10 story hole in WTC 7

[Drudgewire]

9/11 heros

Good answer (despite the spelling)

 

[Christopher7]

1. He doesn't hear anything until after the collapse is well under way.
2. He is running for his life. How could he distinguish between the sound of an explosive and the sound of the floors collapsing?
Remember. He says that he knows the sound of an explosion as opposed to the sound of explosives.

You refuse to accept that what he heard could have been demolition charges.
Deniers mantra #2
It could have been something other than demolition charges, therefore, it was.

So, why isn't there a single audio recording of the explosive sequence that always accompanies a controlled demolition by explosives?

NIST FOIA told me they have 2 videos with sound just before or during the collapse.

Why don't you wait until the final report comes out, and these videos become available, before saying there aren't any videos with sound?

 

[jaydeehess]

You refuse to accept that what he heard could have been demolition charges.
Deniers mantra #2
It could have been something other than demolition charges, therefore, it was.

Ct mantra #1
If it can be stretched or twisted to be what we want it to be then do it.

There was a very large building in the process of collapsing when the sounds of "explosions" were heard. Yes they may well have been actual explosions but to assume such is like assuming that the sound of hoofbeats in Alaska during January are being produced wild zebras.

 

[Christopher7]

Everyone is avoiding the FACTS listed here.
You guys are really good at ignoring that which you cannot dispute and talking about something else.

Is anyone here objective enough to acknowledge that the following FACTS from the NIST report are true?
Do you think NIST didn't get the fire time line correct in the 2 years they had to do so?
They published pictures to verify their conclusions.


There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the initiating event.
[the failure of core column 79, 80 and/or 81]

Fires in east half of WTC 7

NIST
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12, moved toward the east face
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner, progressing north

As of 3:00 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.


Some time later, fires on 8 and 13



A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F, and 3 or 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle.


There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.



That's the evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building,

and fires that a burned on a few floors, for a few hours, at different times, in the area where the collapse began.

 

[GT/CS]

Everyone is avoiding the FACTS listed here.
You guys are really good at ignoring that which you cannot dispute and talking about something else.

Is anyone here objective enough to acknowledge that the following FACTS from the NIST report are true?
Do you think NIST didn't get the fire time line correct in the 2 years they had to do so?
They published pictures to verify their conclusions.


There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the initiating event.
[the failure of core column 79, 80 and/or 81]

Fires in east half of WTC 7

NIST
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12, moved toward the east face
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner, progressing north

As of 3:00 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.


Some time later, fires on 8 and 13



A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F, and 3 or 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle.


There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.



That's the evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building,

and fires that a burned on a few floors, for a few hours, at different times, in the area where the collapse began.

1. Please explain how what you bolded helps your case after you quote all the information about the fires in that area?

2. Is the following your opinion or part of the report?
"A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F, and 3 or 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle."

3. You really don't believe all those fires weakened the building?

4. Why do you behave this way?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Please explain why the damage has to be near the initiating event to contribute to the collapse.

 

[Christopher7]

2. Is the following your opinion or part of the report?
"A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F, and 3 or 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle."

pg 38 [42 on pg counter]

I4.2 Unbraced Columns: If floor systems failed, one or more columns may have lost lateral bracing. At a floor where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure. As an example, the column capacity curve of column 79 between Floors 5 to 9 is shown in Fig. L–37. Column load-carrying capacities shown in this figure are based on the AISC column capacity formulas (AISC 2001). The column is not very sensitive to the number of stories of unbraced column length, K. This column,
which had a service load stress of approximately 21 ksi, would be approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 °C.

3. You really don't believe all those fires weakened the building?

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."


[FONT=&quot]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm[/FONT]

 

[GT/CS]

pg 38 [42 on pg counter]

I4.2 Unbraced Columns: If floor systems failed, one or more columns may have lost lateral bracing. At a floor where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure. As an example, the column capacity curve of column 79 between Floors 5 to 9 is shown in Fig. L–37. Column load-carrying capacities shown in this figure are based on the AISC column capacity formulas (AISC 2001). The column is not very sensitive to the number of stories of unbraced column length, K. This column,
which had a service load stress of approximately 21 ksi, would be approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 °C.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."


[FONT=&quot]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm[/FONT]

You're joking right?

Where did you get the 1000 degree figure in the post I questioned you about? How did you go from 500 degrees to 1000 degrees?

You're comparing an 8 story test to a 50 story real building???!!!!

