Lets see if i got Sunder right on WTC7

[roundhead]

Lets Discuss Wtc7 shall we, specifically Sunder's comments regarding the Nist Study of the buildings demise.


Firstly, he seems to say it was caused by building contents fire. I give him credit for singling out his reason, and pointing to fire specifically as the cause.

As he has in fact(Nist) come to this conclusion, its apparent we can completely take structural damage from debris off the table(Other than the fires such debris started)

We also are now aware that had the sprinkler system worked, we could expect 7 would have survived 9/11.

We also now learn that the joint expansion failure that Sunder explains, is the first such failure known to man. And as such, this failure for the first time in history, brought down a steel framed skyscraper.

We also learn that because a volume of noise that would be expected of a controlled demolition wasnt observed/heard, it couldnt have been a CD.

We also learn it would likely take 100 pounds of thermate attached to a column(in fact the very failure column)to produce the result we saw.

We also learn that the thermite would have been expected to stick to this column to do its evil duty" It would have to keep pushing against the column" or something to that effect.

Are we OK so far??


For starters, where did Sunder reference the amount of thermite needed, how does he know it would or wouldnt "stick" to the column, and how does he know how much noise it would make.Did Nist perform varioUs tests with different attachmEnt methods to conclude attachmant was an issue as thermite was "eating through" a column?

Did Nist hire a company to set a test of a thermite cutter charge and determine how loud it was as a reference to compare.

Somebody kindly point me to the section of the Nist that deals with these studies.

 

[alexg]

We also learn that because a volume of noise that would be expected of a controlled demolition was observed/heard, it couldnt have been a CD.

I think you meant 'was not' instead of 'was', minor point.

Well, that's what he said. As loud as a gunshot from half a mile, IIRC, would be the minimal. Of course this sound would have had to have occured momentarily before the collapse started. The abscense of anything remotely like this seems to rule out an already fanciful hypothesis. As to that being his only reason for dismissing CD I guess we need to read the entire report.

 

[SlightlyAbovePar]

Honest question; when you go to the doctor for help, do you attempt to talk to him/her on equal terms?

Or, do you defer to their education, experience and on the job learning?

 

[CptColumbo]

Honest question; when you go to the doctor for help, do you attempt to talk to him/her on equal terms?

Or, do you defer to their education, experience and on the job learning?

Doctors? I just ask people on the NPH forum. They seem to know how to perform open heart surgery.

 

[roundhead]

Boy, i hope i dont find that adjacent fire hydrants were online that morning. If they were, its very resonable to assume(after listening to Sunder)they could have quite likely with enough hoses have saved the building.

I feel sorry for poor Silverstein, having lost this building when water could have saved it.Darn.

I guess, as there was no water to apply to the building, it was in the end the correct decision to allow it to burn.
Pity fire trucks and hydrants couldnt have been brought to bear. A wonderful and expensive building to have to sacrifice, not to mention all the lost contents and records. A shame.

 

[WildCat]

Why are you spamming the forum with a new thread when we already have a thread on this which you refuse to participate in?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

We also now learn that the joint expansion failure that Sunder explains, is the first such failure known to man.

Do you mean connection failures failing due to thermal expansion? WTF?

Factors contributing to WTC 7’s collapse included:

• the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings
• significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building
• connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads
• and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

Note: Format modified for clarity

Can you please point out what you've seen that I missed? I've highlighted the relevant points. In no part of the context have I spotted your claim?

I am gathering you took your response from this statement NIST makes regarding code improvement recommendations:

Does this mean there are hundreds or thousands of unsafe tall buildings with long span supports that must be retrofitted in some way? How would you retrofit a building to prevent this problem?
While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, NIST strongly urges building owners, operators, and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of structural systems. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following characteristics: long-span floor systems, connections that cannot accommodate thermal effects, floor framing that induces asymmetric forces on girders, and composite floor systems, whose shear studs could fail due to differential thermal expansion (i.e., heat-induced expansion of material at different rates). Engineers should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.

Several existing, emerging, or even anticipated capabilities could have helped prevent the collapse of WTC 7. The degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated. Possible options for developing cost-effective fixes include:

• More robust connections and framing systems to better resist effects of thermal expansion on the structural system.
• Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse. Current model building codes do not require that buildings be designed to resist progressive collapse.
• Better thermal insulation (i.e., reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel and minimize both thermal expansion and weakening effects. Insulation has been used to protect steel strength, but it could be used to maintain a lower temperature in the steel framing to limit thermal expansion.
• Improved compartmentation in tenant areas to limit the spread of fires.
• Thermally resistant window assemblies to limit breakage, reduce air supply and retard fire growth.

NIST is recommending that building standards and codes be strengthened beyond their current intent to achieve life safety to prevent structural collapse even during infrequent building fires like those in WTC 7 when sprinklers do not function, do not exist, or are overwhelmed by fire.

More specifically I gather you got your impression from the bullet sentence I highlighted. Which they placed in context earlier in the FAQ they released briefing the report. If so, I am curious as to how you read it that way...

And as such, this failure for the first time in history, brought down a steel framed skyscraper.

Again... are you claiming that NIST concluded that the connections failed due solely to thermal expansion? Again can you point out specifically where they state this in the NIST FAQ that you read for this information? Have you read the rest of the report yet? I could swear they mentioned that the connection failures that occured were due to expansion of the beams imparting lateral loads to them. And the matter was magnified by the long floor spans.

 

[The Big Dog]

Boy, i hope i dont find that adjacent fire hydrants were online that morning. If they were, its very resonable to assume(after listening to Sunder)they could have quite likely with enough hoses have saved the building.

I feel sorry for poor Silverstein, having lost this building when water could have saved it.Darn.

I guess, as there was no water to apply to the building, it was in the end the correct decision to allow it to burn.
Pity fire trucks and hydrants couldnt have been brought to bear. A wonderful and expensive building to have to sacrifice, not to mention all the lost contents and records. A shame.

Hey Truther, in your grossly misguided attempt to be a smart ass, let me remind you of one thing:

The Fire department of New York lost 343 Men that day. Those "fire trucks and hydrants" you so frivolously discuss did not have the manpower to operate.

You call the loss of contents and records a shame??

Pathetic, Truther.

FAIL

 

[mrbaracuda]

We also now learn that the joint expansion failure that Sunder explains, is the first such failure known to man. And as such, this failure for the first time in history, brought down a steel framed skyscraper.

Not really. I understood it as the first time it occured to such a degree it brought the whole structure down.

For starters, where did Sunder reference the amount of thermite needed, how does he know it would or wouldnt "stick" to the column, and how does he know how much noise it would make.Did Nist perform varioUs tests with different attachmEnt methods to conclude attachmant was an issue as thermite was "eating through" a column?

Did Nist hire a company to set a test of a thermite cutter charge and determine how loud it was as a reference to compare.

Somebody kindly point me to the section of the Nist that deals with these studies.

Why don't you do what you should do?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Hey Truther, in your grossly misguided attempt to be a smart ass, let me remind you of one thing:

The Fire department of New York lost 343 Men that day. Those "fire trucks and hydrants" you so frivolously discuss did not have the manpower to operate.

You call the loss of contents and records a shame??

Pathetic, Truther.

FAIL

Many who make those kinds statements make me quest ion the moral capacity these people have. Clearly it can't be much...

 

[Dave Rogers]

Boy, i hope i dont find that adjacent fire hydrants were online that morning. If they were, its very resonable to assume(after listening to Sunder)they could have quite likely with enough hoses have saved the building.

It's been well-known for a long time that the water main to lower Manhattan was ruptured by the collapse of WTC1, and that the firefighters at WTC7 couldn't raise enough pressure to get a jet of water across the road, let alone any reasonable way up a 47 storey tower. Perhaps you'd like to check this with research of your own.

Dave

 

[applecorped]

AAH!

 

[CptColumbo]

AAH!

Warning: trying to think down to the level of a "twoofer" may cause painful brain farts.

 

[pomeroo]

Boy, i hope i dont find that adjacent fire hydrants were online that morning. If they were, its very resonable to assume(after listening to Sunder)they could have quite likely with enough hoses have saved the building.

I feel sorry for poor Silverstein, having lost this building when water could have saved it.Darn.

I guess, as there was no water to apply to the building, it was in the end the correct decision to allow it to burn.
Pity fire trucks and hydrants couldnt have been brought to bear. A wonderful and expensive building to have to sacrifice, not to mention all the lost contents and records. A shame.

Well, unlike most of your fellow liars, you are open about accusing the FDNY of complicity in a monstrous and pointless crime. Naturally, your evidence is nonexistent.
As for Silverstein, it is common knowledge that evil Jooos are eager to destroy their own buildings when they can lose tons of money on the deal.

 

[johnny karate]

I came into this thread expecting to see some science and math offered up by roundhead disproving NIST's collapse theory. But then I remembered he's a Truther.

 

[roundhead]

Hey Truther, in your grossly misguided attempt to be a smart ass, let me remind you of one thing:

The Fire department of New York lost 343 Men that day. Those "fire trucks and hydrants" you so frivolously discuss did not have the manpower to operate.

You call the loss of contents and records a shame??

Pathetic, Truther.

FAIL

I pray for those firefighters who gave they're lives that day, doing theyre duty, and then some.

As i do feel this way, it greatly bothers me these building were imploded while guys were in them(with nary a clue they were going to come down, they went in fully aware they were going to battle only fires, not demolitions)

It also bothers me that testimony they gave, immediately after the event, regarding they're actions and opinions of that day, was held up in courts for years, and viciously not allowed to see the light of day till peristant victims groups forced it out. You worship this behavior i dont, a stark difference.If these testimonies fit the official lie, they would have been on the front pages immediately after they were given, instead of held in a dark cellar for years by lawsuits.

It also bothers me that a number of firefighters as witnesses were snubbed, ignored, and marginalized when trying to give testimony before the 9/11 commision.

Yes, i care about them greatly, and anybody who allows the above truths to go unadressed is surely not on they're side.

The firefighters sure got behind Guliani's presidential bid, didnt they.


You sould truly be ashamed of your comments that i addressed.

 

[johnny karate]

roundhead, I defy you to produce a single member of the FDNY that supports the notion of an inside job. Your sophistry and innuendoes do nothing to change the fact that you can't.

 

[kookbreaker]

And yet not one New York Firefighter takes you guys seriously.

BTW, you think the Firefighters would put up with any real evidence of explosives being suppressed? I doubt it. So for all your mock 'concern' you are essentially calling them cowards.

I know people who work for the water department who won't put up with potential changes in the concrete used in the sewers they probably won't see in their working lifetime, yet somehow thousands of firefighters keep silent over hundreds of of their brothers being killed.

Yeah. Right.

 

[The Big Dog]

I pray.... hypocritical demonstrably false BS snipped

Save your hypocrisy for your Storm Front Boards. Your smartass first post about "fire trucks and hydrants" not being used makes everything in your second post a freaking lie.

And for god sakes, learn the damn difference between "they are" and "their."

 

[GeeMack]

Lets see if i got Sunder right on WTC7

[...]

Nope, you didn't.