10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

In other words Chris these reports are not EXACTING. Make it 1/6th the width and slightly west of center and it matchs what is seen in the pictures.

Then you agree that the 10 story gouge, as described on pg 18, was smaller than described and west of center.
Correct?

 

[jaydeehess]

Then you agree that the 10 story gouge, as described on pg 18, was smaller than described and west of center.
Correct?

No!

I believe that with the video and photographic evidence coupled with the statements from those who were there that it is patently obvious that there was serious, major structural damage visible along the south face of the building, predominantly west of center and that damage was likely at least 20 feet wide and extended several stories from the ground up.

We know conclusively that such damge did occur in the SW corner and reports that similar damge occured further east cannot be dismissed out of hand.

I am saying that you dismiss statements based upon your own personal desires.

If the gouge was slightly west of center and not quite 30 feet wide then it fits the description given by people who were there that day.

I have no problem with the idea that such major damage causing stresses within the structure and causing other internal damage within the structure that would assist in causing the initial failure that led to global progressive collapse. I go back to the example of the garage you worked on. How would that garage react if you hooked your truck up to a chain attached to several studs(in a building not weakened by termites) and quickly ripped those studs out? You keep harping that the building could stand to lose a few strucural members but fail to understand that they were not simply removed, they were violently ripped out.

I am saying that you make definitive statements with little evidence to go on. That you have a pathlogical requirement to make such definitive statements even when it is obvious that you do not have the neccessary evidence upon which to draw such conclusions and that the conclusions you do make are colored by your own prejudices, and that it frustrates yopu that others will not follow your lead and make such definitive statements using the same evidence or lack of evidence.

Bye now, my life (and my wife) awaits

 

[twinstead]

Chris has carefully crafted his argument so as to not have to present any evidence at all to support it.

I suspect he thinks we haven't noticed.

 

[MaGZ]

There are no windows in the stairwells unless you wish to subscribe to MaGZ's suggestion of other stairwells not in evidence as existing.

Isn’t it just common sense that there would be a service elevator in WTC 7 and a stairwell adjacent to the elevator?

 

[Christopher7]

Chris has carefully crafted his argument so as to not have to present any evidence at all to support it.

I suspect he thinks we haven't noticed.

Where have you been?

Here is the evidence:

The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Appendix L pg 18 [22 on pg counter] http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

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


Evidence that the '10 story gouge' was a misinterpretation of the actual damage

pg 18
"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."
[a gouge floor 10 to the ground would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby 60 to 80 feet wide from the south facade to the elevators]

“debris damage across ¼ width of the south face, starting several stories above the atrium.”
[cannot co-exist with – gouge, floor 10 to the ground]

“the atrium glass [ground to floor 5] was still intact"
[cannot co-exist with – gouge, floor 10 to the ground]

FEMA Chapter 5 pg 20
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
“According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WCT 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner."

Oral Histories: Chief Frank Fellini
[in charge of operations at West and Vesey]
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
“When it fell [WTC 1] it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors.....”
[Do you think he did not notice a gouge, 120 feet high, 60 to 80 feet wide, and 30 to 40 feet deep, in the middle of WTC 7 ?]


NIST ignored the three statements on the same page that were in conflict with the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged outfrom floor 10 to the ground" and the statement in the FEMA report.

They then showed this 'damage' in the graphic on pg 23 as "Possible region of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate region of impact damage"

In the Summary item 3) they describe the damage attributed to this gouge [columns 69, 72 and 75] as Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

 

[twinstead]

Chris. You are NOT presenting evidence to support your conclusion, you are trying to find fault in the PRELIMINARY NIST report therefore implying that your ludicrous CD theory is the winning theory by default. Exactly how is this evidence?

Give me some physical evidence of CD. Give me a consensus of CD experts, or a group of scientists with similar expertise as the contributers of the NIST who disagree with their conclusion. This is your claim, PROVE IT. You are also accepting witness accounts that might possibly be construed as supporting your position as the gospel, and totally ignoring witness accounts that contradict your position. That is poor investigative technique.

You've been doing this for a bazillion pages. Your movement is floundering. This is your moment. This is probably your last chance to find a law enforcement agency anywhere in the world, to find a REAL media outlet anywhere in the world, to find a reporter, ANY REPORTER, anywhere in the world who might like a Pulitzer Prize, and CONVINCE SOMEBODY, for God's sake.

And, you obviously think we DON'T SEE IT.

