10 story hole in WTC 7

[Belz...]

The debris damage did not contribute to the initiating event.

Well that's what we're trying to determine, isn't it:

Debris -> Fire. You admitted so yourself.

Fire -> Collapse. You admit this is possible, as well.

Where's the problem ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Because the debris damage to the SW part of
wtc 7 did not contribute to the initiating event, that led to the global collapse.
NIST did not say that the debris damage contributed to the collapse.
Why do you keep insisting that it did?
[see post #1885]

I have asked before, and maybe you have answered, this thread is moving a bit fast for me, but what exactly do you mean by the initiating event?

The collapse of WTC7 was, no matter how you think it happened, a long chain of events, starting with the decision to build it in the first place.

What exactly is your criterion for labelling one specific event between the planning of the building and it's collapse as the "initiating event"??

There was NO debris damage in the area of the initiating event.
[see post #1884]

There were NO diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
[see post # 1884]

How do you know.

Do you think the designers were so incompetent that they didn't properly design WTC 7 to allow for this?

Designing buildings is something you do on paper. You can't test how it will react to every conceivable crisis. You can only make calculations. Sometimes reality does not follow your calculations. That does not necessarily imply incompetence. The sequence:

- Building damaged by falling debris (a high-rise building damaged by debris falling on it).

- Heavy, diesel fuel-stoked fires.

- Lack of water pressure for fire-fighting.

- Firefighters already engaged in a near-by major disaster.

... Is not likely to have been high on the list of danger scenarios previous to 911.

Chris, you are busy discussing probabilities for this. We can do that, but then we also have to discuss the probability of a government planning a immensely complex, extremely risky mass-murder operation.

Hans

 

[Belz...]

The collapse of WTC7 was, no matter how you think it happened, a long chain of events, starting with the decision to build it in the first place.

What exactly is your criterion for labelling one specific event between the planning of the building and it's collapse as the "initiating event"??

Simple. Chris thinks that by defining "initiating" event in a certain way he will make the "official story" so unlikely that CD will have to become the default conclusion. It's a false dichotomy, of course, and redefining terms is also a fallacy.

Designing buildings is something you do on paper.

The CTers think that when designing buildings, you build a scale model using chicken wire, and then submit it to the more gruesome conditions one can possibly imagine. When they don't collapse, they build the real thing.

... Is not likely to have been high on the list of danger scenarios previous to 911.

But they KNEW when they built the WTC towers!!!!1111

Chris, you are busy discussing probabilities for this. We can do that, but then we also have to discuss the probability of a government planning a immensely complex, extremely risky mass-murder operation.

No, please don't.

 

[Unfit4Command]

You keep talking about the damage as if it contributed to the collapse.

NIST made no such claim.

Why do you?

Did the structural damage that caused the building to lean and bulge over several floors help the buildings integrity? The damage may not have caused the "initiating event" but it certainly didn't help the situation.

Like Gravy said before, did the damage make the building stronger, do nothing, or cause it to weaken?

You really need to quit treating an interim report as if it's the final.

 

[Belz...]

What are you talking about, Unfit ? Chris said it himself: there will be NO CHANGES in the final report!! So now he can safely treat the interim report as such!

 

[Unfit4Command]

What are you talking about, Unfit ? Chris said it himself: there will be NO CHANGES in the final report!! So now he can safely treat the interim report as such!

Oooohhhh, that makes sense.

 

[FactCheck]

Because the debris damage to the SW part of
wtc 7 did not contribute to the initiating event, that led to the global collapse.

Round and round we go...

You must be purposely conflating the initiating event of the fires and weakening of the structure with the initiating event of the final moments of WTC 7's demise. This is quote mining and an insult to my intelligence. I suggest you stop insulting peoples intelligence and begin reading all replies to you after your 1886 post.

Do you think the designers were so incompetent that they didn't properly design WTC 7 to allow for this?

Show me where designers are trained in designing buildings around substations and which will one day be hit by another building...

Why in the world do you jump to "Incompetent" when I never suggested such a thing. You asked me a personal question and I gave you a personal answer. I would not have designed the building around a substation with what I know now. Don't quote mine or read into it any more than what I wrote.

 

[Belz...]

Oooohhhh, that makes sense.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Christopher7]

...the debris damage to the SW part of wtc 7 did not contribute to the initiating event, that led to the global collapse.
NIST did not say that the debris damage contributed to the collapse.
Why do you keep insisting that it did?
[see post #1885]

I have asked before, and maybe you have answered, this thread is moving a bit fast for me, but what exactly do you mean by the initiating event?

