10 story hole in WTC 7

[Architect]

Heiwa, that used to claim that steelwork couldn't fail in normal fire conditions? Great source, eh?

 

[Christopher7]

Are you saying the firemen on scene were lying?

As you well know, some firefighters, who could only see the south west corner, used terms like "fire on every floor" and "fully involved".
In actual fact, WTC 7 was not fully involved.
Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.
http://www.eastglenvillefd.com/_mgxroot/page_10845.html

The access ramp at the north east corner was never blocked by debris or fire.
There were NO fires on the first 6 floors, at any time, in the east half of WTC 7.
There was access to the 8th floor at noon when firefighters noted:
No fires on floor 8 and a cubicle fire on floor 7 at the west end.
There were fires that moved around the east half of WTC 7 on floors 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13.
This is what the fires looked like at around 4:00 p.m.

Remember, the POINT here is:
These fires were no where near hot enough to heat a column weighing 7.6 tons per floor, to over 1000[FONT=&quot]° [/FONT]F on 4 contiguous floors.

What were the floor areas for WTC7?

Core column 79 carried the largest floor area, about 2,000 sq.ft.

This is the current NIST hypothesis:
12-18-07
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Column 79 was near the north east corner of the building.
There was NO debris damage any where near column 79.
The 'stress' caused by the debris damage to the south west portion of WTC 7 would be taken up by the intervening framework.
There is no way the debris damage to the south west part of WTC 7 could cause 'structural damage' to column 79.

That leaves 'normal building fires' like the ones we see in the above picture to heat a column weighing 7.6 tons per floor, to over 1000[FONT=&quot]° [/FONT]F, on 4 contiguous floors.

You said my claim that steel loses strength at temps of 600 deg C was incorrect?

I agree with you that steel looses strength at 600[FONT=&quot]° [/FONT]C.
However, steel framework does not collapse in real world high rise fires,
or scientific tests at 800[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]-900[FONT=&quot]° [/FONT]C.

 

[funk de fino]

As you well know, some firefighters, who could only see the south west corner, used terms like "fire on every floor" and "fully involved".
In actual fact, WTC 7 was not fully involved.
Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.
http://www.eastglenvillefd.com/_mgxroot/page_10845.html

Is that all they claimed? Did they all say just that it was fully involved? Did any of them perhaps say they were huge fires? How many floors were on fire according to FEMA and the firemen witness' on site?

The access ramp at the north east corner was never blocked by debris or fire.
There were NO fires on the first 6 floors, at any time, in the east half of WTC 7.
There was access to the 8th floor at noon when firefighters noted:
No fires on floor 8 and a cubicle fire on floor 7 at the west end.
There were fires that moved around the east half of WTC 7 on floors 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13.
This is what the fires looked like at around 4:00 p.m.

On one side of the building? Sad, usual truther tactic showing north side omly?

Remember, the POINT here is:
These fires were no where near hot enough to heat a column weighing 7.6 tons per floor, to over 1000[FONT=&quot]° [/FONT]F on 4 contiguous floors.

No, you are incorrect. The fires were plenty hot you just dont know if they lasted a long enough time. False claim again C7.

Core column 79 carried the largest floor area, about 2,000 sq.ft.

I never asked that. I asked what was the area of each floor roughly.

This is the current NIST hypothesis:
12-18-07
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Glad you have flip flopped back to the correct hypothesis again

Column 79 was near the north east corner of the building.
There was NO debris damage any where near column 79.
The 'stress' caused by the debris damage to the south west portion of WTC 7 would be taken up by the intervening framework.
There is no way the debris damage to the south west part of WTC 7 could cause 'structural damage' to column 79.

IYO

That leaves 'normal building fires' like the ones we see in the above picture to heat a column weighing 7.6 tons per floor, to over 1000[FONT=&quot]° [/FONT]F, on 4 contiguous floors.

No, it does not

I agree with you that steel looses strength at 600[FONT=&quot]° [/FONT]C.

Why it take you this long to agree then?

However, steel framework does not collapse in real world high rise fires,
or scientific tests at 800[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]-900[FONT=&quot]° [/FONT]C.

What caused the bowing of the columns in WTC1&2 then? The fires were hotter than 800 to 900 deg C in WTC7.

What about my warehouse C7, you said steel frames cannot fail due to fire when tied together. Do you admit in this case it did?

Do you still claim Heiwa as your expert after reading his posts?

 

[Christopher7]

Is that all they claimed? Did they all say just that it was fully involved? Did any of them perhaps say they were huge fires? How many floors were on fire according to FEMA and the firemen witness' on site?

Using photographs and firefighters statements, NIST compiled a chronology of the fires in the east half of WTC 7.

NIST L 22–26
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12 burned west to east across the south side
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on floors 11 and 12 at SE corner, progressing north


About 3:00 p.m.
Fires on floors 7 and 12 along the north face
The fire on floor 12 spread in both directions, eventually reaching the NE corner

Sometime later, fires on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face
[FONT=&quot]

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out by this time
[NIST did not publish this photo]
[/FONT]

Remember, the POINT here is:
These fires were no where near hot enough to heat a column weighing 7.6 tons per floor, to over 1000[FONT=&quot]° [/FONT]F on 4 contiguous floors.

No, you are incorrect. The fires were plenty hot you just dont know if they lasted a long enough time.

The fires on floors 7 and 12 appeared on the north side about 3:00 p.m. [second picture above]
In the third picture, there are no fires on floors 9 and 11, so it was taken before 4:45.
The fire on floor 7 had burned out.
The fire on floor 8 appeared sometime after 3:00 p.m. and had burned out the offices on the right.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out the area to the east end and 20 windows to the west of where it had first appeared.
The fire on floor 13 appeared sometime after 3:00 p.m. and it had already burned out much of the east end.

The fires did NOT burn more than about an hour in any location.

The fires were hotter than 800 to 900 deg C in WTC7.

Source?

What about my warehouse C7, you said steel frames cannot fail due to fire when tied together.

Reade my posts again. I said there have been no collapses in high rise buildings.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Quote:
The fires were hotter than 800 to 900 deg C in WTC7.

Source?

The original source was jet fuel. The secondary source was everything in the office spaces which was flamable. ;-)

 

[funk de fino]

Using photographs and firefighters statements, NIST compiled a chronology of the fires in the east half of WTC 7.

NIST L 22–26
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12 burned west to east across the south side
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on floors 11 and 12 at SE corner, progressing north
[qimg]http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg[/qimg]

About 3:00 p.m.
Fires on floors 7 and 12 along the north face
The fire on floor 12 spread in both directions, eventually reaching the NE corner
[qimg]http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/3849/copyofnorthfacekj6.png[/qimg]

Sometime later, fires on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face
[FONT=&quot][qimg]http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg[/qimg]

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out by this time
[NIST did not publish this photo]
[/FONT]

This is not all that I asked for. This is from FEMA and is some of the available info. There are many witness accounts from firefighters stating that there were huge fires in the building yet you say they were not huge. Are you saying there are no quotes from firefighters on the day saying that the fires were huge, the building was fully involved, the building was engulfed or that it will collapse? Tell me what the average floor area of the building was C7? Was it about 40,000 ft?

How many floors do you think were on fire (dont just quote FEMA just state what you think from reading the report)?

The fires on floors 7 and 12 appeared on the north side about 3:00 p.m. [second picture above]
In the third picture, there are no fires on floors 9 and 11, so it was taken before 4:45.
The fire on floor 7 had burned out.
The fire on floor 8 appeared sometime after 3:00 p.m. and had burned out the offices on the right.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out the area to the east end and 20 windows to the west of where it had first appeared.
The fire on floor 13 appeared sometime after 3:00 p.m. and it had already burned out much of the east end.

