10 story hole in WTC 7

[LashL]

Actually, I probably should not have posted that lengthy response to your lame post, Christopher7, because I put more effort into it than you have into your posts.

The following would have been a more appropriate response, and one which I think is the only appropriate answer to your posts until you respond meaningfully to the posts and points that you have deliberately avoided and ignored above:

I (and I am sure others) will address your post once you have addressed the relevant posts and points that you have been studiously avoiding for days.

Edit to add:
Oh, I see that this post started a new page (#39 on my screen as my settings allow 50 posts per page and this is post #1901, apparently) so I guess I should post these references for those who land on this page without seeing the history:

For reference:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1875

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1888

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1879

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1880

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1888

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1893

Once again, I (and I am sure others) will address your post once you have addressed the relevant posts and points that you have been studiously avoiding above for days.

 

[Christopher7]

Actually, I probably should not have posted that lengthy response to your lame post, Christopher7, because I put more effort into it than you have into your posts.

You should stop spamming this thread with demands that i respond to stupid insulting comments.

No one has responded to posts #1883, 1884 and 1885.

Instead you fill up the page with your endless demands because you cannot accept or challenge the truth of what is in the FEMA and NIST reports.

I am not going to respond to your demands again.

They are just a blatent attempt to avoid the summary of what i have established in this thread based on statements in the FEMA and NIST reports.

 

[chipmunk stew]

No one has responded to posts #1883, 1884 and 1885.

I am essentially in agreement with these three posts, based on FEMA and NIST's preliminary reports. My main disagreement, which I consider a nit-pick, is with your conclusion in post #1885:

According to NIST, the debris damage in the west half of WTC 7 was not a factor in the initiating event.

NIST Apx. L pg 36:
"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

NIST makes no mention of lateral stress in its Summary, or anywhere else for that matter.
The rest of the L.3.2 Collapse Initiation Scenarios talks about fires.

NIST does not conclude that the damage was not a factor in the initiating event. You are making an unwarranted extrapolation. It's true that NIST does not factor the damage into their initiating event hypothesis. That is very different from concluding that it was not a factor.

NIST did the appropriate thing: given that the nature of the damage was uncertain based on the known data, and given that any part the damage may have played in the initiating event would be (according to their hypothesis) eclipsed by the primary cause of heat-induced failure, they chose to exclude the damage from their analysis of the initiating event altogether.

---------------------------------

All that being said, and even if we ignore my nit-pick and accept these three posts as stated, what exactly is your point?

Engineers, architects, builders, regulators, steel-workers and -manufacturers, firemen, materials scientists, fire suppression and abatement researchers and manufacturers, etc. are all concerned with the possibility of fire-induced collapse of steel-framed structures. They all know it can, and occasionally does, happen. So why does NIST's hypothesis that WTC7's collapse was primarily a fire-induced failure strike you as so improbable, especially given all the concern that was expressed by knowledgable people at the scene?

 

[Belz...]

The destruction of the evidence works both ways.
Examination of the physical evidence would have proven conclusively what caused the collapse.

Again, not necessarily TO YOU, because no matter what evidence is present or lacking, you don't adjust your views and beliefs.

If it was due to fires they would know, to a much greater degree of certainty, where it started and how it progressed from a single column failure to a global collapse.

Perhaps, but the whole problem here is the assumption that something is afoot. Namely, that the extensive damage seen to 7 WTC, particularily the colossal hole we see in the south face and the subsequent fires, could not have caused the collapse's initiating event because it happened in a different area of the building. Doesn't it strike you as telling that building experts don't find this odd at all ?

You seem to think that the initiating event is my creation.

No. I think you've hijacked the term to mean something subtly different in order to prove your point.

 

[Belz...]

That's is a PURE lie.

Hogwash

Nonsense.

Bottom line, the physical evidence was destroyed.

So it is after every investigation. The bottom line IS that NIST HAD access to it.

You should stop spamming this thread with demands that i respond to stupid insulting comments.

Spamming ? Like this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2506097&postcount=1884

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1602

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1282

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1082

Etc... ?