 

[Christopher7]

No!

I believe that with the video and photographic evidence coupled with the statements from those who were there that it is patently obvious that there was serious, major structural damage visible along the south face of the building, predominantly west of center and that damage was likely at least 20 feet wide and extended several stories from the ground up.

Nice tap dance around the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18]
You just can't bring yourself to admit that the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] was a misinterpretation of damage west of center.

Will you agree that the only significant damages, east of center was:
“debris damage across ¼ width of the south face, starting several stories above the atrium.”

We know conclusively that such damge did occur in the SW corner and reports that similar damge occured further east cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Agreed

I am saying that you dismiss statements based upon your own personal desires.

Wrong
I have dismissed nothing.

If the gouge was slightly west of center and not quite 30 feet wide then it fits the description given by people who were there that day.

Agreed [except for slightly, column 6 [Spak#] is 36 feet west of center]

I have no problem with the idea that such major damage causing stresses within the structure and causing other internal damage within the structure that would assist in causing the initial failure that led to global progressive collapse.

There is nothing in the NIST report or elsewhere to support that belief.

I go back to the example of the garage you worked on. How would that garage react if you hooked your truck up to a chain attached to several studs(in a building not weakened by termites) and quickly ripped those studs out? You keep harping that the building could stand to lose a few strucural members but fail to understand that they were not simply removed, they were violently ripped out.

That would put stress on the entire structure as the studs pulled away. The stress would be the greatest on framing members closest to the studs being ripped out. The angle bracing would prevent any significant amount of stress from reaching the other end.

 

[Christopher7]

you are trying to find fault in the PRELIMINARY NIST report therefore implying that your ludicrous CD theory is the winning theory by default. Exactly how is this evidence?

I am pointing out that there is NO evidence to support the official hypothesis.

 

[jaydeehess]

Isn’t it just common sense that there would be a service elevator in WTC 7 and a stairwell adjacent to the elevator?

No. It would be common sense to find out if indeed there was a stairwell that fits the description of the one you propose. There wasn't. Look at the NIST appendix l MaGZ, or find any other reference to the layout of the building and you will simply not find any stairwell that has windows much less windows to the south face of the building.

 

[jaydeehess]

There is nothing in the NIST report or elsewhere to support that belief.

BECAUSE, this was a preliminary report

Quote:
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:...........

The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis,
would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse that included:....

The working hypothesis will be revised and updated as results of ongoing, more comprehensive analyses
become available.
........

There are many possible collapse scenarios that have been postulated in the preceding section. Many of
the scenarios will not produce the observed sequence of global collapse events and can be classified as
unlikely. Likely collapse scenarios will be identified through analyses that test the postulated phases of
collapse against observations. It is equally important to test scenarios that are not predicted to match the
observed data. The testing of the postulated collapse scenarios will be conducted through hand
calculations, simplified nonlinear thermal-structural analysis, and full nonlinear thermal analysis.

That would put stress on the entire structure as the studs pulled away. The stress would be the greatest on framing members closest to the studs being ripped out. The angle bracing would prevent any significant amount of stress from reaching the other end.

What angle bracing? I told you that this would be done without adding anything to the structure that was not already there. No garage I have been in has any angle bracing. No one went into WTC 7 and introduced extra angle bracing on Sept 10/01

 

[Christopher7]

I have no problem with the idea that such major damage causing stresses within the structure and causing other internal damage within the structure that would assist in causing the initial failure that led to global progressive collapse.

There is nothing in the NIST report or elsewhere to support that belief.

BECAUSE, this was a preliminary report

No, it is because the shear built into any bearing wall or column row would prevent significant stresses from being transfered to columns away from the damaged areas.
This is what NIST was pointing out in this statement.

[FONT=&quot]"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 sizable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"
[/FONT]

What angle bracing? I told you that this would be done without adding anything to the structure that was not already there*. No garage I have been in has any angle bracing**. No one went into WTC 7 and introduced extra angle bracing on Sept 10/01

You know nothing about framing.
In any bearing wall, it is necessary to have shear strength.
[the strength to stop a row of studs or columns from collapsing to the side along the length of the row]

l l l l l > / / / / / > _ _ _ _ _

The exterior walls of WTC 7 had moment frames on perimeter columns for shear strength.
The core columns had to have some form of shear strength, either cross bracing or shear walls.

*The angle bracing was part of the original frame.
**Then they have plywood sheathing or some other form of shear.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

I am pointing out that there is NO evidence to support the official hypothesis.