The fires did NOT burn more than about an hour in any location.

Bolded above is incorrect. You know the fires in the SW corner burned for longer and there was smoke in most videos emanating from most floors on the south side and in most pictures of the south side. How long did they last?

Source?

We have recently posted many links that show normal office fires reach temps far higher than you said prior to being proved wrong. The fires in the WTC7 would easily have reached 1100 deg C. Tell me why they would not be as normal fires as far as temps go?

Reade my posts again. I said there have been no collapses in high rise buildings.

I have read them and you have claimed steel frames do not fail in fires. You did not qualify that with high rise. The 11 storey building in Egypt is low rise is it?

here are some of your statements

At temps seen in normal office/household fires, steel deforms but it does NOT collapse!

Oh really?

In buildings 8-14 stories, there has been axial shortening of columns and beam distortions but no floor collapses

Egypt building, 11 storey

If steel frame in high rise do not collapse or deform then what caused the bowing of the columns in WTC1&2?

If steel frames in high rise do not collapse or deform then why did the steel frame on the Windsor building collapse and deform?

Tell me why the steel framed building across the street from me collapsed despite having no loads above the columns and having the fire fought prior to being put out.

 

[jaydeehess]

The original source was jet fuel. The secondary source was everything in the office spaces which was flamable. ;-)

CSR, that's the towers. No jet fuel in WTC 7.

ETA: I didn't see the 'wink' at the end of your post, sorry.

 

[Christopher7]

This is not all that I asked for. This is from FEMA and is some of the available info.

Wrong
That fire chronology is from the NIST Apx. L report.
They interviewed over 100 firefighters and other witnesses
They had photographs to confirm the statements of the firefighters and other witnesses.

NIST issued an Approach Summary on 12-18-07.
After a year of reviewing the data, they determined that diesel fuel fires did not contribute to the initiating event.
They did not make any changes to the fire chronology.

There are many witness accounts from firefighters stating that there were huge fires in the building yet you say they were not huge. Are you saying there are no quotes from firefighters on the day saying that the fires were huge, the building was fully involved, the building was engulfed or that it will collapse?

No
I am simply quoting the NIST report and showing the photos of the fires in the east half of WTC 7.
A few firefighters overstated the size and extent of the fires.
That is not surprising, it was a traumatic experience.
The photographs clearly show the real size and extent of the fires.
NIST used statements of specific descriptions like "No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8" and "Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face." not generalities like "huge fires" or "fully involved".

Tell me what the average floor area of the building was C7? Was it about 40,000 ft?

I don't know. How is this relevant?

The fires on floors 7 and 12 appeared on the north side about 3:00 p.m. [second picture above]
In the third picture, there are no fires on floors 9 and 11, so it was taken before 4:45.
The fire on floor 7 had burned out.
The fire on floor 8 appeared sometime after 3:00 p.m. and had burned out the offices on the right.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out the area to the east end and 20 windows to the west of where it had first appeared.
The fire on floor 13 appeared sometime after 3:00 p.m. and it had already burned out much of the east end.

The fires did NOT burn more than about an hour in any location.

Bolded above is incorrect.[1] You know the fires in the SW corner burned for longer and there was smoke in most videos emanating from most floors on the south side and in most pictures of the south side. How long did they last?[2]

[1] "The fires" refers to the fires in the east half of WTC 7, not the smoke screen at the SW corner.

[2] The was smoke coming from the south side of the the SW corner rooms, on nearly every floor,
for 3 to 4 hours.

Whatever produced all that smoke, did not produce enough heat to break the windows on the west side of those rooms, on most floors.

Fires move from place to place, leaving burned out areas and broken windows.

The SW corner was a smoke screen imo.

We have recently posted many links that show normal office fires reach temps far higher than you said prior to being proved wrong. The fires in the WTC7 would easily have reached 1100 deg C. Tell me why they would not be as normal fires as far as temps go?