 

[Christopher7]

I am essentially in agreement with these three posts, based on FEMA and NIST's preliminary reports.

Thank you

My main disagreement, which I consider a nit-pick, is with your conclusion in post #1885:

NIST does not conclude that the damage was not a factor in the initiating event. You are making an unwarranted extrapolation. It's true that NIST does not factor the damage into their initiating event hypothesis. That is very different from concluding that it was not a factor.

NIST did the appropriate thing: given that the nature of the damage was uncertain based on the known data, and given that any part the damage may have played in the initiating event would be (according to their hypothesis) eclipsed by the primary cause of heat-induced failure, they chose to exclude the damage from their analysis of the initiating event altogether.

The only part of the damage that they included in their scenario was the 'possible' damage to the core columns.
They ruled out the possibility that the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 was the primary cause of the initiating event.
Since they left no stone unturned in their attempt to prove that debris damage and fire caused the collapse, they would have included the south west damage in their scenario if they thought it was a factor in the initiating event.
---------------------------------

All that being said, and even if we ignore my nit-pick and accept these three posts as stated, what exactly is your point?

OT'ers have repeatedly stated that diesel fuel fires and debris damage caused the collapse of WTC 7.
After debating here and re-reading parts of the FEMA and NIST reports to check on certain facts, i discovered that there is no evidence to support these claims.
The extent of the fires in the east half of WTC 7 is not going to change in the 'final' report.
The recently discovered damage to the south west part of WTC 7 was far from the initiating event and will not change the analysis that has already been done.

pg 36
"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed the loads around the severed and damaged areas"

Engineers, architects, builders, regulators, steel-workers and -manufacturers, firemen, materials scientists, fire suppression and abatement researchers and manufacturers, etc. are all concerned with the possibility of fire-induced collapse of steel-framed structures. They all know it can, and occasionally does, happen. So why does NIST's hypothesis that WTC7's collapse was primarily a fire-induced failure strike you as so improbable, especially given all the concern that was expressed by knowledgable people at the scene?

There are no cases where there has been a collapse of a modern high rise steel frame building because of fire.
The Windsor Tower cannot be use as an example because the support columns were reinforced concrete. The exterior columns of the top 10 stories were light weight [1/4 inch thick] box beams.
This is entirely different from 'all steel' frame high rise buildings.

The 'knowledgeable' people at the scene had just seen the Trade Towers collapse and they had lost hundreds of comrades.
Their concern was based on the damage to the south side of the building.
Three fire chiefs thought WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, one did not.

 

[twinstead]

The 'knowledgeable' people at the scene had just seen the Trade Towers collapse and they had lost hundreds of comrades.
Their concern was based on the damage to the south side of the building.
Three fire chiefs thought WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, one did not.

BS. That is total conjecture meant to hand wave away serious flaws in your theory. I noticed your single quotes around the world knowledgeable, as if you are implying perhaps they were not 'really' knowledgeable as well.

You use the same arguments over and over and over and over again, as if you expect to suddenly become right after the 354th time. But, even on the 355th time, your argument remains simple biased conjecture based on gut feeling, raw ideology, and a complete misunderstanding of the facts.

Believe me, you are having your butt handed to you in this debate, and I say that with all due respect.

 

[Christopher7]

BS. That is total conjecture meant to hand wave away serious flaws in your theory.

What i have presented is not a theory, it is a list of facts from the FEMA and NIST reports

I noticed your single quotes around the world knowledgeable, as if you are implying perhaps they were not 'really' knowledgeable as well.

Wrong
chipmunk stew referred to the fire chiefs as knowledgeable rather than experts as many have. [indicating that they had degrees in engineering]
My intent was to point this out, no offence intended.

You use the same arguments over and over and over and over again, as if you expect to suddenly become right after the 354th time. But, even on the 355th time, your argument remains simple biased conjecture based on gut feeling, raw ideology, and a complete misunderstanding of the facts.

Wrong
My summary is a list of facts.

chipmunk stew is a serious debater, you are not.

He addressed the issue directly, you chose to ignore the issue and criticize the use of quotes.