Please read post #1884 on pg 48 and click on the links provided.

The initiating event is a term used by NIST. It referes to the beginning of the collapse.

In post #1884, there are quotes from FEMA and NIST reports that clearly state:

*There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Designing buildings is something you do on paper. You can't test how it will react to every conceivable crisis. You can only make calculations. Sometimes reality does not follow your calculations. That does not necessarily imply incompetence. The sequence:

- Building damaged by falling debris (a high-rise building damaged by debris falling on it).

- Heavy, diesel fuel-stoked fires.

Once you read post #1884, you will know *[see above]

Chris, you are busy discussing probabilities for this. We can do that, but then we also have to discuss the probability of a government planning a immensely complex, extremely risky mass-murder operation.

Hans

This thread does get sidetracked with probabilities but the point and the proof are contained in posts #1883, 1884 and 1885.

Please read them carefully before asking me to explain what i have already explained.

This thread is about debris damage and fires in WTC 7.

Chris

 

[rwguinn]

Please read post #1884 on pg 48 and click on the links provided.

The initiating event is a term used by NIST. It referes to the beginning of the collapse.

In post #1884, there are quotes from FEMA and NIST reports that clearly state:

*There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Once you read post #1884, you will know *[see above]

This thread does get sidetracked with probabilities but the point and the proof are contained in posts #1883, 1884 and 1885.

Please read them carefully before asking me to explain what i have already explained.

This thread is about debris damage and fires in WTC 7.

Chris

Ah.
I see. The loading of 5000 lb of fertilizer into the 1/2 ton pickup truck, plus the addition of the driver and a tank of gas did not cause the axle failure. The intiating event was the tiny piece of paper the cop handed the driver for being overweight.
only the strawm that broke the camel's back is significant. All the others are just window dressing?
I see.
woo

 

[Unfit4Command]

No, it doesn't.

I was being sarcastic

 

[Belz...]

I was being sarcastic

So was I.

 

[Belz...]

The initiating event is a term used by NIST. It referes to the beginning of the collapse.

*There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Which, in turn, doesn't support your statement that the debris damage and fires, diesel or otherwise, had nothing to do with the initiating event.

Could you site the actual page where NIST says that ?

 

[Christopher7]

Which, in turn, doesn't support your statement that the debris damage and fires, diesel or otherwise, had nothing to do with the initiating event.

You keep misquoting and misstating what i have said.
The total lack of evidence for debris damage or diesel fires in the area of the initiating event supports my statement. Saying that it doesn't is absurd.
Further, i have presented evidence that there was no fire in the north east generator room.
I presented evidence that there was no serious damage to the east half of WTC 7 up to the 16th floor.

Could you site the actual page where NIST says that ?

All the page numbers are listed in post #1884 which you have not read yet.
Please do so before posting again.

After all, posts #1883,1884 and 1885 are what this thread is about.

How can you understand what i am saying or engage intelligently in this discussion if you don't know the facts?

Most of the facts i have quoted from the FEMA and NIST reports will not change in the final report.
The location of the fuel tanks, pumps and supply pipes will not change.
The progression of the fires in the east half of WTC 7 will not change.
Reports of serious debris damage to the east half of WTC 7, up to the 16th floor will not change.
There is a remote possibility that some serious damage to the east half of WTC 7, above the 16th floor, was missed in the original two year investigation.

 

[Belz...]

You keep misquoting and misstating what i have said.

No, I don't. "Diesel or otherwise" is something I added to make sure you couldn't squirm out of this one and claim "ah, diesel fires, yes, but there were other types of fire in WTC 7."

The total lack of evidence for debris damage or diesel fires in the area of the initiating event supports my statement.

No, it doesn't. You'd like to think so, though.

There was no DEBRIS damage near the area of the initiating event. There was no DIESEL fires near the area of the initiating event. Assuming both these statements are true, the following could also be true:

1) Debris damage caused fires in the building (your admission)
2) Debris damage caused further damage by shifting loads to other parts of the building, including the area of the initiating event.
3) The non-diesel fires spread to the area of the initating event and caused further damage there.
4) The combined damages from the load transfers and fires caused the building to collapse.

Your claim is basically that 2) is impossible, for some reason, and that at least one of 3) or 4) is false. But that doesn't follow from your NIST quote.

