Perhaps but maybe not. I found the NIST report not credible and can't find a good reason for it.
CYA is a pretty common practice in agencies.
Total Building Collapse from a Single Column Failure
- Thread starter JSanderO
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc collapse wtc7
Perhaps but maybe not. I found the NIST report not credible and can't find a good reason for it.
CYA is a pretty common practice in agencies.
ozeco41
Philosopher
A good point Sander - but why fall back on unsupported accusations over something you don't find credible?
Sure is. But your arguments would be far more secure if built on factual evidence rather than innuendo of speculation.
Your hypothesis for WTC collapse initiation is plausible. Run with that. I've lost count of the number of times I have commended it as plausible.
Others have falsely attacked the NIST girder hypothesis - T Sz and enik in this sub-forum and in a lengthy thread. (Where, IIRC, someone showed them the error of their ways.
)Why not accept that technically NISTs hypothesis is plausible? Doing so doesn't detract from the credibility or status of your explanation. A "plausible hypothesis" - I've not seen it rebutted so far and I won't even go there myself.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
You doesn't have to call me Mr Hess, you can call me JD, you can call me JDH, you can call me jay
Neither am I . I am an electronic (broadcast) tech who happened to take a few years of a B.Sc. in physics before changing to a course of study that would result in a job. I also don't trust anyone who issues a report and controls the evidence and the data... and releases conveniently that which supports their conclusion. Jeez that sounds like Szamboti and Chandler. Don't it?
,,, and i would agree IF anyone could show any evidence that there were fires in the area of TT1. However so far , nothing.
All depend on evidence that there were these fires. Give me something to indicate a cause for TT1 to fail before col 79.
I'd need a bit more than 'coulda.
I balk at paranoia
I balk at paranoia
Come on. The Ffs were in that very area and reported no fires. FFs not seeing a fuel fed fire,,, you owe me a break.
NIST did not do the recovery of the fuel. you are assuming that those who did know of the NIST report and are keeping silent knowing that their recovery is being misused?
I balk at paranoia
.
I balk at paranoia
I asked, if TT1 failed first should not the visual evidence that appears first at the rooftop , the hole that developed, not be further west in the vicinity of 73&76?
but that knee bone is not connected to a phantom limb. (diesel fires)
I don't see it but that's just my dumb opinion.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
It should be noted that even IF one could prove that in 2013 there are structural deficiencies that were present in the 1970's design of WTC 7, that one will need a heck of good reason to bring criminal charges against anyone for an event that occured 3 decades later and as an indirect but very connected result of an event that was not forseeable in the '70s.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
IF things progressed as JSO believes them to have, I would have expected to see the screen wall on the rooftop go first. Then progression westwards while the EPH went down.
As it is the EPH went down first, then screen wall , then westward progression.
,,,,, in both cases then, followed by global collapse.
As it is the EPH went down first, then screen wall , then westward progression.
,,,,, in both cases then, followed by global collapse.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
to paraphrase a Tom Cruise line "show me da diesel fuel fires"
JDH,
I am not the least bit paranoid. I find the single column leading to global collapse not credible. Then I tried to put forth what seems to match the evidence I am aware of... and I am not a structural nor forensic engineer nor physicist... and I assumed that those who did the investigation MIGHT have either made mistakes or simply got into a CYA thing. I have no idea. In fact I don't care. If the structural design was contributory, which is my speculation... then those associated with those decisions should be held accountable for them.
We've seen many disasters/catastrophes which involved engineering decisions at some point.. 3 Mile Island, Katrina, BP Deep Water Horizon, Bhopal, Fukushima, even Sandy... and no engineer or decision maker of a overwhelmed system was held accountable. Is this a pattern or am I paranoid?
I feel that the twin towers' design contributed to their demise... this was not mentioned and no one was held accountable. All we heard was how strong they were.... not how vulnerable they were. Is this part of the pattern or am I paranoid?
I am not the least bit paranoid. I find the single column leading to global collapse not credible. Then I tried to put forth what seems to match the evidence I am aware of... and I am not a structural nor forensic engineer nor physicist... and I assumed that those who did the investigation MIGHT have either made mistakes or simply got into a CYA thing. I have no idea. In fact I don't care. If the structural design was contributory, which is my speculation... then those associated with those decisions should be held accountable for them.
We've seen many disasters/catastrophes which involved engineering decisions at some point.. 3 Mile Island, Katrina, BP Deep Water Horizon, Bhopal, Fukushima, even Sandy... and no engineer or decision maker of a overwhelmed system was held accountable. Is this a pattern or am I paranoid?
I feel that the twin towers' design contributed to their demise... this was not mentioned and no one was held accountable. All we heard was how strong they were.... not how vulnerable they were. Is this part of the pattern or am I paranoid?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Oh, there is little dispute from me that all three structures, that's two designs that had intricacies that contributed to their demise as a result of a situation that was not foreseen nor could be designed against.
wrt 7WTC, had there not been substantial impact damage and loss of water pressure, and hundreds of dead firefighters, the fires in that structure would have been extinguished rather quickly. If you were to try to hold anyone accountable for design flaws that led to global collapse you would be fighting those facts. You would have a hard time getting a conviction.
wrt the towers you are again trying to say that they should have taken in to account the possibility that suicide hijackers would ram large jets as fast as they could, into them.
That said, I do believe that the special fire codes afforded to the Port Authority also contributed to the results and one could try to hold the persons who allowed that accountable, but, then you have to show that the regular codes in effect in NYC at the time would have made a substantial difference.
But that is all a very different topic than what occurred when to effect global collapse.
wrt 7WTC, had there not been substantial impact damage and loss of water pressure, and hundreds of dead firefighters, the fires in that structure would have been extinguished rather quickly. If you were to try to hold anyone accountable for design flaws that led to global collapse you would be fighting those facts. You would have a hard time getting a conviction.
wrt the towers you are again trying to say that they should have taken in to account the possibility that suicide hijackers would ram large jets as fast as they could, into them.
That said, I do believe that the special fire codes afforded to the Port Authority also contributed to the results and one could try to hold the persons who allowed that accountable, but, then you have to show that the regular codes in effect in NYC at the time would have made a substantial difference.
But that is all a very different topic than what occurred when to effect global collapse.
ozeco41
Philosopher
That is a strawman Sander. The single column was part of a mechanism. No way did it "lead" - neither your hypothesis nor NIST's claims "Col 79 'leading'". I have already commented on why "caused" is a poor word for one element of a cascade failure.
What competent person HERE is saying that the structural design was NOT contributory? Another strawman.
Several quantum leaps of poor logic there Sander. As I have explained many times.
Who do you think should be jailed for Katrina? God for causing it? (that would set an interesting legal precedent.
) The Bureau of Meteorology for forecasting it (or whatever you call the agency in the US)? Stop posting innuendos which go no where. Lying by innuendo is a common truther trait and it is sad to see you relying on foggy innuendo. WHO do you want punished for Katrina?First step you could start by being truthful with your analogies posted here and elsewhere - separate your analogies into:
A) Those which involved past decisions which were wrong by the standards, codes or laws of the time (this is not WTC!!);
B) Those which involved past decisions which were NOT WRONG by the standards, codes or laws of the time; (WTC goes in this group.) OR
C) Those which involve decisions which were of current relevance at the time of the resulting event which are the only ones which MAY have potential for legal sanction.. (This is not WTC!!)
We know that is what you feel AND "we" don't disagree with the fact. No point you keep preaching to the choir.
Mmmm... Have you ever tried to state specifically what "they" should be held accountable for?? I'll bet you cannot specify without the silliness becoming crystal clear.
Half truths told out of context Sander. Once again why not build your argument on TRUE FACTS and not rely on inferred untruths? Few around here will fall for lies by innuendo and I certainly won't.
what pattern do you refer to??? "Paranoid" is a bad word but you certainly hold some strong views that are unsupported. The technical ones prima facie reasonable but still no more than speculation driven by your intense dislike of NIST. The "accountability" stuff is ethically obnoxious in the manner you state it. Changing the rules and applying them retrospectively leading to criminal sanctions is a serious ethical step in any civilised community.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Spot On!!
And, even if we address the "relaxations", the argument doesn't change.
It's far too subtle an issue for debate in the setting of this thread BUT "relaxations" and "special factors consideration" are very much legitimate parts of the framework of laws/codes/regulations. They are not automatically 'wrong' despite the wish of truthers and those following truther styles of "logic" that such variances should be regarded as wrong.
So true. Changing the beast of burden part way through traversal of a watercourse seems to be endemic.
That is a strawman Sander. The single column was part of a mechanism. No way did it "lead" - neither your hypothesis nor NIST's claims "Col 79 'leading'". I have already commented on why "caused" is a poor word for one element of a cascade failure. What competent person HERE is saying that the structural design was NOT contributory? Another strawman. Several quantum leaps of poor logic there Sander. As I have explained many times.
Who do you think should be jailed for Katrina? God for causing it? (that would set an interesting legal precedent.
First step you could start by being truthful with your analogies posted here and elsewhere - separate your analogies into:
A) Those which involved past decisions which were wrong by the standards, codes or laws of the time (this is not WTC!!);
B) Those which involved past decisions which were NOT WRONG by the standards, codes or laws of the time; (WTC goes in this group.) OR
C) Those which involve decisions which were of current relevance at the time of the resulting event which are the only ones which MAY have potential for legal sanction.. (This is not WTC!!)
We know that is what you feel AND "we" don't disagree with the fact. No point you keep preaching to the choir.
Mmmm... Have you ever tried to state specifically what "they" should be held accountable for?? I'll bet you cannot specify without the silliness becoming crystal clear.
Half truths told out of context Sander. Once again why not build your argument on TRUE FACTS and not rely on inferred untruths? Few around here will fall for lies by innuendo and I certainly won't.
what pattern do you refer to??? "Paranoid" is a bad word but you certainly hold some strong views that are unsupported. The technical ones prima facie reasonable but still no more than speculation driven by your intense dislike of NIST. The "accountability" stuff is ethically obnoxious in the manner you state it. Changing the rules and applying them retrospectively leading to criminal sanctions is a serious ethical step in any civilised community.
No... the single column was presented as the proximate cause of the global collapse by NIST. Sure the EPH was above several columns including 79. Yea we know that for the EPH to drop something below went first.
But there were movements BEFORE the EPH drop such as the e-w swaying so it's MORE than likely that the column 79 failure was a bit down the chain not the proximate cause. There I said it and nothing wrong with the logic.
No it's not a strawman argument to say the structural design was contributory. The structural design WAS responsible for the SEQUENCE of the progression of failures which BECAME a global collapse. I am not stating the obvious.. when a building falls the structure fails... Well DUH... we know that. I am saying THIS structure was contributory to it falling from fires as it did.
Cause may be a poor word because one can go back in time. I could say AA11 caused 7WTC to collapse. Yes FIRE caused the collapse because it weakened the frame.
I am not saying anyone should be jailed for Katrina. But the Army Corps of Engineers did a bang up job on the Mississippi levees. Or maybe you've forgotten?
"Federal judge blasts Army Corps of Engineers for failing to protect New Orleanians during Katrina"
http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/04/federal_judge_blasts_army_corp.html
I don't lie either. You need to be disabused of that presto.
My assertions are not about breaking laws or codes but about something a bit different. I question the wisdom of building one of the largest office buildings in the US over top of a power station when a more appropriate and less challenging site was right across the street at the time. I question the wisdom of siting 30,000 gal of diesel fueled stored right next to a power station which are know to occasionally explode. Perhaps you are unaware of the Con Ed sub station that blew up when Sandy hit because.... well... you can look it up and see the bone headed PERFECTLY LEGAL AND TO CODE decisions (wisdom) of the engineering. Or what happened at Bellevue Hospital... similar engineering competence.
Silliness?
I am not making a legal brief. I'm pointing out that people/corps/interest made out as a result of decisions which were in my opinion ultimately poor engineering and planning. VERY poor. Criminal? I doubt it, but maybe. Hard to tell. I like to use the word bone headed or incompetent and there was some self serving in the mix too.
Did the engineers who designed the Pinto gas tank act unlawfully when the did the engineering? Or was that just an example of bone headed dumb engineering?
Product liability IS an actionable legal tort.
I am building my argument on facts... the design of the building and the movements and the damage seen in the debris and the witness to explosions and so on...
No I can't show a fire destroyed X connection on TT#1 any more than NIST can show girder walk off at column 79. You buy their evidence of that?
Cite the actual "True facts" which support that... not innuendo and assertion.
I do not have an intense dislike of NIST. I have an aversion to those who are disingenuous and not truthful and are incompetent. I see NIST failed the people in explaining what happened. It's accountability I seek.
Same for BP Deep Water, TEPCO, and so forth.
I know... ◊◊◊◊ happens.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
WHY , if TT1 failed first, did this manifest itself at the rooftop , with a hole opening at the location of column79 rather than 73 or 76?
You say the visual evidence supports a TT1 first failure yet I do not see that. I see that a null hypothesis would indicate col /79 failed first being supported by the visual evidence.
You say there were diesel fuel fires at the fifth floor, yet cannot show any evidence whatsoever that there were such fires. NIST investigated diesel fuel fire possibility and came to the same conclusion in that respect as did FEMA earlier.
NIST also describes the fires proximate to the region where they postulate col 79 failure. Thus while they can show fire in the area where they theorize first failure, you cannot do the same for your theory.
In short you cannot show any specific evidence to indicate that TT1 failed, then everything else, other than that 'it could be if......', and cannot show any evidence of the 'ifs'. Yet on this you wish to show design flaw of TT1 caused global collapse and therefore someone should be held responsible.
You say the visual evidence supports a TT1 first failure yet I do not see that. I see that a null hypothesis would indicate col /79 failed first being supported by the visual evidence.
You say there were diesel fuel fires at the fifth floor, yet cannot show any evidence whatsoever that there were such fires. NIST investigated diesel fuel fire possibility and came to the same conclusion in that respect as did FEMA earlier.
NIST also describes the fires proximate to the region where they postulate col 79 failure. Thus while they can show fire in the area where they theorize first failure, you cannot do the same for your theory.
In short you cannot show any specific evidence to indicate that TT1 failed, then everything else, other than that 'it could be if......', and cannot show any evidence of the 'ifs'. Yet on this you wish to show design flaw of TT1 caused global collapse and therefore someone should be held responsible.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Bhopal, Pinto, Katrina,Deep Water Horizon all may or may not demonstrate bad behavior, and,,,,, that means nothing wrt whether or not similar bad decisions caused/led to/allowed for the global collapse of WTC7 or the towers.
Your adherence to such an idea is very similar to the CT meme that gov't lies and gov't carries out false flag attacks and therefore 911 was a lie and false flag. I don't care for it when they do it and prefer evidence, I dislike it as much when a non-truther does.
Your adherence to such an idea is very similar to the CT meme that gov't lies and gov't carries out false flag attacks and therefore 911 was a lie and false flag. I don't care for it when they do it and prefer evidence, I dislike it as much when a non-truther does.
911KookDetector
Thinker
OP,
I'm not a structural engineer by any means, but I saw you mention the Con Ed substation in one of your posts. I believe NIST asserts that the pre-existing substation had limited effect on global collapse, however the paper that I typically refer to seems to differ.
25. Did the electrical substation beneath WTC 7 play a role in the fires or collapse?
No. There is no evidence that the electric substation contributed to the fires in WTC 7. The electrical substation continued working until 4:33 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. Alarms at the substation were monitored, and there were no signals except for one event early in the day. No smoke was observed emanating from the substation.
Special elements of the building's construction—namely trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs, which were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—also did not play a significant role in the collapse.
(From Gilsanz and Ng)
WTC 7’s properties
of load transfer at floors 5 and 7, when combined
with the failure of column 79, led to a horizontal
collapse progression, which in turn ultimately
resulted in global collapse.
http://www.structuremag.org/archives/2007-11/sf-wtc7-gilsanz-nov07.pdf
"Fire significantly weakened structural steel and caused the failure of ONE OR MORE columns on the eastern side..."
From what I have understood the failure of these columns led to the sinking of the east mechanical penthouse. But what signifies that it was solely because of Column 79?
(I'll reiterate- I'm not an engineer so I may be way off, but OP's post seems to bring up some questions)
I'm not a structural engineer by any means, but I saw you mention the Con Ed substation in one of your posts. I believe NIST asserts that the pre-existing substation had limited effect on global collapse, however the paper that I typically refer to seems to differ.
25. Did the electrical substation beneath WTC 7 play a role in the fires or collapse?
No. There is no evidence that the electric substation contributed to the fires in WTC 7. The electrical substation continued working until 4:33 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. Alarms at the substation were monitored, and there were no signals except for one event early in the day. No smoke was observed emanating from the substation.
Special elements of the building's construction—namely trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs, which were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—also did not play a significant role in the collapse.
(From Gilsanz and Ng)
WTC 7’s properties
of load transfer at floors 5 and 7, when combined
with the failure of column 79, led to a horizontal
collapse progression, which in turn ultimately
resulted in global collapse.
http://www.structuremag.org/archives/2007-11/sf-wtc7-gilsanz-nov07.pdf
"Fire significantly weakened structural steel and caused the failure of ONE OR MORE columns on the eastern side..."
From what I have understood the failure of these columns led to the sinking of the east mechanical penthouse. But what signifies that it was solely because of Column 79?
(I'll reiterate- I'm not an engineer so I may be way off, but OP's post seems to bring up some questions)
ozeco41
Philosopher
Most of them are not valid analogies - hence my challenge to Sander to separate out the ones which are valid. Plus challenge what he means by accountability - because I'm certain his malfeasance or misfeasance argument will disappear if he dares to clarify what he means.
My expectations are even stricter. (Remember my age - ozeco41 - I was brought up on a diet of "Cowboy Films" where the goodies were always pure and used no tricks. and the baddies were "naughty". I don't care when truthers lie or engage in trickery. Debunkers should play fair.
)So I expect debunkers to use sound argument, sound logic and to stay away from debating trickery.
I've written two responses to Sander's evasive nonsense at post #71. I'll sleep on it before I decide whether to post either one.
Last edited:
Have a look at the roof of 7WTC. Do you think a single column supported the EPH?
You don't see how the TT#1 and TT#2 could have been and probably WERE involved in collapse of the EPH and the collapse of TT#3 was involved in the WPH?
I know you can't see it so it didn't happen... right?
Attachments
No it's not. It's an assessment of the AFTER incident reports. I don't support the false flag or the inside job or CD. I am referring to the official technical explanation AFTER the fact in all the referenced and instant case.
I've stated that I feel the AFTER incident reports appear to avoid assigning any responsibility to engineering "features" which failed to perform as expected. The engineering work done years before may have been adequate, legal in that it met or exceeded minimum regulatory requirements.... but the point is that once the ◊◊◊◊ hit the fan we now know that both regulatory and engineering "professionals" failed to protect the public and property. We're supposed to learn how to make safer structures from these events.
9/11 was supposed to produce recommendations to mitigate such disasters in the future. Fine. Did you see anything about the nature of field connections or use of long span bar joists or building over a power station or forbidding the storage of fuel in next to a power station?
What were the recs? Improved fire protection? Properly encased emergency egress. That's it? Those are the sum total of the lessons learned????
Thanks a lot NIST!
Some contradictions in your citations.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you don't look you can't see. If you refuse to look you will not see.
Con Ed issued an a report of LOSING 13 - 13.8 KV feeds at 9am.... Explain that please.
What exploded in 7 wtc at the time of the AA11 collision into 1WTC?
What exploded on floor 6 or so when Jennings and Hess tried to use the East stairs just to the east of the Sub Station which happened to be between TT#1 and TT#2 and in close proximity to electric switch gear, back up power generators and diesel day tanks... destroying the stair structure below them when they were a level 7?
Last edited: