WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[ozeco41]

Well the view I would have is that the 911 TM is dedicated to proving that some malefeasence was in play that actually, with malice of forethought, put in place mechanisms by which it was assured that all three Manhattan buildings were fully and completely demolished on Sept 11 and that one section of the Pentagon also suffered such a fate; and moreover that this was deliberately masked by aircraft impacts (whether real or faked), and in the specific case of WTC 7 masked by the resultant impact of WTC 2 & 1 debris...

Whilst I comprehend your comments they shift the context from the one in which I made my post. The original setting was a suggestion that enik get professional help with an extensive FE Analysis. So my comments were made in that setting and are not directly relevant to your new suggestions.

However - responding to what you have now said:

...Thus the objective would be to look at ways to :
a) Show that explosvies or thermitic materials were IN PLAY and CAUSED the destructions in the fashion observed. This could be in two parts, first demonstrate through computer modelling that it is possible to do so, thus getting a range for the size and number of charges required to have the structures fail as observed, and second to demonstrate that these materials were actually used...

That is sort of a middle ground approach out of three which are:
A) The truther preferred approach because it will circle for ever which is raise detailed anomalies and reverse burden of proof challenge debunkers to disprove them.. The deepest rabbit burrow we are down on that ploy is in the several dust threads. Madly following truthers. (Plus enjoying the science before O and IK have a shot at me )
B) Middle ground - yours being one of a broad range - either computer modelling of possible mechanisms or planning how demolition can be achieved. Various combinations. But still a lot of effort. Why choose the track of hard work when truther claims can be defeated more easily?
C) Declare the truther claim of CD not made out. Since they have never put forward a claim worthy of consideration why waste energy chasing their nonsense of partial claims or trolling based on those partial claims.

I prefer option "C)" for my own Occam's Razor approach - alternatively called "laziness". Whilst I spent hours rebutting (and occasionally confirming) masses of details through 2007-8-9 my current view is "Why spend energy trying to answer non existent claims?" A much more energy efficient stance.

Plus a lot of it was new back in 2007-9 - it is a long time now since we saw anything new and repetition gets boring.

...b) Run experiments or models to falsify the NIST scenarios. This is really not as important since these will either show NIST to be correct within a margin of error, or they will show NIST to have been off by a significant margin. Obviously showing that NIST was correct does nothing for the TM premise, but even if NIST is shown to be wildly in error it still does not directly bolster the premise of CD, and indirectly its barely significant to that end...

That is a good summary. NIST is irrelevant to claims of "There was CD." For the simple reason that the buildings came down on 9/11. It is ludicrous to suggest as truthers do implicitly that if NIST got it wrong either the buildings did not fall OR there was CD. More generally it is idiotic to suggest that a reams of paper and text report written years later can change the facts of physical history of an actual event. What is astonishing is how few debunkers call on those simple facts. Must enjoy playing truthers at their own games. Definitely an "alligators/swamps" scenario.

...Oddly enough, over the past 11 years what little real work has been done by the TM has focused on "b"

Sure - either as dishonest tactics or simply lack of intelligent reasoning skill they keep the objectives of "CD or Not?" and "NIST was wrong" confused. For a sustained example of objective fogging look at Tony Sz's posts on the first Col 79 thread. It was the first foundation tactic of truther false logic I identified way back in the start of my Internet Forumming career. I resolved to never rely on NIST findings and never confuse the two objectives - thereby offering at least some defence against the commonest truther dishonesties.

 

[pgimeno]

You are the expert, where would you place it, hypothetically? I would guess at the splices that connect the columns together..

How do you get freefall out of that? Any explanation?

 

[ozeco41]

Side note...I'm building my model of column 79, which is a W14 x 750 jumbo steel section with 2" x 26" or 3" x 26" side plates. My question for our truther forum members...how can you get thermite to burn/cut thru 3" and 4" thick structural steel plate in a quick and effective manner?

...You are the expert, where would you place it, hypothetically? I would guess at the splices that connect the columns together..

MHM's suggestion was about cutting a plate - he did not place it in context of WTC collapse.

Cutting a single column standing in isolation is plausible as per MHM's statement. It is AFAIK at the limit of what has been achieved.

However your post seems to shift the concept into a WTC collapse of building scenario. If that is your intention the problems multiply many times.

