10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jonnyclueless said:
No it would not be impossible for them to all be right. They could be reporting the building from different points of time. The damage could have changed over the course of the 7 hours, so the ones contradicting the gash, could have been reported before it existed.
Click to expand...
The debris damage did not change after the collapse of WTC 1.

There were NO reports of collapses.

We are debating the existence of a '10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide'.

There is no reason to doubt the testimony of the people who tell you what you want to hear. And the people who counter what you want to hear are all to be dismissed
Click to expand...
I have dismissed no one.
Please list one person whose statement supports the '10 story gouge' as described on pg 18, or stop making that claim.

And as has already been pointed out, the source that you don't want to listen to was not unnamed, it was also a firefighter.
Click to expand...
If you mean Boyle, he described a '20 story hole', not 'the 10 story gouge' in question.
Click to expand...
 
Christopher7 said:
Jonnyclueless said:
The debris damage did not change after the collapse of WTC 1.

There were NO reports of collapses.

We are debating the existence of a '10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide'.

I have dismissed no one.
Please list one person whose statement supports the '10 story gouge' as described on pg 18, or stop making that claim.

If you mean Boyle, he described a '20 story hole', not 'the 10 story gouge' in question.
Click to expand...

A building struck by tons of falling building and burning for 7 hours and the damage did not change? And you know this how? Right, because it hurts your story to acknowledge a common occurrence of a damaged and burning building.

Oh right, we're debating the existence of a hole, because without that hole the burning building could not possible collapse right? And because this somehow proves your demolition claims which have no evidence what so ever, but we're not allowed to talk about since doing so puts a big dent in your claims.

One person? Sure. Capt. Chris Boyle. Now stop making false counter claims as this has been repeatedly pointed out despite your continual denial.

Do you think he sat there and counted each floor one at a time? Or do you think he, like all other witnesses just tried to remember to the best of their recollection? Just like the 4 who you say conflict with that testimony. Once again, they could all be wrong, or they could all be right.

Your argument is getting really tired, as is your attempt to curb the focus of discussion so as to not have to take responsibility for your claims and attempts to present your personal opinions as factual. We can do this for as long as you want, but sooner or later you are going to have to start being honest. Until then, continue the futility and we will go in an endless circle.
Click to expand...
 
Notice how Christopher7 has suddenly decided to ignore my posts and the questions I am asking? ROTFLOL!
 
Jonnyclueless said:
Oh right, we're debating the existence of a hole, because without that hole the burning building could not possible collapse right? And because this somehow proves your demolition claims
Click to expand...
No

I am just looking at the evidence and discovering

there is NO evidence that the debris damage had a significant effect on the area of the initiating event

One person? Sure. Capt. Chris Boyle.
Do you think he sat there and counted each floor one at a time? Or do you think he, like all other witnesses just tried to remember to the best of their recollection? Just like the 4 who you say conflict with that testimony.
Click to expand...
Lets look at the statements

NIST Apx. L pg 18

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.

- Firefighters found individuals on floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building

- No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left floor 8

- Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on floor 7 just before leaving

- No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed


[This a detailed report.
Do you think the firefighters got it all wrong or just the part about "no heavy debris in the lobby" ?]


"noted that the atrium glass was still intact"

[This was "noted" for a reason, clarity.]


Capt. Chris Boyle
Firehouse Magazine

".....on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall...."

"It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."


Either he remembered the hole as being twice as large as the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18, or he was describing damage that occurred elsewhere.


A gouge, floor 10 to the ground, 1/3 the width, in the middle of WTC would take out everything within the purple line.

copyof3al2.jpg


The atrium [ground to floor 5] is the area between the promenade on the left and the pedestrian bridge on the right. [Spak columns 9 - 12]

About a third of it, right in the middle of it would have taken out most of the atrium glass.

Do you think the person who "noted that the atrium glass was still intact" was lying?

Do you think the Chief of operations, whose job it was to assess the damage, didn't notice a 10 story gouge, 1/3 the width of the building?

Do you also think that the firefighter who said "the only damage to the 9th floor facade was at the SW corner was lying?
 
Dog Town said:
So it begs the question, if not CD, where are you going with this?
Click to expand...
Reading the government reports said to support the claims that "WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F", i have found that there is no evidence to support the claim that the debris damage had a significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7, nor is there any evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

The hypothesis "the initiating event, vertical progression, horizontal progression, total collapse" has some problems.
 