Normal building fires can burn as hot as 1100° F, NOT C.
The Cardington report noted that hotter fires consume the available fuel faster and the net result in BTU's produced is about the same as fires burning at lower temperatures for a longer period.

I have read them and you have claimed steel frames do not fail in fires. You did not qualify that with high rise.

I did not include the words 'high rise' in that statement. My bad, thank you for the correction.

The 11 storey building in Egypt is low rise is it?

11 story building collapse
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3432163.stm

The governor of Cairo said the building did not have planning permission for its 11 storeys - it had approval for just four floors.
Building collapses in Egypt are not uncommon, with buildings regulations sometimes ignored and unauthorised floors added, making existing structures unsafe.

If steel frames in high rise do not collapse or deform then why did the steel frame on the Windsor building collapse and deform?

The Windsor Plaza was NOT a steel frame building.
It was primarily a reinforced concrete frame with very light weight exterior columns on the upper 10 floors.
It cannot be compared to a steel frame high rise building with much larger framing members.

Tell me why the steel framed building across the street from me collapsed despite having no loads above the columns and having the fire fought prior to being put out.

It was NOT a high rise building.
The columns were much smaller and lighter than the columns in a high rise building.

If steel frame in high rise do not collapse or deform

I have noted that steel does deform but does not collapse in high rise building fires.

what caused the bowing of the columns in WTC1&2?

I don't know. NIST does not know.
Furthermore

NIST CANNOT explain how the Trade towers collapsed.

NIST reply to stj911truth
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
pg 3
NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers.
PG 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.
NIST’s analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation.



NIST is unable to explain how WTC 7 collapsed.
The current hypothesis does NOT include an explanation for the collapse of the north and south core column rows.


Six and a half years later, NIST cannot confirm the 'official story' for the collapse of The Trade Towers or building 7.


It is time for NIST to seriously look at the possibility of Controlled Demolition.

 

[jproudj]

I have noted that steel does deform but does not collapse in high rise building fires.

The steel of the madrid building was the only part of it to 'collapse' in the fire. What is your point? You're citing an example which clearly undermines your notion that steel doesn't 'collapse' in fire. Floor slabs in the upper, steel part of the madrid building failed due to the perimeter columns failing. The concrete parts halted this. Don't see what you are getting at.

 

[Christopher7]

Correction:

Quote jdh:
We have recently posted many links that show normal office fires reach temps far higher than you said prior to being proved wrong. The fires in the WTC7 would easily have reached 1100 deg C. Tell me why they would not be as normal fires as far as temps go?

Quote C7:
Normal building fires can burn as hot as 1100° F, NOT C.[wrong!]

NISTIR 7213
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf


The gas temperatures measured in the room were similar for both experiments prior to ventilation as each fire grew to an initial peak of approximately 800 °C (1470 °F).
Figure 31 shows that maximum temperatures were attained in about 8 minutes and dropped to 400 °C (735 °F) at 16 minutes.

Figure 32 - Natural Ventilation Room Temperatures pg 41 [43 on pg counter]
The fire reaches 800° C [1472°F] in about 4 minutes and drops off to 75° C [170°F] at 24 minutes.
When the window is opened at about 6 minutes, the fire jumps to between 900°C and 1000°C [1652°F - 1832°F] for about 4 minutes.

The test room had minimal fuel. [no books in bookcase, no papers in desk etc.]
'Normal building fires' could involve more fuel and last longer.

A fire would have to burn at 800-1000° C for a long time to heat a column weighing 7.6 tons per floor to 600° C.

 

[funk de fino]

Wrong
That fire chronology is from the NIST Apx. L report.
They interviewed over 100 firefighters and other witnesses
They had photographs to confirm the statements of the firefighters and other witnesses.

NIST issued an Approach Summary on 12-18-07.
After a year of reviewing the data, they determined that diesel fuel fires did not contribute to the initiating event.
They did not make any changes to the fire chronology.