However let's look at that WTC scenario as briefly as I can whilst doing the topic some justice. First a disclaimer - as the military demolitions engineer using thermXte would not be my preferred method of bringing down the towers. I would prefer HE and have no doubt the demolition could be achieved BUT....

Back in 2007 when I first looked at the challenge I considered it from the perspective of "How could I being down the Twins if the General tasked me as the officer in charge of the job". Standard military approach.

There are several scenarios which I will briefly work through so that I have the basis of responding to your scenario using thermxte against a WTC Tower.

Scenario 1: If the task was simply bring down the Tower(s) without regard to either discovery or "collateral damage" the simple answer is "blow the guts out of a lot of columns at near ground level". Stock standard military approach including erring well on the side of "too much explosives" given that the normal scenario for military demolitions is "must work first time because the Enemy will soon over-run us". (That concept usually expressed in language which is too robust for this forum. Expressions like "blowing the faeces out of it" come to mind.)

Scenario 2: Try to mimic what actually happend on 9/11 scenario. So it looks like 9/11 - it wouldn't sound like 9/11. Yes I think it could be done - with a new tower and benefit of hindsight. The need being to drop the top block and initiate ROOSD. You would do it easier if there was no plane crash to complicate the scene BUT losing most of the help from concentrated fires. Matching the floor truss initiation of perimeter pull in would probably be the trickiest bit. And you lose similarity to actual 9/11 collapse if you take the planes out...there are several variant scenarios there actually.

Scenario 3: Same as Scenario 2 but do it without sound evidence of explosives being use. Beyond me. Also without the preparations being noticed. also beyond me. Also leaving no post event evidence - beyond me too but we are getting into fantasy land v reality issues here.

So now let's see what are the additional barriers to using thermXte.

The main problem from my perspective would be cutting columns so that they did not return to an axial load bearing capability. The obvious problem is that a standard explosive cutting of a column requires a "cutter" and a "Kicker" and for the size of members in WTC those would both be large charges. I no longer have access to the standard military "Pamphlets" of how to do it BUT the members in WTC would be off the scale of standard pre-determined techniques.

AND thermXte is not usable as a kicker. And presumably we are using thermXte because it is silent. So assisting with an explosive kicker would spoil the silence and we may as well use explosive cutters and kickers. It would be easier and more guaranteeable than untested thermXte methods and if you are going to have noise then more noise wont do any harm.

So the big problem with thermxte is - if you can cut a vertical column with thermite how do you stop the top part of the column simply dropping back into axial load transferring contact? and flexure of the structural frame simply redistributing the loads?

The options seem to be to use thermXte to melt out a complete length of column - a far bigger job than has ever been tried on a vertical column as far as I am aware. What other mechanism could use thermXte to make two cuts and push the intervening bit out of line??? Even if you make hundreds of separate column cuts there is no process to ensure column end misalignment. And that misalignment was critical in the actual 9/11 collapses.

So can we achieve collapse by cutting horizontal beams? For a WTC Twin tower building it is conceivable. Cut a lot of floor joists and drop the floors for one or two sides of the building and over (at a guess) four floors. Leaving one floor in the middle for which you cut the floor joist lower chords. That causes sag which drags the perimeter columns inwards over a three - four storey height - creates eccentric loading (more pedantically bent strut loading I suppose) That starts a cascade failure BUT how do you ensure it cascades. A lot more thought needed. And you still need the "invisible thermXte" to do it.

It is possibly "doable" but not without being seen.

And most of it wouldn't work for WTC7 - no way to use OOS floor structure to cause a cascade nor any way of initiating simple ROOSD.

So, for what they are worth, there are some initial thoughts.

Warts and all. Tear it to shreds. Anyone.

In summary:

Cutting a single column standing in isolation is plausible as per MHM's statement. I'll leave that one for MHM to respond. It is AFAIK at the limit of what has been achieved.

Turning to complete structure demolitions. Does anyone know how they got that infamous tower to tilt? It is the only example I am aware of of a thermite created demolition.

I don't see use of thermXte as possible let alone practical for demolition of a WTC style tower even if we had open go at a new tower.

I'm even less convinced for a WTC7 clone tower.