Chris,

YOU don't know what evidence NIST has at there disposal. Do you actually think the clips on Youtube and the images on conspiracy sites are the only evidence NIST is using to formulate their theories?

Damn it, man. Take a break!

 

[Christopher7]

Chris,

YOU don't know what evidence NIST has at there disposal.

We all know what evidence they had in June of 2004 because they published it.

They suspended the investigation for 2 1/3 years and started again, 5 years after 9/11/01.

This new evidence has become public in the last year:

There is no significant damage between column 8 and 11 [Spak#]
between floor 11 and 16.

The east half of the south side was observed from 11:30 a.m. until 2:30.m.
[FONT=&quot]Fire was seen on floor 12 on the south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke. [NIST Apx. L pg 24]
[the face below floor 12 was not covered by smoke]

[/FONT]The only damage reported to this area was:
“debris damage across ¼ width of the south face, starting several stories above the atrium, noted that the atrium glass [ground to floor 5] was still intact"


This video shows the gash between columns 5 and 6 [Spak] that "starts at the roof and extends for at least 5 or 10 floors" [pg 18],
actually extends 20 + floors.
This video also shows that there was NO damage east of center on the floors that can be seen.


They had two years, pictures and videos of the east half of the south face, and they interviewed over 100 witnesses.


The fire time line and progression is well documented with statements and pictures.


The damage to the east half of the south side is well documented.


Do you actually think they will discover significant damage to or near the area of the initiating event at this late date?

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Message removed. I'm done.

 

[twinstead]

Message removed. I'm done.

That's the best thing, believe me. I'm forever dubious of somebody whose only action when he believes he has rock-solid evidence that the NIST was a total whitewash and 911 was an inside job is to rant about it on a relatively obscure web forum.

No law enforcement agencies, no media outlets (can you say Pulitzer Prize?), not congressional inquires...just the Internet.

Like my mama always told me; beware of those who 'have it all figured out'.

 

[jaydeehess]

No, it is because the shear built into any bearing wall or column row would prevent significant stresses from being transfered to columns away from the damaged areas.
This is what NIST was pointing out in this statement.

[FONT=&quot]"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 sizable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"
[/FONT]

ONCE AGAIN you misstate what that means. I have pointed out at least twice now that the paragraph you are quoting is one in which NIST determines that the initiating failure did not originate with a perimeter failure and it says squat about the stresses that the original damage would be putting on the core columns. In fact NIST says absolutly nothing about details of the effect of the original damage to the building. That is a job that would better be taken on in a more in depth study.

Quote:
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:...........

The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis,
would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse that included:....

The working hypothesis will be revised and updated as results of ongoing, more comprehensive analyses
become available.........

There are many possible collapse scenarios that have been postulated in the preceding section. Many of
the scenarios will not produce the observed sequence of global collapse events and can be classified as
unlikely. Likely collapse scenarios will be identified through analyses that test the postulated phases of
collapse against observations. It is equally important to test scenarios that are not predicted to match the
observed data. The testing of the postulated collapse scenarios will be conducted through hand
calculations, simplified nonlinear thermal-structural analysis, and full nonlinear thermal analysis.

You know nothing about framing.
In any bearing wall, it is necessary to have shear strength.
[the strength to stop a row of studs or columns from collapsing to the side along the length of the row]

l l l l l > / / / / / > _ _ _ _ _

The exterior walls of WTC 7 had moment frames on perimeter columns for shear strength.
The core columns had to have some form of shear strength, either cross bracing or shear walls.

*The angle bracing was part of the original frame.
**Then they have plywood sheathing or some other form of shear.

Simple garages do not have angle bracing Chris. I have owned several and been in dozens more. In this area most people do not usually finish the interior walls of their garages and so the frame is readily visible. I have also helped build single story homes and cottages, the only angle bracing was for a bay window in one of them.

Yes the WTC 7 would have angle bracing designed to take loads that the designers would expect the building to ordinarily experience. The structure actually did remain standing despite severe physical damage being done to it when the towers collapsed. however, to state that there was no effect on the building other than extra loads on the perimeter frame (yes that is what you keep saying when you quote that passage from NIST) is absolute folly.

 

[Christopher7]

the paragraph you are quoting is one in which NIST determines that the initiating failure did not originate with a perimeter failure

Right

and it says squat about the stresses that the original damage would be putting on the core columns.

