to the non-sense from your forum buddies, but you are certainly not citing NIST, which said there was one big gash in the south west corner section, that there was no evidence that the collapse started fires or that the fires moved floor to floor.

Did you read my previous comment which caught pgimeno´s deceptive out of context quote which made it look like NIST agreed with him that there was evidence for the debris starting fires inside the building and that floor 10 caught fire?

 

[Oystein]

...you are certainly not citing NIST, which said ... that there was no evidence that the collapse started fires or that the fires moved floor to floor.

Did you read my previous comment which caught pgimeno´s deceptive out of context quote which made it look like NIST agreed with him that there was evidence for the debris starting fires inside the building ...

LOL

A classic shot in the foot!
From your own link:

it is possible that potential ignition sources entered WTC 7 through openings created in the south and west faces of the building during the collapses of the towers. ... the available data suggests that this was highly likely.