10 story hole in WTC 7

[jaydeehess]

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.

I believe that I pointed this out to you at least once before myself.

However many here argued [for 20 pages] that it was possible.

yes, and you seem to have a problem delineating 'possible' from 'probable'.

In post #1884 i presented evidence that there was no fire in the north east generator room.

Yes you presented evidence that suggests that a fire in that one room was not occuring. Others presented senarios that would allow a fire there that went undetected. It is a matter of probability though and you again make the definitive statement that there absolutly was no fire in that one room despite the senarios listed by others.

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.

Given all parameters of stress on the two examples of piping being equal, perhaps. You do not have the information required to make the definitive statement that one pipe should have broken before the other. Besides, the senario requires not a broken pipe but a damaged and leaking one at a pipe joint.

 

[A W Smith]

when you say double wall pipe. Are you saying two thicknesses? How would you thread them together? or are you meaning the common practice of sleeving a pipe through a wall penetration? or do you simply mean extra wall thickness "strong" schedule pipe

http://www.corrview.com/tech_p_09.htm

 

[Christopher7]

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.

So what?
The fire burned out of control and spread despite their efforts.
Were it not for the sprinkler system on the 30th floor, it would have burned to the roof.

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.

You are not qualified to make that statement. [without IMO]

The support columns are necessarily bigger and stronger than the girders and beams holding up the floors.
The support columns are firmly attached to the floor girders and beams in all directions.
The collapse of the floor on one side of a column would bend and then break away before it would buckle a vertical column IMO.

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

Have any qualified persons or organizations said that the NIST hypothesis is plausible, based on proper analysis?

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.

Correct

 

[Christopher7]

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

The beams and girders supported 1 floor. The columns supported 40 floors.

 

[Christopher7]

Yes you presented evidence that suggests that a fire in that one room was not occuring. Others presented senarios that would allow a fire there that went undetected. It is a matter of probability though and you again make the definitive statement that there absolutly was no fire in that one room despite the senarios listed by others.

It's easy to come up with an implausible scenario.

There is NO evidence nor is there any reason to think that there was a diesel fuel fire in the north east part of WTC 7.

If the supply pipes were to fracture and leak, they would have done so in or near the south west generator room, not the north east generator room.

 

[Christopher7]

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

Because of building codes, no modern steel framed high rise building in the USA has suffered a partial, much less a global collapse due to fire.

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

As i pointed out in post #1884

The south east face of WTC 7 was not obscured by smoke between floor 12 and the ground.

No heavy damage was reported in this area.

There is no heavy damage to the south east face of WTC 7, that would have led to damaged core columns, up to floor 16.

 

[Belz...]

Because of building codes, no modern steel framed high rise building in the USA has suffered a partial, much less a global collapse due to fire.

Irrelevant. Why wouldn't you want to protect your building against fire ? Are you saying that they shouldn't ?

The south east face of WTC 7 was not obscured by smoke between floor 12 and the ground.

Which is where people reported that huge gash, remember ?

No heavy damage was reported in this area.

Well, I guess if a 47-floor hole isn't "heavy" for you, nothing will be.

There is no heavy damage to the south east face of WTC 7, that would have led to damaged core columns, up to floor 16.

So you keep saying. But we DO know that a 110-storey flaming building fell on 7 WTC. We know that a large hole was ripped open in its south face. We know that it caught fire subsequently, and that it finally collapsed.

How can you possibly claim, without expertise and contra other people's expertise, that the physical damage and the fire and the collapse are NOT related ?

 

[Christopher7]

Which is where people reported that huge gash, remember ?

There were no reports of a huge gash west of center other than the 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, which has been shown to be incorrect in post #1883

Well, I guess if a 47-floor hole isn't "heavy" for you, nothing will be.

The [assumed to be] 47 story hole was west of center around columns [Spak] 5 & 6.

So you keep saying. But we DO know that a 110-storey flaming building fell on 7 WTC. We know that a large hole was ripped open in its south face. We know that it caught fire subsequently, and that it finally collapsed.

The large hole was in the west half of the south side.

How can you possibly claim, without expertise and contra other people's expertise, that the physical damage and the fire and the collapse are NOT related ?

I like the way you throw in 'fire' without the 'diesel fuel'.
The experts at NIST mentioned the damage to the west half of WTC 7 but did NOT include it in their collapse scenario.

