10 story hole in WTC 7

[DavidJames]

I cannot rule out the possibility that office fires could have caused the initiating event in WTC 7 but i think it is very unlikely.

I highlighted the important phrase. You don't have the data to make that assessment. Even if you did, you don't have the knowledge or experience to analyze the data. But continue posting your amateur opinions and feel free to accuse innocent people of mass murder. You have the first amendment to protect you. Plus it provides endless amusement.

 

[Christopher7]

I highlighted the important phrase. You don't have the data to make that assessment. Even if you did, you don't have the knowledge or experience to analyze the data.

True, i have no expertise on fires in high rise buildings but we don't have to be experts to debate the issue.

Up to now i have been mostly summarizing the facts i have found in the FEMA and NIST reports.

We may have differing opinions on weather or not WTC 7 was 'fully involved', and weather or not NIST 'ruled out' debris damage as a factor in the collapse, but as of now, there is no evidence that it was.

But continue posting your amateur opinions and feel free to accuse innocent people of mass murder. You have the first amendment to protect you. Plus it provides endless amusement.

It's not something i take lightly. It is the most serious issue of our time.

The truth movement is spreading because many of the people who look at the evidence conclude that the government story is fatally flawed.

 

[Architect]

Architect:

Timber is big structural members made out of wood
Lumber is smaller pieces.

That's really the only difference.

The point I was making, in passing, was that no contractor or designer in the UK and Ireland would refer to "wood" in the context that Chris did; it's one of these wee points that often marks out the wind-up artists from those who really understand the field. I wondered if it was the same in the US and Canada. If it was, one certainly wouldn't expect a chippie to confuse to two.

Generally speaking wood might be a finishing here, for example a wooden veneer on a ply. Smaller timber elements can be called wood, but in that context one would tend to talk about (say) hardwood mouldings, or softwood panelling, rather than just "wood".

However getting back to my e-mail, which is (if course) a bit off topic, I notice with some amusement that Chris has run away from my comments regarding fireproofing on the basis that he does not, in fact, really understand the effects of fire in tall structures.

 

[Belz...]

Fires destroys wood framed buildings, and toilet paper factories.

How about steel, mate ? Or do you contend that steel is better against fire than wood, always ?

 

[Belz...]

Fire has not caused a modern high rise steel frame building to collapse.

Of course it has. On 2001-09-11.

 

[Architect]

Fire has not caused a modern high rise steel frame building to collapse.

Chris

For the avoidance of doubt; do you content that fire cannot cause serious damage and even collapse in steel framed structures?

 

[Par]

We seem to have drifted off point, which is:

There is NO evidence that debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

Even if there isn’t (and I’m by no means agreeing on that point), it’s still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?

Fire has not caused a modern high rise steel frame building to collapse.

Is it not the idea that the collapse of 7 was caused by a combination of fire and debris damage?

 

[Christopher7]

Even if there isn’t (and I’m by no means agreeing on that point), it’s still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?

It is a statement of fact.

There is nothing in FEMA or NIST reports about debris damage contributing to the collapse.

Please read the following post and see for yourself.

Is it not the idea that the collapse of 7 was caused by a combination of fire and debris damage?

Yes it is, and that idea is not supported by the evidence.

 

[Christopher7]

The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not weaken or have a significant effect on the area of the initiating event*.
*pg 36 L.3.2

NIST Apx. L pg 36 [pg 40 on pg counter]

"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. Progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel of the perimeter moment frame which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"

The report then talks about possible damage to core columns and fires in the area of the initiating event.

pg 37

" I2.1 South facade damaged
> I3.1 Perimeter moment frame redistributes loads around damage
> I4.1 Local failure only"

PG 41

"If a group of perimeter columns failed, the perimeter framing above this area would have redistributed its loads, due to the redundancy of the moment frame."

pg 42

" Initiating event scenarios from I4.4 to I4.6
> V1.1 Any perimeter column fails
> V2.1 Collapse does not progress vertically"

The report makes no further mention of the damage to the south face.

They site core damage and fires as the possible causes of the initiating event.


http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

 

[Belz...]