ETA: Belz, gotta go now. I'll get to your post later.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Thank you

The only part of the damage that they included in their scenario was the 'possible' damage to the core columns.
They ruled out the possibility that the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 was the primary cause of the initiating event.
Since they left no stone unturned in their attempt to prove that debris damage and fire caused the collapse, they would have included the south west damage in their scenario if they thought it was a factor in the initiating event.

Clearly, they did leave stones unturned, which is why they issued a PRELIMINARY report. They were not satisfied that the analysis was complete. You are correct in saying that they ruled out the SW damage as the PRIMARY cause of the initiating event. You are incorrect in presuming that they have ruled it out as a factor.

OT'ers have repeatedly stated that diesel fuel fires and debris damage caused the collapse of WTC 7.

Really? Diesel fuel fires? The hypothesis I've heard most often is that of NIST's, which implicates ordinary combustibles. I call straw man.

After debating here and re-reading parts of the FEMA and NIST reports to check on certain facts, i discovered that there is no evidence to support these claims.
The extent of the fires in the east half of WTC 7 is not going to change in the 'final' report.
The recently discovered damage to the south west part of WTC 7 was far from the initiating event and will not change the analysis that has already been done.

Perhaps, but I think you're being presumptuous. Unless you've seen a draft of the final report.

pg 36
"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed the loads around the severed and damaged areas"

What does this quote mean to you? If the loads around the severed and damaged areas were redistributed, that means other, intact parts of the structure picked up the loads. What point are you trying to make with this quote?

There are no cases where there has been a collapse of a modern high rise steel frame building because of fire.

That's because designers, engineers, and builders are very keen on making sure their buildings remain standing under all likely scenarios. Designers assume that their buildings are going to experience a large fire at some point during the life of the building. It's their job to make sure that the building doesn't fall down under such a scenario.

The Windsor Tower cannot be use as an example because the support columns were reinforced concrete. The exterior columns of the top 10 stories were light weight [1/4 inch thick] box beams.

This is entirely different from 'all steel' frame high rise buildings.

It is of very different construction, and I think trying to do one-to-one comparisons between buildings is fruitless and uninformative. But the Windsor Tower example does show the destructive potential of fire on steel structures.

The 'knowledgeable' people at the scene had just seen the Trade Towers collapse and they had lost hundreds of comrades.
Their concern was based on the damage to the south side of the building.
Three fire chiefs thought WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, one did not.

Total bollocks. The same concern was present during the Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991:

After the loss of three personnel, hours of unsuccessful attack on
the fire, with several floors simultaneously involved in fire, and a risk of
structural collapse, the Incident Commander withdrew all personnel from
the building due to the uncontrollable risk factors. The fire ultimately
spread up to the 30th floor where it was stopped by ten automatic
sprinklers.

(my bolding)
[Source: see page 4]

Look at the pictures at the end of the document to see how close this thing was to collapsing.

 

[LashL]

You should stop spamming this thread with demands that i respond to stupid insulting comments.

I am not "spamming" this thread with "demands" at all. I am merely suggesting that your repetitive rinse, lather, repeat nonsense not be addressed over and over again while you continue to ignore legitimate posts and points.

Instead you fill up the page with your endless demands because you cannot accept or challenge the truth of what is in the FEMA and NIST reports.

Again, I have made no demands. Stop being such a drama queen.

I have no problem accepting the truth, unlike members of the inaptly named "truth movement", and I have no problem whatsoever with challenges to the contents of the NIST or FEMA reports.
Again, stop being such a drama queen.

I am not going to respond to your demands again.

You mean that you are not going to respond to legitimate posts and points because you cannot. That is obvious, and that is exactly the point of my previous post.

Again, I have made no demands and, again, you have not responded to the legitimate posts and points above.

They are just a blatent attempt to avoid the summary of what i have established in this thread based on statements in the FEMA and NIST reports.

No, my point is clear. It is to suggest that your rinse, lather, repeat posts need not be addressed over and over and over again, unless and until you are willing to address legitimate posts and points. So far, you have refused to do so and you continue to whine about being asked questions or being asked to address points that do not fit within the confines of your artificially narrow definition of events and reality.

