10 story hole in WTC 7

[funk de fino]

NIST L-11
The 7th Floor slab consisted of 5 in. of 3,500 psi normal weight concrete on top of 3 in., 18 gage
composite metal deck, for a total thickness of 8 in. The slab was reinforced with #5 rebars at 6 in. oncenter
in both directions. Regions of the slab on the south side of the building had 8 in. of formed
concrete without any metal deck. In these regions two layers of steel reinforcing were provided (see
Fig. L–13).

NIST L-50
• [FONT=&quot]H2.7 Collapse Progresses: [/FONT]The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of
columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east. The general absence of the Floor 7 slab and
braced frames around the center core column line, due to the presence of elevators shafts,
creates a more likely scenario for the simultaneous lateral displacement of the center core
columns without similarly displacing other core columns. The possible result is a failure of
all the columns at their splices, as shown in Fig. L–49.

The horizontal collapse is based on this FALSE statement.

The slab on floor 7 was thicker and stronger than on any other floor.

Where does it claim it was not?

 

[Christopher7]

Where does it claim it was not?

You missed the point.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Floor 7 plan is on pg L-11
Floor plan of 8 to 45. [Same as floor 7]
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8526/wtc7fl8edit4pp2.png

NIST L-50
The text lists columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 but Figure L-49 does not include column 62 which is surrounded by a 8” slab with 2 layers of rebar.
The scenario ignores the girders connecting the center core columns to the north and south core columns, and the vertical framing necessary for the elevators.
Columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 would have to rip away from all this framing or bring it along.

NIST acknowledges that:
H2.6 Collapse Does Not Progress: The Floor 7 slab may fail at adjacent columns prior to imposing lateral displacements sufficient to fail the columns or their splices.

Finally,
H2.7 Collapse Progresses: The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east. The general absence of the Floor 7 slab and braced frames around the center core column line, due to the presence of elevators shafts, creates a more likely scenario for the simultaneous lateral displacement of the center core columns
***without similarly displacing other core columns.***

Even if the center row of core columns were to fail in this manner, the building would not collapse.
They offer NO explanation as to how the rest of the core columns failed.

 

[jaydeehess]

That is a description of the events after the IE.

Are you acknowledging that there would be lateral stresses on the floor slabs which would put lateral stresses on the columns?

If so then the temp of the columns need not get to 1000 deg before failure. That figure is the temp at which the columns would fail under normal loading (ie. all vertical, on long axis centerline) which would have been the situation in, for instance, the Cardington tests.

The structure of the WTC 7 had been compromised prior to the fires taking hold. Fire on one floor twists a column or sags a floor span altering yet more the placement of loads on columns, then fire spreads to the same region on an adjacent or nearby floor and does the same there, then it happens again. The columns are already hot due to the conduction of heat from the first floors involved and would take less time to reach high temps. Add to this a lateral stress (that had to this point NOT resulted in any lateral displacement) and you have a recipe for failure.

It is quite obvious that no single thing caused the initial fialure but rather a combination of insults to the structure each of which altered the cohesive structural system of the building and at some point there was not enough left to prevent that initial column failure.
THEN the penthouse and all the machinery fell through the building causing more damage along the way and impacting the 7th floor slab possibly causing damage to the nearby columns under the cantilever trusses. If one cantilever truss fails then the next would have to take the load, if it cannot then it too fails and so on in quick succession and the central core of the building falls in leaving the original Con-ed building with the weight of 40 stories on it. It crushes from the south to north(the perimeter columns are still intact) the perimeter columns attached to the north side of the cantilever trusses are being twisted(trusses forced down at the core) and of the perimeter columns they fail first causing the pereimeter to drop 7 stories with little resistence. A 7 storey drop gives the perimeter enough velocity to have more than enough momentum to continue collapse especially given that it has all been pulled slightly to the south (for the most part, where the cantilever section was - western portion) and is not falling straight down.

 

[Christopher7]

That is a description of the events after the IE.
Are you acknowledging that there would be lateral stresses on the floor slabs which would put lateral stresses on the columns?