How about steel, mate ? Or do you contend that steel is better against fire than wood, always ?

Come on, Chris. You can answer that one, I'm sure.

 

[Par]

There is nothing in FEMA or NIST reports about debris damage contributing to the collapse.

[...]

Yes it is [the idea that the collapse of 7 was caused by a combination of fire and debris damage] and that idea is not supported by the evidence.

You haven’t addressed my point. I said that even if the idea is unsupported by evidence, it’s still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?

 

[Architect]

Chris

For the avoidance of doubt; do you content that fire cannot cause serious damage and even collapse in steel framed structures?

Come on, Chris, it's a simple question. Especially if you're in the construction industry.

 

[Arus808]

Guys

brick wall
head
dead horse
dizziness
round and round we go


you know...

he has cotton in his ears
you're yelling at a brick wall


Nothing we say, will get through that thick wall he calls a skull.
his eyes a blocked from seeing and understanding what the EXPERTS here have provided.

Can we just stop debating this Christophera clone?

 

[Christopher7]

How about steel, mate ? Or do you contend that steel is better against fire than wood, always ?

Yes

 

[LashL]

Yes

Oops. Wrong answer, chris. Admittedly, I am not a carpenter, but I know that you are wrong in saying that steel is always better than wood when it comes to fires.

Here's a hint: Ask a firefighter whether he would rather fight a fire in an older timber framed structure or a newer steel framed structure.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris

For the avoidance of doubt; do you content that fire cannot cause serious damage and even collapse in steel framed structures?

I contend that it is possible for fire to cause a partial collapse of a modern steel frame high rise building.

WTC 7's unique design may have made it more vulnerable to collapse.

On this point, i will wait for the final report.

 

[Christopher7]

You haven’t addressed my point. I said that even if the idea is unsupported by evidence, it’s still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?

"even if" ?

There is NO evidence that debris contributed to the collapse.

The statement is neither generous nor ungenerous, it is simply, true.

 

[Par]

There is NO evidence that debris contributed to the collapse.

The statement is neither generous nor ungenerous, it is simply, true.

This is the second time you haven’t addressed my point. Perhaps this stems from you not having understood the term “parsimonious,” which is why I have linked to a definition of it for you. Generosity, or the lack thereof, in the prosaic sense at least, has nothing to do with it. I am saying that, irrespective of whether or not it is supported by evidence, it is still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?

 

[slingblade]

We seem to have drifted off point, which is:

There is NO evidence that debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

Funny. I read the appendix to which you link, and you seem to be missing its repeated use of the word "debris" throughout as a significant contributing factor in the intitating event.

You do realize that "intiating event" refers to that event which began the actual collapse sequence--not the event that first damaged the building and first started the fires, right?

Anyway, here's the part you didn't quote (bolding is mine, for emphasis):

L.3.5 Summary of Working Collapse Hypothesis
The working collapse hypothesis has been developed around four phases of the collapse that were observed in photographic and videographic records: the initiating event, a vertical progression at the east side of the building, and a horizontal progression from the east to west side of the building, leading to global collapse.

From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following general sequence of events appears possible:

1. Debris damaged the south face of the perimeter moment frame and some interior core framing on the south side. The debris impact severed approximately a quarter to a third of the south face perimeter columns. The damaged floors are less certain, but reports indicate they occurred between the ground and up to Floors 15 or 20. The extent of damage, both structural and to fireproofing, of core framing is not known, but damage to elevator cars and shafts was reported to have occurred around columns 69 to 78 at Floors 8 or 9.

2. Fires were observed after the collapse of WTC 1. Fires were observed after 2 pm on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows. The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5.

You see, it's the impact of the debris that starts the fires. Simple how that works, yes? Otherwise, I think you're suggesting the building spontaneously combusted. Possibly in sympathy with its fellow buildings?

 

[Architect]

I contend that it is possible for fire to cause a partial collapse of a modern steel frame high rise building.

WTC 7's unique design may have made it more vulnerable to collapse.

On this point, i will wait for the final report.

That's not the question I asked you Chris, so let's be quite clear; do you, or do you not, support the position that steel framed structures can be susceptible to fires in general?