I (and I am sure others) will address your repetitive posts (again) once you have addressed the relevant posts and points that you have been studiously avoiding for days.

For reference:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1875

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1888

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1879

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1880

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1888

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1893

 

[Christopher7]

So it is after every investigation. The bottom line IS that NIST HAD access to it.

NISTNCSTAR1-3B Draft pg 5 on page counter
The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests of actual material from the structure

NCSTAR3-1 Executive Summary PG 2
the steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described based solely on data from the literature because no steel from the building was recovered.

Spamming ? Like this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2506097&postcount=1884

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1602

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1282

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1082

Etc... ?

There is a major difference between posing the same demand 6 times on 1 page and posting a summary 5 times in 7 weeks.

Post #1602 was a revised version and posts #1883, 1884 and 1885 brought all 3 summaries together.

 

[Belz...]

NISTNCSTAR1-3B Draft pg 5 on page counter
The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests of actual material from the structure

NCSTAR3-1 Executive Summary PG 2
the steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described based solely on data from the literature because no steel from the building was recovered.

That's not what your previous quote said.

There is a major difference between posing the same demand 6 times on 1 page and posting a summary 5 times in 7 weeks.

Yes, indeed. The differences are that they are pointed at you, and that their posts have not been adressed.

 

[Christopher7]

Clearly, they did leave stones unturned, which is why they issued a PRELIMINARY report. They were not satisfied that the analysis was complete. You are correct in saying that they ruled out the SW damage as the PRIMARY cause of the initiating event. You are incorrect in presuming that they have ruled it out as a factor.

I disagree. If they thought it was a factor, they would have included it in their scenario IMO.

Really? Diesel fuel fires? The hypothesis I've heard most often is that of NIST's, which implicates ordinary combustibles. I call straw man.

I went back over this thread and you are right.
Although some imply that the diesel fuel fires were involved in the collapse, none said that they were.
However many here argued [for 20 pages] that it was possible.
In post #1884 i presented evidence that there was no fire in the north east generator room.
I would add to that:
A 4" pipe is much stronger than a 2 1/2" pipe and a double wall pipe is much stronger than a single wall pipe. The single wall pipe connections in the east part of WTC 7, closer to the impact zone, would have broken before the double wall pipe at the other end of the building.

Perhaps, but I think you're being presumptuous. Unless you've seen a draft of the final report.

We disagree on this point. The final report will be out soon and, i hope, settle the issue.

What does this quote mean to you? If the loads around the severed and damaged areas were redistributed, that means other, intact parts of the structure picked up the loads. What point are you trying to make with this quote?

The loads would be redistributed to the surrounding columns, not to the other end of the building.

That's because designers, engineers, and builders are very keen on making sure their buildings remain standing under all likely scenarios. Designers assume that their buildings are going to experience a large fire at some point during the life of the building. It's their job to make sure that the building doesn't fall down under such a scenario.

Exactly. WTC 7, like all modern high rise steel frame buildings [in the USA] have a great deal of redundancy built into them so they won't collapse from office fires.

It is of very different construction, and I think trying to do one-to-one comparisons between buildings is fruitless and uninformative. But the Windsor Tower example does show the destructive potential of fire on steel structures.

The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for many hours after firefighting efforts were abandoned.
Some floor support beams sagged as much as 3 feet but they did not collapse.

"the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

pg 24

 

[chipmunk stew]

I disagree. If they thought it was a factor, they would have included it in their scenario IMO.

I went back over this thread and you are right.
Although some imply that the diesel fuel fires were involved in the collapse, none said that they were.
However many here argued [for 20 pages] that it was possible.
In post #1884 i presented evidence that there was no fire in the north east generator room.
I would add to that:
A 4" pipe is much stronger than a 2 1/2" pipe and a double wall pipe is much stronger than a single wall pipe. The single wall pipe connections in the east part of WTC 7, closer to the impact zone, would have broken before the double wall pipe at the other end of the building.

We disagree on this point. The final report will be out soon and, i hope, settle the issue.

The loads would be redistributed to the surrounding columns, not to the other end of the building.