Right

The stress would be to the columns in the west half of the building and the lateral 'pull' would be to the south.

In fact NIST says absolutly nothing about details of the effect of the original damage to the building.

Wrong, they said:

[FONT=&quot]"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,"
[/FONT]

 

[jaydeehess]

Wrong, they said:

[FONT=&quot]"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,"
[/FONT]

,,,, and again this paragraph refers to perimeter columns. The columns known to have been damaged were perimeter columns, the most significant load to redistributed would be the load normally on those columns and that load is what is refered to as having been redistributed. However, some of the load would have to have been transfered to the core as floor pans sagged near the lost perimeter columns. Those floors were still attached at the core. This puts a cantilever load on the core at that point. The fact that there was a bulge indicates that a lot of shear stress was on the core.

So you now have perimeter and core systems that are already stressed more than normal. Despite this the structure held together as could well be expected, but then the fires reduced the ability of the structure to take those non-standard load patterns and still the structure stood for several hours before succumbing.

Is it unusual for the initial failure that precipitated collapse to have occured in the core of the building?
Yes and no. Yes, because that would be the area most affected by the heat as the fires moved about the building and because of the unigue structural system that held the upper portion of the building over the pre-existing Con-Ed building. No, because the perimeter is the area that was suffering the most due to the original damage and it might have been expected to have failed first. On the other hand the south perimeter IS a standard construction system from bottom to top.

 

[notheist]

Comparing a garage to a 47 sory building is ridiculous. The forces at WTC7 scale are so much greater.

Let say you could magically scale your garage up making all the wood and studs bigger in the process. You could go twice, three or four times bigger, maybe more but as you reached a certain scale you would find the garage would collapse under it's own weight. You would need to build in a different way, using stronger material like steel, reduce the weight and increase the number of supports to distribute that weight.

It's a big time misconception to think you can judge something that is built at one scale to something much bigger, even if they are exactly the same right down to the last scaled detail. As a kid you would have thought that building with Tinker Toys but it can't be done.

That is the reason computer modeling has to be done, real models even at half scale will not be accurate. And is the big reason the guys who build models of the WTC out do chicken wire are such a joke, their concept is all wrong.

The WTC building CRUMBLED the way they did because that is how something on that scale would fail. If you understand this concept the videos you see of the collapse make sense and don't require explosive to explain it. They CAN'T fall over, If you could grow to 1500 feet tall you would not be able to push them over, they would break apart under your hands. Expecting them to behave like a house or garage or even a 10 story building is down right silly.

 

[jaydeehess]

Comparing a garage to a 47 sory building is ridiculous. The forces at WTC7 scale are so much greater.

Let say you could magically scale your garage up making all the wood and studs bigger in the process. You could go twice, three or four times bigger, maybe more but as you reached a certain scale you would find the garage would collapse under it's own weight. You would need to build in a different way, using stronger material like steel, reduce the weight and increase the number of supports to distribute that weight.

It's a big time misconception to think you can judge something that is built at one scale to something much bigger, even if they are exactly the same right down to the last scaled detail. As a kid you would have thought that building with Tinker Toys but it can't be done.

That is the reason computer modeling has to be done, real models even at half scale will not be accurate. And is the big reason the guys who build models of the WTC out do chicken wire are such a joke, their concept is all wrong.

The WTC building CRUMBLED the way they did because that is how something on that scale would fail. If you understand this concept the videos you see of the collapse make sense and don't require explosive to explain it. They CAN'T fall over, If you could grow to 1500 feet tall you would not be able to push them over, they would break apart under your hands. Expecting them to behave like a house or garage or even a 10 story building is down right silly.

I certainly realize that all analogies will break down at some point. I cannot speak for Chris on that though.

I also realize that scaling up directly will allow mass to increase proportional to the cube of the increase in a linear dimension which is why doing so will cause something to collapse under its own weight. Thus, for example, there is a limit on the height of a purely masonry structure.

Personally I also accept the fact that the more massive an object the less likely that it will fall any direction other than straight down.

The garage analogy was used by Chris to explain that taking out a column or two will not cause a full collapse. In his senario however he simply strapped in an extra truss and then casually removed the studs he had to replace. I then pointed out that in WTC 7 no extra structural members were added prior to the collapse and that the columns were violently removed. Chris appears to not understand the difference or wishes to minimize the effect. Of course no one has ever suggested that the WTC 7 collapsed purely because of the physical damage done during the collapse of WTC 1&2.