Please also respond to questions 1 & 4.

 

[Christopher7]

Thank you for your relevant, reasonable and respectfull question.

Please explain why the damage has to be near the initiating event to contribute to the collapse.

NIST said:

I3.1 Perimeter Moment Frame Arrests Failure Progression: Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

They did not include perimeter damage as a possible contributing factor in the collapse.
If it were a factor, they would have included it.


Please explain why you think perimeter column damage to the south west face could have a significant effect on the core columns at the east end if the building.

 

[Christopher7]

Where did you get the 1000 degree figure in the post I questioned you about? How did you go from 500 degrees to 1000 degrees?

I4.6 Uniform High Temperatures: If initiating event components were sufficiently exposed to fire effects to be uniformly heated to elevated temperatures, the steel strength would be reduced below that required to support the load. Figure L–39 shows that for interior columns subject to service loads (shown as approximately 20 ksi of compressive stress),

uniform steel temperatures of approximately 570 ºC would result in column failure.

570 C = 1058 F

You're comparing an 8 story test to a 50 story real building???!!!!

Good point

The columns in a 47 story building would be much larger and therefore take much longer to heat up.

 

[GT/CS]

Sorry, I missed the F and C differences.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Thank you for your relevant, reasonable and respectfull question.

NIST said:

I3.1 Perimeter Moment Frame Arrests Failure Progression: Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

They did not include perimeter damage as a possible contributing factor in the collapse.
If it were a factor, they would have included it.


Please explain why you think perimeter column damage to the south west face could have a significant effect on the core columns at the east end if the building.

The fires were caused by the damage, thus no matter how you write it off, the damage will ALWAYS be a contributing factor. And NIST is simply addressing the initiation of the collapse not the other factors which would contribute to the speed of the collapse and other issues the Woo movement use as evidence of a CD.

 

[Christopher7]

Sorry, I missed the F and C differences.

No worries mate

BTW: Humble Texas is a conflict of terms.

 

[GT/CS]

You're right, there are no humble people in Texas. I think that's why people here pronounced it "umble".

 

[Christopher7]

The fires were caused by the damage, thus no matter how you write it off, the damage will ALWAYS be a contributing factor.

My bad. I left out the word 'structural'

Please explain why you think perimeter column damage to the south west face could have a significant structural effect on the core columns at the east end if the building.

And NIST is simply addressing the initiation of the collapse not the other factors which would contribute to the speed of the collapse

I agree.
The debris damage probably sped up the collapse in the south west portion of WTC 7.

 

[Christopher7]

You're right, there are no humble people in Texas. I think that's why people here pronounced it "umble".

Roger that

 

[Belz...]

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your denial.

Everyone here thinks they know more about CD's than the owner of a demolitions company.

No, we just think that all the OTHER owners combined know more than that one owner.

He saw several videos of the implosion of WTC 7.

He remained steadfast in his professional opinion.

Good for him.

I'm often wrong about things in my field. Imagine that.

 

[Belz...]

You all have so much respect for first responders until they say something you can't deal with, then you trash them.

Saying they are wrong is trashing them ? How about when truthers say they lie ?

Show me where these people say the videos of WTC 7 don't look like a CD.

Read that aloud to yourself. Does it make sense ? Hint: no.

You refuse to accept that what he heard could have been demolition charges.

Again. Read that aloud. You should study scientific methodology.

It could have been something other than demolition charges, therefore, it was.

Actually, it's more like "it could not have been demolition charges, therefore it wasn't."

Perimeter Moment Frame Arrests Failure Progression: Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas.

Yes... and we know that "around" means "next to"

 

[cloudshipsrule]

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.

You don't know that. NIST doesn't know that. Stop saying it as a definitive statement. Try this:

There MAY NOT have been debris damage near the initiating event.

 

[jaydeehess]

Thank you for your relevant, reasonable and respectfull question.

NIST said:

I3.1 Perimeter Moment Frame Arrests Failure Progression: Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

They did not include perimeter damage as a possible contributing factor in the collapse.
If it were a factor, they would have included it.


Please explain why you think perimeter column damage to the south west face could have a significant effect on the core columns at the east end if the building.

All that states is that the initiating event did not originate on the perimeter frame. It says nothing at all about how much stress was on any core column or floor span due to the loss of perimeter columns.

What you are quoting here is a flow chart method of determining WHERE the initial failure that led to the collapse occured. It says very little about what caused the inital failure.