Further, i have presented evidence that there was no fire in the north east generator room.

No diesel fire, yes.

I presented evidence that there was no serious damage to the east half of WTC 7 up to the 16th floor.

No external damage, yes.

All the page numbers are listed in post #1884 which you have not read yet.
Please do so before posting again.

After all, posts #1883,1884 and 1885 are what this thread is about.

Okay, but you have to read posts #371, #633, #1120 and #1554.

How can you understand what i am saying or engage intelligently in this discussion if you don't know the facts?

I was wondering that, myself.

Most of the facts i have quoted from the FEMA and NIST reports will not change in the final report.

Speculation.

There is a remote possibility that some serious damage to the east half of WTC 7, above the 16th floor, was missed in the original two year investigation.

How remote ?

 

[aggle-rithm]

The efforts by the military were gutsy by ineffective until the fire broke thru the roof.

[qimg]http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/600/146pmng3.jpg[/qimg]

It was FUBAR but it did not collapse, even though the fires burned out of control for 17 hours.

Do you think that WTC 7 was an inferior design, more likely to collapse in a fire?

If your sole criteria is resistance to fire, then yes, it was. It was sufficient to meet fire codes, however. No one could have anticipated that the building would catch fire while the entire infrastructure around it was in a shambles.

 

[Christopher7]

No, I don't. "Diesel or otherwise" is something I added to make sure you couldn't squirm out of this one and claim "ah, diesel fires, yes, but there were other types of fire in WTC 7."

Adding something is misstating.
In post #1884 i listed the progression of the fires in the area of the initiating event.
You really should read post #1884 before making incorrect, uninformed statements like the one above.

There was no DEBRIS damage near the area of the initiating event. There was no DIESEL fires near the area of the initiating event. Assuming both these statements are true, the following could also be true:

1) Debris damage caused fires in the building (your admission)
2) Debris damage caused further damage by shifting loads to other parts of the building, including the area of the initiating event.
3) The non-diesel fires spread to the area of the initating event and caused further damage there.
4) The combined damages from the load transfers and fires caused the building to collapse.

1) True
2) What part of;

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

don't you understand?

This is a no brainer, yet you just can't grasp the concept.

3) Yes, except for the word 'further'.
There was NO debris damage to the area of the initiating event.

4) False. The loads were transferred to the surrounding columns, NOT to the other end of the building!

No diesel fire, yes.

No external damage, yes.

Thank you

Okay, but you have to read posts #371, #633, #1120 and #1554.

Fair enough. I will read them and respond.

 

[Christopher7]

If your sole criteria is resistance to fire, then yes, it was. It was sufficient to meet fire codes, however. No one could have anticipated that the building would catch fire while the entire infrastructure around it was in a shambles.

The entire infrastructure?
No
The south west face of WTC 7 was heavily damaged, but the east half was not.
The west face was damaged at the south corner.
The north and east faces were not damaged at all.

 

[Newtons Bit]

So you think WTC 7 was so poorly designed that the failure of one core column led to the total collapse in about 15 seconds.

Normal structures (in the US) were not required by code to resist the effects of the loss of even a single column before 9/11. Alot of designers went ahead and used some crude methods to make sure there wouldn't be a collapse if there was a loss of a single column, but this doesn't mean they designed it right or looked at every single column. WTC1&2 were obviously designed to resist the loss of a single column, but they didn't design it that way because of terrorism or blast concerns, but more likely redundancy based on how little knowledge of engineering they had at the time.

For example, compare the 13th edition of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction to the 7th edition (published in the sixties). It's barbaric what was in the 7th edition. Likewise compare the reinforced concrete codes, ACI 318-05 to one from the 60's. The 60's had little tiny pamphlet compared to the book that the 05 version is.

This doesn't mean they were BAD engineers, many of them are probably better engineers than I currently am right now, however they are no were close to as knowledgeable as the senior engineers I work with. They simply didn't have the same tools and expierence that we have today.

 

[fezzic]

The entire infrastructure?
No
The south west face of WTC 7 was heavily damaged, but the east half was not.
The west face was damaged at the south corner.
The north and east faces were not damaged at all.

I think aggle was referring to the fire fighting infrastructure, primarily the water mains, in that response. Maybe a poor choice of words since the fire fighters were present but had no water to fight the fires. In any case, if aggle meant the building I would presume he would have wrote "structure" not infrastructure.