 

[twinstead]

I like the way you throw in 'fire' without the 'diesel fuel'.
The experts at NIST mentioned the damage to the west half of WTC 7 but did NOT include it in their collapse scenario.

I think his question is how are you able to claim something as fact when you have no relevant qualifications to do so? Exactly what makes your observation of what happened that day better than the dozens of people at the scene?

In other words, 'where do you get off'?

 

[Christopher7]

I think his question is how are you able to claim something as fact when you have no relevant qualifications to do so? Exactly what makes your observation of what happened that day better than the dozens of people at the scene?
In other words, 'where do you get off'?

I am quoting the people who were there and what they reported to FEMA and NIST.
My conclusions are based on what they said along with data about WTC 7 that FEMA and NIST gathered and published in their reports.
If you had read posts #1883, 1884 and 1885 you would know this.

I have laid out the facts as stated in the FEMA and NIST reports.

If you think that a 60 to 80 foot wide gouge, floor 10 to the ground can co-exist with 'no heavy debris in lobby areas' and 'atrium glass intact' and 'only damage to south facade on 9th floor was at the south west corner',
Then so be it.

After reading post #1884, do you still think that there was debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event?

The experts at NIST did not say or indicate that the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 played a roll in the initiating event that led to the collapse.
They did say "If the initiating event was due to damage to the moment perimeter frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."
You can say 'it's still possible' if you want but there is nothing to back up that statement.

This isn't about my qualifications, it's about the facts in the FEMA and NIST reports.

Please read the facts [with references] and make up your own mind.

 

[Belz...]

There were no reports of a huge gash west of center other than the 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, which has been shown to be incorrect in post #1883

Has it, now ?

The [assumed to be] 47 story hole was west of center around columns [Spak] 5 & 6.

The large hole was in the west half of the south side.

Well, we can clearly see the top and bottom of the hole. Do you agree that the damage exists ?

I know you think it can't be the same hole that was described, but do you at least acknowledge that it exists ?

I like the way you throw in 'fire' without the 'diesel fuel'.

I like the way that diesel was not the only possible source of fire in the building, or do you disagree with that as well ?

The experts at NIST mentioned the damage to the west half of WTC 7 but did NOT include it in their collapse scenario.

Again:

How can you possibly claim, without expertise and contra other people's expertise, that the physical damage and the fire and the collapse are NOT related ?

 

[chipmunk stew]

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.

Correct

Thank you for acknowledging that. As far as I'm concerned, then, there's nothing more to discuss with you until the report is finalized.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I am quoting the people who were there and what they reported to FEMA and NIST.
My conclusions are based on what they said along with data about WTC 7 that FEMA and NIST gathered and published in their reports.
If you had read posts #1883, 1884 and 1885 you would know this.

I have laid out the facts as stated in the FEMA and NIST reports.

If you think that a 60 to 80 foot wide gouge, floor 10 to the ground can co-exist with 'no heavy debris in lobby areas' and 'atrium glass intact' and 'only damage to south facade on 9th floor was at the south west corner',
Then so be it.

After reading post #1884, do you still think that there was debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event?

The experts at NIST did not say or indicate that the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 played a roll in the initiating event that led to the collapse.
They did say "If the initiating event was due to damage to the moment perimeter frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."
You can say 'it's still possible' if you want but there is nothing to back up that statement.

This isn't about my qualifications, it's about the facts in the FEMA and NIST reports.

Please read the facts [with references] and make up your own mind.

Why is it that you seem to have such difficulty separating the concept "caused" from "played a role in"?

Why is it that you seem to have such difficulty separating the concept "interim report based on incomplete data and tentative assumptions" from "final report based on thorough data and established facts"?

 

[Christopher7]

Well, we can clearly see the top and bottom of the hole. Do you agree that the damage exists ?

I know you think it can't be the same hole that was described, but do you at least acknowledge that it exists ?

I have said it is possible the two holes were connected but it would be wrong to assume they were.
In any case, the damage is west of center and was not a factor in the initiating event IMO.

How can you possibly claim, without expertise and contra other people's expertise, that the physical damage and the fire and the collapse are NOT related ?

Show me where i said the fire and the collapse were not related.

Based on my knowledge of framing, i don't think the damage to the south west perimeter frame had anything to do with the initiating event in the east central part of WTC 7.
The only force at work here is gravity, pulling straight down.
Lateral stress caused by the missing corner columns would pull on the entire building.

My statement is consistent with the statements in the NIST report.

They ruled out the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 as causing the initiating event in their Collapse Initiation Scenarios. [pg L-36]

If they thought that damage played any roll in the initiating event, they would have said so IMO.

What expertise do you have that leads you to believe
the south west perimeter damage contributed to the initiating event?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Based on my knowledge of framing, i don't think the damage to the south west perimeter frame had anything to do with the initiating event in the east central part of WTC 7.
The only force at work here is gravity, pulling straight down.
Lateral stress caused by the missing corner columns would pull on the entire building.

Your knowledge of framing, as has already been pointed out, is irrelevant.

Knowledge of framing has existed for hundreds of years. The expertise necessary to build something like WTC7 has only been around for a few decades.

 

[Belz...]

I have said it is possible the two holes were connected but it would be wrong to assume they were.

"Wrong" ? You mean "incorrect" ? I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that they were. But even if they weren't, the point stands.

In any case, the damage is west of center and was not a factor in the initiating event IMO.

If the damage to the west of the south face was the only damage it sustained from 1 WTC's collapse, then it would be foolish to assume that it wasn't a factor.

Show me where i said the fire and the collapse were not related.

Let's try it again:

How can you possibly claim, without expertise and contra other people's expertise, that the physical damage and the fire and the collapse are NOT related ?

The only force at work here is gravity, pulling straight down.
Lateral stress caused by the missing corner columns would pull on the entire building.

Again, I think you're simplifying the whole deal.

What expertise do you have that leads you to believe
the south west perimeter damage contributed to the initiating event?

I thought you said we were better than the experts ?

Again, if no other damage was done to 7 WTC than this perimeter damage, then it's safe to assume that said damage led to the initiating event.

Damage -> more damage -> fire -> more damage -> collapse.

 

[Christopher7]

Why is it that you seem to have such difficulty separating the concept "caused" from "played a role in"?

No problem. The debris damage did not cause the collapse.

There is no reason to believe that it played a roll in the collapse.

Why is it that you seem to have such difficulty separating the concept "interim report based on incomplete data and tentative assumptions" from "final report based on thorough data and established facts"?

Many facts have already been established.

The data on the location of the diesel fuel tanks, pumps and supply pipes is not going to change in the final report.

The timeline of the fires in the east half of WTC 7 is not going to change in the final report.

There is a remote possibility that the data about debris damage to the east half of WTC 7 will change in the final report. [see post #1884]

The collapse started under the east penthouse. This will not change in the final report.

They will, no doubt, revise the collapse scenario in the final report.

 

[Christopher7]

Your knowledge of framing, as has already been pointed out, is irrelevant.

In your opinion.

Knowledge of framing has existed for hundreds of years. The expertise necessary to build something like WTC7 has only been around for a few decades.

So what? The principles of framing are the same for wood or steel.
Who are you to say that they are not?

I worked on a house that used telephone poles for columns, 4 x 16 beams and 2 x 12 floor joists.
The principles and the framing are the basically same as in WTC 7.

 

[Belz...]

No problem. The debris damage did not cause the collapse.

You say that with remarkable certainty.

There is no reason to believe that it played a roll in the collapse.

Yes. The building collapsed after it was hit by massive debris that set it on fire.

 

[Christopher7]

"Wrong" ? You mean "incorrect" ? I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that they were. But even if they weren't, the point stands.

There is no evidence of the hole between floor 15 and 26 or floor 10 and the ground.
Hayden: "...it took a while for that fire to develop."
How could he not notice and mention a 47 story hole?
His concern was the damage to the south west corner.
You can assume Hayden missed this little detail if you like.

If the damage to the west of the south face was the only damage it sustained from 1 WTC's collapse, then it would be foolish to assume that it wasn't a factor.

You've got that backwards.

The experts at NIST mentioned the damage to the west half of WTC 7 but did NOT include it in their collapse scenario

How can you possibly claim, without expertise and contra other people's expertise, that the physical damage and the fire and the collapse are NOT related ?

You keep saying 'contra' other people's expertise.

NIST specifically ruled out the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 as the cause of the initiating event.
Nowhere did they say it contributed to the collapse.

Again, I think you're simplifying the whole deal.

I have put it in simple terms so that people who don't know framing can understand.

I thought you said we were better than the experts ?

No