How many floors? Just give me a number.

No
I am simply quoting the NIST report and showing the photos of the fires in the east half of WTC 7.
A few firefighters overstated the size and extent of the fires.
That is not surprising, it was a traumatic experience.
The photographs clearly show the real size and extent of the fires.
NIST used statements of specific descriptions like "No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8" and "Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face." not generalities like "huge fires" or "fully involved".

So the firefighters and comanders are lying or mistaken. Their exopert witness statements are unreliable. Did NIST not only use statements that were definite fires that were observed. If there was no-one in the building later in theday then how could all the fires have been observed?

Do you think there may have been more floors on fire when you take into consderation the videos of the south side andthe photos?

I don't know. How is this relevant?

Huge floor area, fires on floors huge? Norrmal floor areas in office buildings?

[1] "The fires" refers to the fires in the east half of WTC 7, not the smoke screen at the SW corner.

[2] The was smoke coming from the south side of the the SW corner rooms, on nearly every floor,
for 3 to 4 hours.

Whatever produced all that smoke, did not produce enough heat to break the windows on the west side of those rooms, on most floors.

Fires move from place to place, leaving burned out areas and broken windows.

The SW corner was a smoke screen imo.

So anything that destroys your false claims is faked? Good logical and rational stuff. There are videos of the flames from that corner you know. Maybe this is where the diesel was burned?

Normal building fires can burn as hot as 1100° F, NOT C.
The Cardington report noted that hotter fires consume the available fuel faster and the net result in BTU's produced is about the same as fires burning at lower temperatures for a longer period.

Wrong again, glad you correct it later. How many times does it takesomeone to get something into your head if it jars with your fantasy?

I did not include the words 'high rise' in that statement. My bad, thank you for the correction.

OK

11 story building collapse
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3432163.stm

The governor of Cairo said the building did not have planning permission for its 11 storeys - it had approval for just four floors.
Building collapses in Egypt are not uncommon, with buildings regulations sometimes ignored and unauthorised floors added, making existing structures unsafe.

What caused it to collapse? It was a fire. It was a highrise.

The Windsor Plaza was NOT a steel frame building.
It was primarily a reinforced concrete frame with very light weight exterior columns on the upper 10 floors.
It cannot be compared to a steel frame high rise building with much larger framing members.

The steel framed part collapsed. You compare the cardington test building and the Broadgate building to WTC7 yet I cannot compare the steel frame collapse to WTC7? Hypocritical much? I could say you cannot compare becuase they were low rise and that high rise are more likely to collapse. You cannot prove me wrong, especially as these buildings had no prior structural damage like WTC7

It was NOT a high rise building.
The columns were much smaller and lighter than the columns in a high rise building.

The building collapsed in a shorter fire than WTC7 with the same type of fuel but with no structural damage and less loads.

I have noted that steel does deform but does not collapse in high rise building fires.
I don't know. NIST does not know.
Furthermore

NIST CANNOT explain how the Trade towers collapsed.

NIST reply to stj911truth
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
pg 3
NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers.
PG 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.
NIST’s analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation.



NIST is unable to explain how WTC 7 collapsed.
The current hypothesis does NOT include an explanation for the collapse of the north and south core column rows.


Six and a half years later, NIST cannot confirm the 'official story' for the collapse of The Trade Towers or building 7.


It is time for NIST to seriously look at the possibility of Controlled Demolition.

Dishonest truther crap C7. They know why the columns on WTC1%2 bowed and they know what caused collapse initiation. They do not cover what happened after that in any detail because they do not have to.

NIST are looking at hypothetical blast scenarios and have found how much evidence?

 

[funk de fino]

*snipped loads of embarrassing backtracking*

A fire would have to burn at 800-1000° C for a long time to heat a column weighing 7.6 tons per floor to 600° C.

How long? Show us your figures.

 

[Christopher7]

How many floors? Just give me a number.

I have posted this information several times.
There were fires on floors 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 in the area of the initiating event.

So anything that destroys your false claims is faked? Good logical and rational stuff. There are videos of the flames from that corner you know. Maybe this is where the diesel was burned?

There was no diesel fuel above the 9th floor.

In the few offices where there were flames, the windows on the west face were broken from the heat as is the case in any fire.

In most of the SW corner offices, the 'fires' were not hot enough to break the windows on the west side even though they 'burned' for 3 to 4 hours.

A lot of smoke and no fire = smoke screen.

11 story building collapse
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3432163.stm

The governor of Cairo said the building did not have planning permission for its 11 storeys - it had approval for just four floors.
Building collapses in Egypt are not uncommon, with buildings regulations sometimes ignored and unauthorised floors added, making existing structures unsafe.

What caused it to collapse? It was a fire. It was a highrise.

It collapsed because someone added 7 stories on top of a building designed to hold up 4 stories.
If you have difficulty understanding this, you need professional help of some sort.

The steel framed part collapsed. You compare the cardington test building and the Broadgate building to WTC7 yet I cannot compare the steel frame collapse to WTC7?

The Windsor Plaza was a hybrid design.
The weight of the building was carried by the reinforced concrete frame.
The exterior box columns on the upper 10 stories weighed 18 pounds per lineal foot or 216 pounds per floor.

The column in question here weighed 1,267 pounds per lineal foot or 7.6 tons per floor.

They know why the columns on WTC1%2 bowed and they know what caused collapse initiation. They do not cover what happened after that in any detail because they do not have to.

Really? Why not?

Why is NIST still investigating how WTC 7 collapsed completely?

NIST are looking at hypothetical blast scenarios and have found how much evidence?

They are NOT looking into "hypothetical blast scenarios" in the Trade Towers.
They are NOT looking at the first 7 floors of WTC 7.
"[FONT=&quot]ARA will conduct nonlinear dynamic collapse analyses using LS-DYNA that include analyses of detailed full floor models and global models. The detailed floor analyses will determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46"
[/FONT] http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0186.htm

 

[pomeroo]

This thread is undoubtedly the biggest inside joke in the history of the JREF. Over a hundred pages of idiocy and the NIST Report hasn't even been released yet. A comic gold mine.

 

[Darth Rotor]

This thread is undoubtedly the biggest inside joke in the history of the JREF. Over a hundred pages of idiocy and the NIST Report hasn't even been released yet. A comic gold mine.

Glad we didn't lose you.

WB, pomeroo.

DR

 

[pomeroo]

Glad we didn't lose you.

WB, pomeroo.

DR

What would I do without this place?

 

[jaydeehess]

They are NOT looking into "hypothetical blast scenarios" in the Trade Towers.
They are NOT looking at the first 7 floors of WTC 7.
"[FONT=&quot]ARA will conduct nonlinear dynamic collapse analyses using LS-DYNA that include analyses of detailed full floor models and global models. The detailed floor analyses will determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46"
[/FONT] http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0186.htm

Typical misreading by you Chris. You are so very wedded to the idea that there is a giant conspiracy that you read into that statement what you wanted it to say.

ARA will conduct analyses, in collaboration with NIST, to determine the location and cause of the initiating event (i.e., the first component or group of components that failed) that led to global collapse of WTC 7. The analyses will determine the series of component and subsystem failures subsequent to the initiating event that led to global collapse that are consistent with observations from video and photographic records and other evidence. NIST will conduct all fire analysis of the building and analysis of the structural response to fires in-house and supply ARA initiating event data based on the in-house analyses.

ARA will conduct nonlinear dynamic collapse analyses using LS-DYNA that include analyses of detailed full floor models and global models. The detailed floor analyses will determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations), and aid the development of a more coarse model for use in the global analyses that captures essential behaviors and failure mechanisms. Two types of global analyses will be conducted. Sensitivity studies will be conducted to determine the response of WTC 7 to various scenarios of initiating events. Final analyses will support the determination of the location and cause of the initiating event, by incorporating data from NIST for simulating the initiating event, as well as the location and cause of subsequent failures that led to global collapse

Another way of reading this is that they will be looking into the collapse that NIST itself has stated began on the lower floors. The collapse began below 8th floor and thus the collapse caused the failure of floors 8 through 46.

The specific tasks that ARA will perform include:

Conduct detailed analyses of floor components and subsystems with appropriate steel and concrete constitutive models.
Determine the floor response to gravity loads for up to twenty initiating event scenarios
Develop an equivalent representation of the tenant floors for the global model.
Conduct global analysis under service gravity loads to determine the structural response of WTC 7 to different initiating events, including characterization of the load redistribution within the structural system for two states of damage from debris impact.
Conduct a sensitivity study to determine the global structural response to gravity loads for up to twenty initiating event scenarios
Conduct final global analyses that simulate up to five initiating events and the subsequent failure sequences up to the point of global instability.

We already know that hypothetical blast senarios will be part of the study and ARA will investigate 20 senarios. You assume that since this press release does not specifically state that blast senarios will be investigated , that they will not be. I do not jump to that conclusion. Instead I would assmue that one or more of those 20 senarios will include blast events since such has been spoken of by NIST in the past.
Once again you have shown that you are more than willing to use lack of evidence to reach conclusions that line up with your preconceived notion of a vast conspiracy.

 

[Christopher7]

Typical misreading by you Chris.

Yes, but not the way you have stated.

Here is the paragraph that comes before the one we have been discussing
Read carefully:

ARA will conduct analyses, in collaboration with NIST, to determine the location and cause of the initiating event …… consistent with observations from video and photographic records


NIST will conduct all fire analysis of the building and analysis of the structural response to fires in-house and supply ARA initiating event data based on the in-house analyses.


i.e. ARA will analyize the initiating event and floors 8 - 46
BUT
they will have only the fire analysis supplied by NIST to work with.
AND
There is nothing in this document about [FONT=&quot]hypothetical blast events[/FONT]. or CD.



A separate document refers to [FONT=&quot]hypothetical blast events.
[/FONT]Note that they only use the term "controlled demolition" when saying "NIST has found no evidence of a blast or CD event".
They are NOT considering CD as a possibility.
They tap dance around CD by using the phrase [FONT=&quot]"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]hypothetical blast events"
[/FONT] http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_award0539.htm

ARA (2) shall determine if there is any scenario* of a hypothetical blast event or events that could have occurred

*Hello ............ Here's a scenario: It was a CD
A CD is "[FONT=&quot]consistent with observations from video and photographic records"

[/FONT] hypothetical blast events are being considered for their contribution to the collapse of WTC 7

NIST is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse.

CD blast events do not "contribute to" or "play a roll in" collapse, they are the sole cause of collapse.

While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event,

They did not say they have found no evidence of CD, only that they have found no evidence of a blast or CD event.[no evidence of explosions]

NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical[1] blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure[2] of one or more critical elements[3] as a result of blast.

This is doublespeak.

[1] How [or why] do you "determine the magnitude of a hypothetical"?

[2] blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure.
CD blast events definitely lead to structural failure.

[3] of one or more critical elements
CD's cause all the critical elements to fail.

They are not considering CD as a possibility even though it fits the criteria:
"[FONT=&quot]consistent with observations from video and photographic records"

But then, what would you expect from an agency headed by an appointee of an administration that systematically distorts scientific documents?
[/FONT]

 

[jaydeehess]

ARA (2) shall determine if there is any scenario* of a hypothetical blast event or events that could have occurred

*Hello ............ Here's a scenario: It was a CD
A CD is "consistent with observations from video and photographic records"

The building fell down and all CD's fall down(if done properly) and that is the extent of a CD being 'consistent' with the video and photographic records of the collapse of WTC 7. However, there is no video or photographic record that is consistent with any blast event having occured. Since a blast event is required for CD then looking for a blast event, even one, would seem prudent and given that no record of one is in evidence then such a senario must be refered to as hypothetical.

They did not say they have found no evidence of CD, only that they have found no evidence of a blast or CD event.[no evidence of explosions]

Um, Chris, any CD would have to include a "blast event". You have the gall to charge NIST with doublespeak when you have just engaged in it yourself.

NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical[1] blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure[2] of one or more critical elements[3] as a result of blast.

This is doublespeak.

[1] How [or why] do you "determine the magnitude of a hypothetical"?

You determine how big an event would be required to do the job. This is exactly what CD companies do before loading explosives onto a column. They determine what size of charge would be needed and where to locate those charges. In the case of WTC 7 NIST must also take into account that no prep work would be done to the columns. Once again I also point out that there is no video or photographic record of any blast having taken place and thus all calculations in that regard are for a hypothetical senario of a blast event(s).

[2] blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure.
CD blast events definitely lead to structural failure.

Actually, no, they don't always, even in well planned CD's. In the case of WTC 7 one would consider a single blast event that sufficiently further weakened the structure such that the already weakened building could not arrest a local failure.

[3] of one or more critical elements
CD's cause all the critical elements to fail.

They are refering again to a blast that would fail one or a few critical members and the other damage to the building, impact and fire, causing other members to be unable to arrest the local failure.

Now there is nothing more to be discussed until the reports are in Chris!

 

[funk de fino]

I have posted this information several times.
There were fires on floors 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 in the area of the initiating event.

Inever asked about the Initiation event. I asked how many floors were on fire. Why do you have to dodge an answer to a simple question?

There was no diesel fuel above the 9th floor.

Did I say there was? There are firemen who think the black smoke seen at some points during the day came from the diesel.

In the few offices where there were flames, the windows on the west face were broken from the heat as is the case in any fire.

This goes back to my question about floor areas. Fires nearer the centre of the building would not have been visible but would have been producing smoke. The smoke was exiting the building somewhere. It looks like most was exiting the windows on the south side.

In most of the SW corner offices, the 'fires' were not hot enough to break the windows on the west side even though they 'burned' for 3 to 4 hours.

Plenty broken windows elswhere though eh?

A lot of smoke and no fire = smoke screen

And the need for the smokescreen would have been?

It collapsed because someone added 7 stories on top of a building designed to hold up 4 stories.
If you have difficulty understanding this, you need professional help of some sort.

Did it collapse immediately the floors were added to the 4 storeys? It collapsed when it caught fire. If you try to deny this then it is not me who needs professional help.

The Windsor Plaza was a hybrid design.
The weight of the building was carried by the reinforced concrete frame.
The exterior box columns on the upper 10 stories weighed 18 pounds per lineal foot or 216 pounds per floor.

The column in question here weighed 1,267 pounds per lineal foot or 7.6 tons per floor.

It was also a smaller fire

Really? Why not?

They were tasked to find out why the building failed to stop things like this happening again. Thye explained the initiation and then it is clear that global collapse ensues. Thye do not need to explain why the collapse ensued after the initiation because it is blatantly obvious except to stupid truthers. Dont be one C7

Why is NIST still investigating how WTC 7 collapsed completely?

NIST are still investigatin the initiation.

They are NOT looking into "hypothetical blast scenarios" in the Trade Towers.
They are NOT looking at the first 7 floors of WTC 7.
"[FONT=&quot]ARA will conduct nonlinear dynamic collapse analyses using LS-DYNA that include analyses of detailed full floor models and global models. The detailed floor analyses will determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46"
[/FONT] http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0186.htm

See JDH posts