Fitting it into the actual event of 9/11 is beyond my engineering imagination once we add in "Must not be visible"; "Has to work in with an unknown point of aircraft impact"; "And an unknown range of fire"; "must leave no evidence behind"......etc etc

 

[Miragememories]

"As I have said, not one, single solitary conspiracy spewer has EVER provided a paper showing HOW thermite or explosives achieved what we all see in the videos and pictures.

Why not?

11 years of zilch."

"Because speculation serves no useful purpose.

Discovering the truth no matter where it leads does serve a very useful purpose.

When the Japanese were nuked twice at the end of WWII, I am sure they had no idea what happened. They could not imagine what form of advanced munitions technology had been used on them. Speculation about this new technology would have been both futile and pointless.

Finding unexpected evidence of nanothermite in the WTC residue is akin to finding unexpected radiation throughout the remains of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We know it should not be there, but without a full investigation, we have no way of knowing how it came to be."

"You are aware that both Japan and the Nazis had nuclear bomb programs, no?"

You are aware that research is not the same as development, production and testing---right?

MM

 

[LSSBB]

You are aware that research is not the same as development, production and testing---right?

MM

The residue found by your Heroic Truther scientists has no mechanism explained for how it could have brought the towers down, given all available evidence. In all likelyhood that residue is just paint anyway... which if it is, fully fits a mechanism by which the towers could have collapsed.

In the case of WTC7, that mechanism is heat from fires causing steel members to expand, breaking at least one critical connection and leading to catastrophic collapse.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Question for the group...where is a good place to dump pictures and PDF's, so I can link to this forum?

 

[LSSBB]

Question for the group...where is a good place to dump pictures and PDF's, so I can link to this forum?

In your User CP there is a section for Albums for pictures. After you post the pictures there you can copy the URL or the URL with the IMG tags included (the better option) then post those in here. IMG tags will put the picture inline with the text.

 

[ozeco41]

Question for the group...where is a good place to dump pictures and PDF's, so I can link to this forum?

I cannot help. For historic reasons of "a boy playing with toys" I run my own mail and web server. (Look at my avatar picture - hobby business) So when I needed graphics to support my 9/11 forums activities I simply loaded them on the web server. I've even got the folders linked onto my workstations. One of these "cloudy" days I may return to the fold and do what the rest of the sensible IT using world does.

 

[pgimeno]

For images, besides what LSSBB has suggested (which is probably the best solution unless you run out of quota), there are many free services: Tinypic, Imgur, Photobucket, Imageshack, Inky... Just google 'image hosting'.

I don't know if the forum admits hosting PDFs. If it doesn't, or if it does and you run out of quota, none of the above will help. I know femr2 is using a free hosting service that I've examined in past and that might help, it's called ucoz.com.

As Ozeco, I have my own host. If anything else fails, you can PM me and I will give you my email address, so you can email me files that I can host.

 

[ozeco41]

As Ozeco, I have my own host.

My earlier comment "I cannot help" looks a bit ungenerous in hindsight. I was meaning that I could not remember the names of the hosting services. PLUS I considered making the offer to host stuff here but my setup may not be permanent. Plus it is ADSL - and ADSL1, I'm allegedly remote from the main backbones of the telecommunication network so the upload link was quite slow. Not so now but, as I said, it may not be permanent.

 

[jaydeehess]

ozeco, as a non-expert, complete novice, at explosive or incindiary use, my take would be to simply replicate the mechcanisms of collapse identified by NIST but use therm?te only to ensure enough heat on the systems that need to fail.

For example, and staying somewhat relevent to this thread, in WTC7 all we need do is fail the girder at or near col 79. So ensure it fails by using thermite to severely weaken it few inchs north of the col. This need not be a full cut through but enough to ensure it fails, though going by the " blow it to feces" mantra " maybe include enough to sever it and its little dog too. This is our initiating failure in collapse, its gotts work! Use thermite on the same girder for 4 floors below as well but only cut the bottom flange so that while these floors will not fail due to the cut but will be unable to withstand the impact of the higher floor when it does fail.In addition use thermite to partially cut through the north end of the cantilever trusses over the old con-ed structure and use thermite to heat weaken the other core columns west of col 79 and partiall cut the south sde of col 79 at the point you want it to buckle(halfway between initial floor failure and ground perhaps)

Order goes like this
First of allin placing all charges , protect them from impact and fire to ensure that the collapse of wtc1 doesn't wipe them out. This is aided by the fact that we are working on the north half of the structure.