When you get right down to it, there is NO evidence that fires caused that first column to fail.

There is only speculation about how office fires did what other, longer lasting fires, have not done.

The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for 19 hours.

"Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as 3 feet -- under severe fire exposures. ..... Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on pg counter]

The core columns in WTC 7 were proportionately larger to handle greater beam spans and a taller building.

The larger the column, the longer it takes to heat that column up and the greater the dispersal of that heat.

Columns are vertical and will absorb far less heat than horizontal framework.
It is much hotter over a campfire than it is next to one.

Columns are attached to at least 2 floors in all directions as well as up and down. Floor beams are not as big as the girders between the columns and and the connections from beam to girder are not as strong as the ones connecting the girders to the columns.

The floor beams would tear away from the girders and columns.
They would not tear the columns away from the girders on 2 floors.
 
Last edited:
Reading the government reports said to support the claims that "WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F", i have found that there is no evidence to support the claim that the debris damage had a significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7, nor is there any evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

The hypothesis "the initiating event, vertical progression, horizontal progression, total collapse" has some problems.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, Have you contacted NIST and explained were they are going wrong. The investigation is still open and you seem to know something they don't. I have included the email address for you.
inquiries@nist.gov
 
Christopher7 said:
They are NOT the 10 story gouge described on pg 18.

They are well to the east of the middle of WTC 7.
Click to expand...

Chris, try to slow down, read why I post, and attempt to understand the meaning.

I said: "They're not a 10 storey hole, but they may be the 10 storey hole that was described, only larger."

I'm aware it's not dead-center, and I'm aware it's larger than 10 stories. But it could still be the hole that was described. There could be any number of reasons why the descriptions do not precisely match reality, as in ANY EYEWITNESS report.
 
Christopher7 said:
When you get right down to it, there is NO evidence that fires caused that first column to fail.
Click to expand...

It's a very reasonable assumption given the evidence that we DO have.

If you think that sentence above supports your CD theory, then you have no ability to make a logical discourse.

There is only speculation about how office fires did what other, longer lasting fires, have not done.
Click to expand...

Other fires have not fell steel buildings ? Yes they have.

The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for 19 hours.
Click to expand...

Didn't that one have a concrete core ?

The larger the column, the longer it takes to heat that column up and the greater the dispersal of that heat.
Click to expand...

You know, I'd really love it if you twoofers stopped comparing apples to oranges.
 
Christopher7 wrote: "The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for 19 hours."

Belz... said:
Didn't that one have a concrete core ?
Click to expand...

There were many significant differences between the Meridian Plaza fire and the WTC fires ... differences that *truthers* seem intent on ignoring.

The United States Fire Administration Technical Report on the One Meridian Plaza fire (http://www.firetactics.com/meridian.pdf) states "this fire was finally stopped when it reached a floor where automatic sprinklers had been installed." There were not automatic sprinklers working in the WTC fire.

The Meridian fires again happened on floors that were much lower than the fires in the WTC towers. So firefighters and their hoses could more easily get access to the fires. Even so, exhaustion of the firefighters from climbing the stairwells "was a problem for the duration of the incident."

And again, the fires spread relatively slowly compared to the WTC tower fires.

Even so, the report states "After more than 11 hours of uncontrolled fire growth and spread, interior firefighting efforts were abandoned due to the risk of structural collapse." Now they must have had some reason to be concerned about that.

The fire protection coatings on the steel members in this building were intact. The report states the building columns had a 3 hour rating and there was a 2 hour rating on horizontal beams and floor/ceiling systems. The fire on each floor generally exhausted itself in those times. Even so, the report suggests they had some reason to be concerned.

The report states "Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors."

The reports states "Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet -- under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

Fortunately, the construction of the Meridian tower was significantly different than that of the WTC towers. The floors didn't come loose from the columns. So the columns retained their integrity from buckling. And that's the most importance difference.

As noted in http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_lessons.html "In this fire, the steel columns retained their structural integrity and held their loads. Experience in this and similar high-rise fires suggest that columns are the least vulnerable structural members, due to their mass and relatively short height between restraints (floor to floor)." Remove that restrain, as happened in the WTC towers, and the strength of the columns falls dramatically. Funny how *truthers*, like Christopher7, fail to understand that.
 
Belz... said:
I said: "They're not a 10 storey hole, but they may be the 10 storey hole that was described, only larger."