Exactly. WTC 7, like all modern high rise steel frame buildings [in the USA] have a great deal of redundancy built into them so they won't collapse from office fires.

It's not just redundancy. It's passive and active fire suppression, firewalling, and firefighting operations, all of which were compromised in building 7 on 9/11.

The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for many hours after firefighting efforts were abandoned.
Some floor support beams sagged as much as 3 feet but they did not collapse.

"the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

pg 24

Yes, I know it didn't collapse. BUT EVERY KNOWLEDGABLE PERSON RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS IN DANGER OF COLLAPSE, WHICH MEANS THAT STEEL-FRAMED HIGH-RISES CAN COLLAPSE FROM FIRE.

NIST's hypothesis is entirely plausible according to every single person who has experience working with fire and steel structures. Your implication that it is not plausible is entirely without merit.

 

[Belz...]

Exactly. WTC 7, like all modern high rise steel frame buildings [in the USA] have a great deal of redundancy built into them so they won't collapse from office fires.

Not so it "WON'T" collapse, but so the chances of it collapsing are minimised.

Also, 7 WTC, as you remember, also sustained structural damage, the extent of which is unknown at this time.

 

[Christopher7]

It's not just redundancy. It's passive and active fire suppression, firewalling, and firefighting operations, all of which were compromised in building 7 on 9/11.

The passive fire protection [fireproofing] in the area of the initiating event was not damaged by debris.

There was no active fire supression [sprinklers] in WTC 7.


There were no sprinklers on the floors that burned in the Meridian Tower.
When the fire got to the 30th floor, the sprinklers there put the fire out.

Due to inadequate water pressure,

the fire burned out of control for 19 hours.

Beams and girders sagged and twisted but they did not collapse.

The columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

Yes, I know it didn't collapse. BUT EVERY KNOWLEDGABLE PERSON RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS IN DANGER OF COLLAPSE, WHICH MEANS THAT STEEL-FRAMED HIGH-RISES CAN COLLAPSE FROM FIRE.

It was not in danger of collapsing.

Someone thinking that a building is in danger of collapse does not make it so.

NIST's hypothesis is entirely plausible according to every single personwho has experience working with fire and steel structures. Your implication that it is not plausible is entirely without merit.

Every single person? Do you have universal knowledge or a source for that bold statement?

 

[Belz...]

It was not in danger of collapsing.

Someone thinking that a building is in danger of collapse does not make it so.

Good. Then you'll agree that someone who thinks it was not in danger of collapsing does not make it so.

 

[twinstead]

Every single person? Do you have universal knowledge or a source for that bold statement?

Frankly, I find your sweeping statements about things you have absolutely no qualifications for or expertise in to be pretty bold too.

 

[chipmunk stew]

The passive fire protection [fireproofing] in the area of the initiating event was not damaged by debris.

There was no active fire supression [sprinklers] in WTC 7.

There were no sprinklers on the floors that burned in the Meridian Tower.
When the fire got to the 30th floor, the sprinklers there put the fire out.

Due to inadequate water pressure,

The water pressure problem only applied to the internal firefighting effort.
The fires were continuously fought externally, beginning when the fire was still confined to the 22nd floor.

the fire burned out of control for 19 hours.

Beams and girders sagged and twisted but they did not collapse.

The columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

It was not in danger of collapsing.

It was. If any one of the floors supported by those sagging, twisting beams and girders had collapsed, it would have seriously threatened the ability of the columns to continue to support their loads.

Someone thinking that a building is in danger of collapse does not make it so.

Every single person? Do you have universal knowledge or a source for that bold statement?

I apologize for the hyperbole. I'd be willing to wager a hefty sum that they're in near-unanimous agreement, though.

The fact is, your argument is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity, which is not enough to dismiss the hypothesis developed by NIST.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The passive fire protection [fireproofing] in the area of the initiating event was not damaged by debris.

The WTC tragedy has brought a major problem to the forefront -- fireproofing is often not installed correctly, or simply doesn't perform as it should.

the fire burned out of control for 19 hours.

Beams and girders sagged and twisted but they did not collapse.

How much mass did these beams and girders support? More than forty stories? Where they the ONLY means of support?