There would be vertical stress on the floor slabs. [gravity]
This would put lateral stress on all the surrounding columns until the floor gave way.
If columns 79, 80 and/or 81 failed, and a vertical collapse ensued, and the debris piled up on floor 7, the stress would be to the exterior columns as well as the core columns.
The 5 core columns in question were attached to other core columns with girders in in all 4 directions.
Also note that the core columns have splices every 2 floors.
That means the N and S girders would have to break loose from all 5 columns on 3 floors while the E-W girders held. [except the W side of column 62 which was surrounded by a slab]
15 column splices would also have to fail and the vertical framing necessary for the elevators would have to bend.

The floor beams would rip loose from the girders long before all that happened.

 

[jaydeehess]

There would be vertical stress on the floor slabs. [gravity]

ahh, once again you deny that the missing SW corner and some perimeter columns would have any effect whatsoever on the core. that having floor spans hanging in cantilever fashion would pull at the core columns in the slightest.
Tell ya what Chris, take a 2 X 4 by 8 ft long and hold it horizontal in front of you, and tell me if you have to brace yourself from tipping forward. That's a lateral force Chris.

Then there is the possibility of core damage as evidenced by the ejected elevators which would result in another change in forces on other columns, then there is fire damage to floor spans causing sagging and pulling on columns, then there is fire damage to columns on fire floors which would be cumulative as adjacent floors are also involved.

IE happens and results in damage to the east end of the core braced frame which just happens to support loads above the Con-Ed building

 

[Christopher7]

ahh, once again you deny that the missing SW corner and some perimeter columns would have any effect whatsoever on the core. that having floor spans hanging in cantilever fashion would pull at the core columns in the slightest.

No, I said that the debris damage had no significant effect on the area of the initiating event.
There would be lateral pull to the south and east on the core columns.

Then there is the possibility of core damage as evidenced by the ejected elevators which would result in another change in forces on other columns,

True

then there is fire damage to floor spans causing sagging and pulling on columns, then there is fire damage to columns on fire floors which would be cumulative as adjacent floors are also involved.

There was nothing much to burn in the core area. The only Floor area was between the elevator banks and around column 62.

IE happens and results in damage to the east end of the core braced frame which just happens to support loads above the Con-Ed building

True

The current discussion is about the floor beams ripping loose from the core girders, rather than pulling 5 columns sideways.

There is an additional problem with the hypothesis:
NIST does not attempt to explain how the failure of the central core columns led to the failure of the rest of the core columns.

 

[Norseman]

There is an additional problem with the hypothesis:
NIST does not attempt to explain how the failure of the central core columns led to the failure of the rest of the core columns.

Do I need to point out that NIST has not yet published their final report, the only thing they have published is an interim report describing their working hypnotizes. You have no reason to complain yet.

 

[Christopher7]

Do I need to point out that NIST has not yet published their final report, the only thing they have published is an interim report describing their working hypnotizes. You have no reason to complain yet.

People here should stop saying that WTC7 collapsed due to DD/F until the final report comes out.

The working hypothesis does not include a possible explanation for how all the core columns collapsed.

 

[LashL]

People here should stop saying that WTC7 collapsed due to DD/F until the final report comes out.

The working hypothesis does not include a possible explanation for how all the core columns collapsed.

If that's the criteria that you wish to utilize, then tinhatters (such as yourself) should likewise stop saying that WTC7 collapsed due to controlled demolition until the final report comes out.

The working hypothesis, the previously published interim report, and reality all make it clear that there is no evidence whatsoever to support your demolition fantasy.

 

[Gravy]

Chris Sarns, AKA Chrstopher7, on not making hasty judgments:

I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see.

You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
And i don't need a engineer to tell me what i can see with my own eyes.

An investigation ENDS with a hypothesis, NIST STARTED with one

We don't need a paper trail. There's enough video and documentry evidence to convict Cheney et al of high treason!

Yes, the photographic evidence is enough for me, and any reasonible person.

This case will be tired in the court of public opinion and the positive social effect will be a major house cleaning in Washington. (God willing)

That JERK in the White house OFFed 3000 people.

This issue will be decided right here on the web, the only place where the truth can be spread.

We don't need another investigation. A little common sense will do.

The MOLTEN METAL could have ONLY be caused by THERMATE.

The fires were NOT near hot enough to melt steel.
Thermate is made to melt steel and is therefore a possibility.
There are NO other possibilities.
End of story!

there were NO FIRES anywhere in the building EXCEPT WHERE THE PLANES HIT.

What doesn't make sence is putting fireproofing on steel box beams that are 2 ft. by 4 1/2 ft. and 4 in. thick. Why fireproof something that is fireproof ?

Only a controlled demolition could cause all 57 exterior support beams to fail at the same time. There simply is no other explanation.

WTC 7 collapsed at free fall speed


The proof that they LIHOP is in the video of WTC 7
The only thing that can make a 47 story building disinigrate into a pile of rubble in freefall is a CD.

We agree that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed

WTC 7 disinigrated into a pile of rubble in free fall

Can anyone site another cause for a global collapse in freefall and mostly into the original footprint ?
So, you cannot site another possible cause.
Thats because there is NO other possible cause.

The 5 sec. video of wtc7 falling straight down is the SMOKING GUN that woke me (and Prof. Jones) from our slumber. Everything else only expands on what i could see and deduce from that short but gutwrenching video.
***

WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

No way could a fire burn so perfectly as to bring straight down a 47 story bldg. in 6.5 sec. (freefall 6 sec.) and land (mostly) in it's own footprint.

Look at this 4 min. video and make up your own mind.
***
My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense

***

Since the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed , this honest expert analysis of the best surviving evidence [the videos] is the best possible evidence of a controlled demolition at this point.
Dexter, Eugene: Have you looked at these videos? What do you think?

**
If you still don't believe that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, look at this 4 min. video.
**
Here's a 4 min. video about wtc7: for those of you who don't have a lot of time.
**
The 4 min video i mentioned has several pictures of a section of wtc7's framework leaning up aginst the building next door. The steel i beams have been cut midspan, this is consistant with a CD.

**
see this 1 min. 46 sec. video of WTC7 side by side with a CD

it should be considered as an alternate hypothesis.
**
About a year ago I saw the video of wtc7 falling straight down (in 6.5 seconds) for the first time. Having seen the special about the Loisoux(sp) family and how they perfected the fine art of building 'implosion', I understand what it takes to 'implode' a building (getting it to fall straight down, thus minimizing damage to surrounding buildings).

I reconized right away that it was an 'implosion' (controlled demolition).
This is not rocket sience. Why do you continue to deny the obvious explanation in favor of the 'official' story that even the govt. admits is not likely.
Just the fact that most Americans have still not seen this video speaks volumes.
Look at this 4 min. video
**
Can you still clame that it DOESN'T look like a controlled demolition?
If not then why didn't any govt. inquiry even MENTION this possibility?

Please view this video and respond. Thank you
**
MarkyX: Did you look at the 4 min. video?
**
Obviously you didn't look at the video because it shows WTC7 and another CD just like it side by side.

Please ...... take a couple min.....look at it with an open mind, then tell me what you think.

**
My conclusions are bassed on the evadence, not on what someone told me.
I have compiled a 4 min video of evadence about wtc7. Please take a few munites and view it.

**
Look at this 4 min video. Can you honestly say this DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?
**
Please, look at this video an respond. Thank you.
**
Gravy: You didn't mention the 4 min. video.
Did you look at it?
If so, what is your responce?
**
I've yet to find anyone who can sucessfully spin this video.
WTC7 looks like and therefore could be a controlled cemolition.
There is NO mention of this POSSIBILITY in ANY govt. report!
**
THE EVIDENCE WAS DESTRIOED
The NIST report is bassed on PICTURES AND VIDEOS
If you are willing to accept their hypothesis bassed on videos, why won't you accept my videos as evadence of a CD

***
Have you seen this 4 min. video?
Or this new video from Italy showing wtc7 and a controlled demolition of a steel frame building side by side?

***
Here's a new video from Italy. It shows wtc7 side by side with a controlled demolition.
**
There are some gaping holes in the 'official' story.
This 4 min. video on wtc7 points out one.
and this 1 min. 46 sec. vioeo from Italy.

**

Did you look at this video that Snakesforbrains provided?
It's just 1 min long. Take the time, listen and learn.

***
Take the time to look at a few of the videos listed on the sites Vector417 posted. I did


It took about 5 seconds for me to recognize that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. It's a no brainer.

Today:

People here should stop saying that WTC7 collapsed due to DD/F until the final report comes out.

Come on, people, when are you going to stop giving this clown the attention he craves and does not deserve? When?