I'm aware it's not dead-center, and I'm aware it's larger than 10 stories. But it could still be the hole that was described. There could be any number of reasons why the descriptions do not precisely match reality, as in ANY EYEWITNESS report.
Click to expand...
The first photo you posted shows damage where the
"Roof and Upper Level Debris Damage" occurred [between columns 5 and 6] and the second photo shows a
"large debris hole near the center of the south face around floor 14".
The damage below the large hole around floor 14 is to the left of column 5.



The "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"

Is consistent with:

The inner area of the "Approximate region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris" is about 1/4 the width of WTC 7 and the larger area is about 1/3 the width.

11qd1.jpg
 
BeAChooser said:
Christopher7 wrote: "The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for 19 hours."
Click to expand...

There were many significant differences between the Meridian Plaza fire and the WTC fires.
The United States Fire Administration Technical Report on the One Meridian Plaza fire (http://www.firetactics.com/meridian.pdf) states "this fire was finally stopped when it reached a floor where automatic sprinklers had been installed." There were not automatic sprinklers working in the WTC fire.
Click to expand...
So what?
The Meridian burned out of control for 19 hours before the sprinkler system put it out.

WTC 7 collapsed after burning out of control for 7 hours.
The Meridian fires again happened on floors that were much lower than the fires in the WTC towers. So firefighters and their hoses could more easily get access to the fires. Even so, exhaustion of the firefighters from climbing the stairwells "was a problem for the duration of the incident."
And again, the fires spread relatively slowly compared to the WTC tower fires.
Click to expand...
Did you just subject shift to the Trade Towers?

Even so, the report states "After more than 11 hours of uncontrolled fire growth and spread, interior firefighting efforts were abandoned due to the risk of structural collapse." Now they must have had some reason to be concerned about that.
Click to expand...
A structural engineer thought the building was in danger of collapse.
They pulled their people out of the building.
It did not collapse.

When firefighters die, Fire Chiefs feel personally responsible and they are not willing put other firefighters at any unnecessary risk.

http://www.firetactics.com/meridian.pdf
The reports states After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet -- under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places.


Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

Fortunately, the construction of the Meridian tower was significantly different than that of the WTC towers. The floors didn't come loose from the columns. So the columns retained their integrity from buckling. And that's the most importance difference.
Click to expand...
Double talk. NIST did not say the floors came loose from the columns.
pg 36 [40 on pg counter]
"there must have been a component or group of components that failed first"

As noted in http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_lessons.html "In this fire, the steel columns retained their structural integrity and held their loads. Experience in this and similar high-rise fires suggest that columns are the least vulnerable structural members, due to their mass and relatively short height between restraints (floor to floor)."

Remove that restrain, as happened in the WTC towers, and the strength of the columns falls dramatically.
Click to expand...
We are discussing WTC 7, not the Trade Towers.
 
Christopher7 said:
So what?
The Meridian burned out of control for 19 hours before the sprinkler system put it out.
Click to expand...

So if there had been no sprinkler system, the implication is that the fire would have continued burning, totally gutting the structure. And perhaps at some point in that process, steel might have begun to actually fail as it did in the Madrid fire.

Christopher7 said:
Did you just subject shift to the Trade Towers?
Click to expand...

Are you trying to compare apples and oranges? The structural system in the Meridian tower wasn't at all similar to that in WTC7. It was VERY different. For example, engineers are on the record saying that the cantilevered design of WTC7 was problematic and may have lead to the failure of the building. Also, diesel fuel may have fed the fires causing members to experience heat loads for much longer periods then any given member in the Meridian tower saw.

Christopher7 said:
Double talk. NIST did not say the floors came loose from the columns.
Click to expand...

They don't know what happened in WTC 7, and neither do you. You can't even tell us why the east penthouse collapsed (oh wait, your theory is premature detonation of the explosives???). As far at the towers are concerned, if the floors didn't come loose, how do you explain the severe sagging of the floors noted through the windows in photos shortly before the collapse of the towers?

Christopher7 said:
Experience in this and similar high-rise fires suggest that columns are the least vulnerable structural members,
Click to expand...

First, there are no similar fires to WTC7. The Meridian Plaza fire was fought by firefighters almost every step of the way. WTC7 was not. The structural design of WTC7 is very different from any of the other high-rise fires you can name. None of the other fires had large quantities of diesel fuel present with a system to pump that fuel higher into the building even when the power was down to the building. The other buildings were not damaged by tons of falling debris. And finally, if columns are the least vulnerable structural member, why did the collapse of the WTC towers apparently occur because the perimeter columns failed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom