10 story hole in WTC 7
- Thread starter Christopher7
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 911 conspiracy theory wtc
- Status
Which part of fire fighting vs no fire fighting are you having problems with?
Plus the Madrid building; destoryed by fire.
Plus the building in downtown Philly, One Meridian Plaza; destroyed by fire.
Two high rise building destoyed by fire. GONE
The fires were fought but the buildings were destroyed. WTC buildings had fires that were not fought in 1, 2, and 7, these building were destroyed too.
Now take your backward logic and try to dig out of this problem you have.
Fires destroys buildings. Simple. Prove fires can not destory buildings an you have something. Prove not fighting fires has a better chance of not destroying buildings and you got a better story.
What damaged all your examples? Airplanes? NO Debris? NO
What fuel was used to start and sustain fires in your examples?
Was there 10,000 gallons/60,000 pounds of fuel in your buildings? NO
Was there 20,000 gallons to run generators to burn in the fire? NO
If this had been at night you would not be asking if there were raging fires in the WTC1, 2 or 7.
I assume you are not a thermite guy; are you?
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
The weakness was primarily to the horizontal floor supports.
[correct me if i'm wrong]
In any event, the building did not collapse. None of the support columns failed.
The Windsor in Madrid was not one of the three i listed as not collapsing.
It's only significance is that the steel that failed was 1/4 the thickness of the WTC 7 support columns.
Only if it is heated sufficiently.
There is no proof that the support columns in WTC 7 were subjected to fires hot enough and long enough to weaken them.
There is only speculation.
No high rise steel frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire.
The Windsor was a hybrid where the RC core and lower floors carried most of the weight. The collapse of the lightweight outer columns cannot be compared to the heavy I beams of WTC 7.
Negative.
To believe the 10 story gouge in the middle of WTC 7 was bigger you have to believe that Battalion Chief Fellini is incompetent and the firefighters who reported "no heavy debris in the lobby area" were lying, and the firefighter who said "only damage to 9th floor facade at SW corner" was lying.
You know why no normal person gives a toss about wtc7?
It runs something like this.....
On 9/11 we witnessed co-ordinated attacks on the wtc towers and the pentagon, and a foiled attempt which lead to the crash of a plane in PA.
On that day nearly 3000 people lost their lives, many inside the buildings which were hit.
The wtc towers were damaged so severely that they collapsed, killing many emergency workers inside and in the vicinity.
All in all, it was a horrible and tragic day. Massive loss of life, injuries, turmoil caused in two of the US major cities, massive damage to the whole of the wtc complex.
And then wtc 7 collapsed after being on fire and sustaining damage from the tower collapse,but killing or injuring no one.
THAT is why only 'truthers' care about wtc7, while the rest of us simple folk just see it as a footnote to the tragedy of that day.
That the 'truthers' cling so desperately to it, especially now that every kook theory about the wtc towers has been debunked, just goes to show just how weak their movement is.
It runs something like this.....
On 9/11 we witnessed co-ordinated attacks on the wtc towers and the pentagon, and a foiled attempt which lead to the crash of a plane in PA.
On that day nearly 3000 people lost their lives, many inside the buildings which were hit.
The wtc towers were damaged so severely that they collapsed, killing many emergency workers inside and in the vicinity.
All in all, it was a horrible and tragic day. Massive loss of life, injuries, turmoil caused in two of the US major cities, massive damage to the whole of the wtc complex.
And then wtc 7 collapsed after being on fire and sustaining damage from the tower collapse,but killing or injuring no one.
THAT is why only 'truthers' care about wtc7, while the rest of us simple folk just see it as a footnote to the tragedy of that day.
That the 'truthers' cling so desperately to it, especially now that every kook theory about the wtc towers has been debunked, just goes to show just how weak their movement is.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
The Caracas Tower was not fought 'the whole time'
It burned much longer than WTC7.
Huge amounts of fire were visible.
"Engineers have gone up there and inspected" the building, Briceno said, adding that "it is very solid".
"The high temperatures also stopped firefighters from reaching the towers upper floors where the fire was the strongest. ...helicopters flew over the building, dropping water on the tower"
The fire burned out of control for 26 floors when they couldn't get at it.
The helicopters were only effective after the fire broke through the top of the building.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml
I think you have unwittingly rather proved the point with all that material hitting WTC7
Mailman
Belz...
Fiend God
None of them received a 110-storey building on top of them.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
I don't see you presenting any 'facts' to back up controlled demolition Chris. Nothing but hypothysis and pure conjecture.
Besides in my statement what is 'hypothysis'? The fact that CT's choose to always separate mechanical damage from fire damage? Probably not since your next few statements illustrate that you choose to completely ignore the possibility of impact damage having any effect on the structural integrity of WTC 7 at all. You state again;
So instead you must be speaking to the hypothysis that the mechanical damage did play a role. However we absolutly know that the building was affected by the impact damage. We know this because the SW corner damage produced a bulge in the building. We also know that the sounds the building was making and the way it was behaving was of grave concern to many firefighters in both command and grunt roles. From early in the day it was feared that the building may collapse because of the way it was behaving , from the get-go! To now state, 5 years later, that this was just all scare mongering on the part of the NYFD, or that it was the trauma of having seen the collapse of 1&2 and the deaths of so many friends and co-workers is pure sophistry at work. You are writing off the words and assesments of the people at the scene at that time for no better reason other than to push your own hypothysis which lacks any evidence at all, and would better be described as conjecture or, at best, speculation.
You also continue to fail to understand the role of the load in the building columns or the role of the unique system of cantilever trusses used in the lower levels of WTC 7. That or you choose to ignore them.
Again you ignore a few 'details' such as the impact damage(which you attempt to trivialize), the lack of firefighting(which you claim is a zero difference in the other structure fires), the unique structure(which you completely ignore), the deisel fuel present at WTC 7(which you ignore because no one can say for sure it was involved).
You also might note that some aircraft crashes have people walk away from them including horrific ones such as at (IIRC ) Dallas-Fort-Worth in which the aircraft , a large Boeing, literally cartwheeled down the runway in a huge fireball, the 747 that crashed into a mountain Japan ((shortly after take-off with a large fuel load on board, in which many survivors died because it took 19 hours for rescue units to get to the scene). Your reasoning would suggest that since this was not the case in so many other air crashes that the survivors must have been plants and that all those who were really on board died.
I believe you said at one time that ***** happens, or was that someone else?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
delete
Last edited:
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Damage to the south face did not contribute to the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.
The 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 [NIST Apx.L] and depicted in the graphic on pg 23, 31 and 32 was a misinterpretation of damage described by others. The damage attributed to the core columns from this misinterpretation did not exist.
The elevator cars were not next to columns 75, 78 or 78A [see pg 6]
"damage.... of core columns is not known" [pg 51]
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Whatever the load, it would take a lot more time to heat a 1' thick I beam with 1/2' cover plates or 1' web plates to the failure point than a 1/4" thick box beam.
I've seen that site. it shows some damage to the east of the south west corner, but definately not a gouge "floor 10 to the ground"
The damage is probably the "large hole around floor 14" described in the NIST Report.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Perhaps not but it would contribute to the way it fell once it started.
Says YOU. Once again Chris it is an inclusion of all reported damage. You simply cannot write off the damage reported as having had no effect on core columns just because you want it to be. I feel quite confident that damage did reach the core due to the eyewitness reports taken as a whole.
Gee, Chris, did you miss on page 50/51(bolding mine)
Wow, you are selective aren't you!
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
,,, and just 50-60 feet below that (below floor 14) elevator cars get bounced out of their shafts.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
May i remind you that the 'collapse due to debris demage/fire' is also hypothesis and conjecture, ending in "appears possible".
A set of assumptions.
Not so. The debris from WTC 1 did significant damage to the south face of WTC 7 but this damage did not contribute significantly to the initiating event as it was all to the west of the initiating event.
[i am assuming that Chief Fellini's "steel ripped out from between 3rd and 6th floor" is in the center and led to the '10 story gouge in the middle of WTC 7' misinterpretation]
No
Can you name more than 4 firefighters who thought WTC 7 was going to collapse ? [not those who were told it was going to collapse]
Not all the firefighters thought it was going to collapse.
Battalion Chief John Norman:
"I looked at 7 World Trade Center. There was smoke showing, but no a lot and I'm saying that isn't going to fall."
"I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did, 7."
I have never said that.
Not at all. Calling it "scare mongering" is sophistry.
No. A few firefighters honestly thought WTC 7 was going to fall because of what they had just seen.
What evidence is there for the debris damage/fire hypothesis ?
There was damage, but not to the critical core columns in the 'initiating event'
There was a large body of fire but it is not known if these fires were in the area of the core columns in the 'initiating event'. [only conjecture]
Since engine rooms must be well ventilated to the exterior, any smoke from these fires would have been clearly visible as it escaped through the vents on the east side of the building.
The 2 story mechanical space is about 40' from the south face on the east side of the building. There are no reports of debris damage to the eastern part of the south face.
There is NO evidence to suggest that debris damage started a fire in the east mechanical space.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Not according to NIST.
The initiating event led to a vertical collapse which led to a horizontal collapse which led to a global collapse, all from the interior core columns.
The damage to the south face columns plays no part in their hypothesis.
There is nothing to support the 40' deep gouge that would be necessary to do any damage to the core columns. It is pure conjecture.
The elevators are located to the west of columns 75 and 78.
The east side of WTC 1 was a little to the west of WTC 7's columns 75 and 78
The debris could not have dislodged the last row of elevators [next to column 75] into the hallway to their west. [see pg 6]
The NIST report was incorrect in saying that the damage to the elevator cars was in the area of columns 75 and 78.
The ejection of the elevator cars may have damaged or severed columns 66, 69 or 72, but not columns 75 or 78 [see pg 6]
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Chris, when the sounds of groaning and creaking are heard in a steel-framed skyscraper that has sustained structural damage and is on fire, is that:
A) Not a cause for concern.
B) Potentially a sign of imminent collapse. When a steel-framed building makes such noises, its integrity is in peril.
C) None of the above.
A) Not a cause for concern.
B) Potentially a sign of imminent collapse. When a steel-framed building makes such noises, its integrity is in peril.
C) None of the above.
- Status