Once fires have contributed a great deal of smoke and are known to have savaged large areas of floor space(one such area is that near our initiating event, a fire that is ensured to occur by some means) ignite all preweakening charges on lower floor girders, trusses and columns.

Just as those charges are burning out set off the girder severing charge.

Girder fails in very similar fashion as it would if thermal beam expansion were to push it off its seat.
Floor fails and debris drops thus failing several lower floors which is ensured by our silent preweakening of their girders.
Col 79 loses lateral sipport over several floors thus subjecting it to buckling forces and it then fails at the point where we have preweakened it (similar to cutting a notch in a tree)
Colunm 79 pulls down all remaing floors attached to it including the penthouse mech space containing hevay dense equipment which now falls 47 storeys taking out more floors and initiating adjacent core col failures. Loads are now going up on all other north side columns and this load also affects those cantilever trusses, more load plus loss of east side bracing causes a progressive failure of north side core cols, cantilever trusses snap at preweakened location near the core, cantilever trusses now move north and downward pulling entire north face down and tilting it slightly southward at the top as the now free bottom floors move north.
South side has already suffered some significant structural losses due to impacts but is also being pushed to the south at the top of the building by the tilting north side, south side fails and begins collapsing. East of col 79 we now have a section of the structure that does not include the older con ed building but it has no "core" of its own , only that which remains of the entire biilding core, it falls north and east.


How does that sound?

 

[enik]

Why? I don't have an alternative collapse theory other than what NIST states. I'm not arguing that NIST was wrong. I do not claim that thermite or explosives were used to bring the 3 building down.

But you could do one, if you felt the NIST was wrong?

 

[jaydeehess]

But you could do one, if you felt the NIST was wrong?

You aren't interested in providing a scenario detailing how it actually collapsed which differs from that which NIST put forth?

 

[enik]

Side note...I'm building my model of column 79, which is a W14 x 750 jumbo steel section with 2" x 26" or 3" x 26" side plates. My question for our truther forum members...how can you get thermite to burn/cut thru 3" and 4" thick structural steel plate in a quick and effective manner?

You are the expert, where would you place it, hypothetically? I would guess at the splices that connect the columns together.

How do you get freefall out of that? Any explanation?

Where do you get freefall from all of this?

 

[enik]

You aren't interested in providing a scenario detailing how it actually collapsed which differs from that which NIST put forth?

I cannot put forth a scenario for WTC 7 supported by FEA at this time.

 

[LSSBB]

Where do you get freefall from all of this?

Freefall and over freefall can occur, once the interior collapse cascades out to the exterior.

 

[jaydeehess]

I cannot put forth a scenario for WTC 7 supported by FEA at this time.

But when you do it will be for one in which structural members fail due to placed explosive or therm?te charges?

Surely you aren't expecting Gamolon to do such work for you, right?

 

[ozeco41]

ozeco, as a non-expert, complete novice, at explosive or incindiary use, my take would be to simply replicate the mechcanisms of collapse identified by NIST but use therm?te only to ensure enough heat on the systems that need to fail.

[EDIT - An impressive detailed plan

]

How does that sound?

Your detailed plan is as good as I have seen proposed for any of the towers. I doubt that I can comment on it at the detail level to add anything of value.

So let me raise some of the "higher order" contextual issues.

The first is "are we trying to put forward a plan to demolish a clone of WTC7 OR a plausible explanation as to how thermXte assisted CD could have been part of the actual 9/11 collapse"?

Why does that matter? Simple really - let's take the second option first - "it could have been part of the real 9/11 collapse". For the real situation on 9/11 we know two facts:
a) The real original WTC7 fell on 9/11; AND
b) There was no CD.
Therefore your planned addition of thermXte use is redundant. The building collapsed without needing thermXte. Now this is the point where the truthers call "foul" - you haven't proved "No CD." I won't derail into their false logic and false logical process. We can re-address these hypotheses if ever a truther puts forward a viable pro CD hypothesis. (11+ years and counting on that one )

Taking the second option - mimic WTC7 collapses with a clone building OR an hypothetical discussion of a clone building or WTC7 as it was on 8/11. You need to start extensive fires and ensure that they are not fought plus all the logistic issues of putting "charges" and initiation devices in place ensuring they are not destroyed or fired out of sequence and presumably that the operators doing the work don't fry. The brilliant light would still be evident and the characteristic evidence of thermXte use still there. So yes your type of plan could work. It would be obvious before during and afterwards. And there are a few "logistic and security" issues to be overcome. The biggest problem could well be getting a fire to do what is needed to complement your demo plans. Then, if you do get it to work in your favour why add the termXte demo aspect - we already know that fire can cause collapse for WTC7. So if you can plan and control the fire the thermXte part of the plan reduces itself reductio ad notnedium...(Sorry bout that pig latin. )

So good thinking in your plan. It goes to the level of detail I would accept as a starting point in any truther hypothesis that I would consider worthy of debate.

Remember though that it is only the technical "how to do it" part of the plan.

Complicated though that technical component of plan would need to be it is not the biggest barrier to "Prove CD was possible".

The killer aspects for any hypothesis of CD at WTC on 9/11 - WTC1, WTRC2 and/or WTC7 - are (IMNSHO):
1) You couldn't have done it without getting caught:
a) Installing;
b) obvious during collapse; and
c) evidence left behind.

2) It would not be technically possible to merge the demolition assistance with the initiating impacts and fires. Lots of reasons - how would you know where the plane would impact probably the "umbrella" issue for the "Twin Towers". (I had a lot of fun debating that one in former years. )

3) We have more than enough understanding of the actual collapses to know that demolition assistance was not needed. So if there had been demolition what would it have achieved??


Thanks for the opportunity to reminisce - these issues resolved back in 2007-8-9 in my experience and long before the trivia of today's trolling of trivia.

 

[ozeco41]

Where do you get freefall from all of this?

I cannot put forth a scenario for WTC 7 supported by FEA at this time.

But when you do it will be for one in which structural members fail due to placed explosive or therm?te charges?...

It is not clear why enik questions free fall or what relationship that aspect has to "cannot...[support] by FEA at this time"

FEA is an analytical tool and a very good one. And enik is very good at using it. But it is only a tool and the world does not end if we cannot use that tool.

Certainly inability to apply FEA does not change the observable facts about WTC7 collapse which include:
1) WTC7 collapsed on 9/11;
2) Portions of that collapse have been measured at accelerations around "G";
3) There is some evidence that portions of WTC 7 - the NW corner façade - exceeded "G" for a brief period of time;

Plus a couple of general facts of basic physics and "free body" analyses:
4) Falling near or at or exceeding "g" is not solely associated with CD despite a common "truther meme"; AND
5) There is nothing mysterious or surprising that, when a building collapses at around "G" acceleration some portions of the falling mass may exceed "G" for brief periods.

And none of the above depend on whether or not we have an FEA analysis of some related portions of the structure.

FEA is a tool. Not a magic wand.

 

[jaydeehess]

11 years and counting indeed and yet I, a definite non-truther manages to toss that off on an ereader while sitting in a hospital bed.

Makes me wonder what Gage does to justify $80K / year

Yes, my above scenario would only work towards demonstrating purely technical ability to bring a WTC7 structure down in similar fashion to the observed actual WTC7but would not address your other points at all
imho the easiest of those to overcome would be the "obvious" therm?te burning, light, smoke, smell. I included protection of the charges from heat of the office fires by which I envisioned four layers of drywall plus a sheet tin outer layer and fire spray on insulation. This could be st back from the burn so that little or no light and smoke escapes this volume until global collapse begins and with huge amounts of dust now billowing forth these are further masked

The sticky wicket imho is how to implement all of this with absolute no one discovering your placement of these charges and their control systems, nor leaving dozens of heavy structural members with definitive evidence of having been subjected to thermitic materials since in the real WTC7 no such physical evidence exists.

As to the redundancy of therm?te , this is where the TM would have to refute the possibility that fire alone could supply the required damage. In this the only one to attempt it afaik, is Chris Sarns who's methods and reasonings are simplistic to the nth degree and greatly flawed.

In addition my scenario above stands only concerning WTC7 and would require much reworking for each of the towers and take into account aircraft impacts, and would not apply at all to the Pentagon or Flight 93

So, in short, after eleventy years the TM has not managed to conduct any experimentation or modeling to support their premises nor managed to conviningly refute the scenarios that include only aircraft impacts, and/or office fires.