 

[Christopher7]

If that's the criteria that you wish to utilize, then tinhatters (such as yourself) should likewise stop saying that WTC7 collapsed due to controlled demolition until the final report comes out.

Saying WTC7 was a CD does not depend on the NIST report, it is a counter point of view that NIST refuses to acknowledge.

The working hypothesis, the previously published interim report, and reality all make it clear that there is no evidence whatsoever to support your demolition fantasy.

FEMA acknowledged that WTC7 imploded and NIST acknowledged that the debris was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.
Videos and photos to confirm these facts.
Since controlled demolition the only known cause of a high rise building imploding, CD must be considered as a possible cause.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris Sarns, AKA Chrstopher7, on not making hasty judgments:

Would it be asking too much for you to adhere to Darat's directive to attack the argument and not the arguer?

The working hypothesis does not offer any possible explanation as to how all the core columns failed.

They postponed the final draft again because they can't get the facts to fit their absurd hypothesis.

Core columns 74, 71, 68, 65 and 62 were attached to other core columns with girders in in all 4 directions.
Also note that the core columns have splices every 2 floors.
That means the N and S girders would have to break loose from all 5 columns on 3 floors while the E-W girders held. [except the W side of column 62 which was surrounded by a slab]
15 column splices would also have to fail and the vertical framing necessary for the elevators would have to bend.

The floor beams would rip loose from the girders long before all that happened.

 

[Gravy]

Would it be asking too much for you to adhere to Darat's directive to attack the argument and not the arguer?

I pointed out, with numerous examples, that you are by far the worst violator of the principle to which you ask others to adhere. Need another example?

The working hypothesis does not offer any possible explanation as to how all the core columns failed.

They postponed the final draft again because they can't get the facts to fit their absurd hypothesis.

There you go. 1,600 posts, and nearly all of them in this thread, and you're still whining about NIST's 2004 interim report. That's simply pathetic. Please stop.

 

[LashL]

nonsensical and self-defeating blather

Well, that was complete and utter nonsense in light of your prior posts. You've clearly lost the plot and are simply trolling, and I am not inclined to feed trolls, so "see ya'".

 

[Christopher7]

I pointed out, with numerous examples, that you are by far the worst violator of the principle to which you ask others to adhere. Need another example?

The working hypothesis does not offer any possible explanation as to how all the core columns failed.

They postponed the final draft again because they can't get the facts to fit their absurd hypothesis.

I said the NIST hypothesis is absurd.
I did not attack another poster as you do.

There you go. 1,600 posts, and nearly all of them in this thread, and you're still whining about NIST's 2004 interim report. That's simply pathetic. Please stop.

You are talking about me because you cannot counter the facts i have posted.
These facts about the framing of WTC7 will not change in the final report.

Core columns 74, 71, 68, 65 and 62 were attached to other core columns with girders in in all 4 directions.
The core columns have splices every 2 floors.
That means the N and S girders would have to break loose from all 5 columns on 3 floors while the E-W girders held. [except the W side of column 62 which was surrounded by a slab]
15 column splices would also have to fail and the vertical framing necessary for the elevators would have to bend.

The floor beams would rip loose from the girders long before all that happened.

 

[Gravy]

Time to use the magic forum software to make this thread disappear. See you in August, Christophera7.

 

[Christopher7]

Time to use the magic forum software to make this thread disappear. See you in August, Christophera7.

When the argument is lost and insults and diversion fail, silence the truth.

 

[jaydeehess]

People here should stop saying that WTC7 collapsed due to DD/F until the final report comes out.

The working hypothesis does not include a possible explanation for how all the core columns collapsed.

Chris, it was your proposing this very arguement, that Gravy attacked.

If his quoting you back at you was an attack upon you then your statement, quoted in this post, was an attack on all other posters here taking the opposing view of the collaspe of WTC 7.

 

[jaydeehess]

They postponed the final draft again because they can't get the facts to fit their absurd hypothesis.

.

,,, and does this statement have any evidence to back it up? No, it is your own opinion. An opinion biased by your strident political viewpoint.

If it is attacked will you take it as a personal attack?

 

[twinstead]

,,, and does this statement have any evidence to back it up? No, it is your own opinion. An opinion biased by your strident political viewpoint.

I'm shocked. Simply SHOCKED. Chris would NEVER do that. You take that back, mister!