10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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.

B) Their concern was well founded. One might well expect the front of the building to collapse, or for the building to fall to the south, since all the damage and most of the fires were on the south side.

Battalion Chief John Norman
"I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did, 7."

 

[uk_dave]

Battalion Chief John Norman
"I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did, 7."

ooooooooooooo suspicious!!


Chris, do you ever wonder if maybe you're.......


?

 

[Belz...]

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.

Yes, but the column would tend to hold better with less load, right ?

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.

The hold is definitely several stories high, and the structure around it seems uneven. Also, you might have noticed another large opening at the top of the structure.

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.

Yes, it may actually have been larger than that.

 

[Belz...]

May i remind you that the 'collapse due to debris demage/fire' is also hypothesis and conjecture, ending in "appears possible".

It might help if you waited for the final report.

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.

You know this how ?

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.

And since at least one of them didn't, it shouldn't have collapsed ?

No. A few firefighters honestly thought WTC 7 was going to fall because of what they had just seen.

Speculation.

What evidence is there for the debris damage/fire hypothesis ?

Lots of fire and lots of debris.

 

[Belz...]

B) Their concern was well founded. One might well expect the front of the building to collapse, or for the building to fall to the south, since all the damage and most of the fires were on the south side.

That's a nice way ot picking the right answer while retaining as much of your own hypothesis as possible.

You might make politician, one day.

 

[Mancman]

Footage of WTC7 burning shot by Steve Spak, with commentary. Note the blue flame at approx 3:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHdt7wRQtaY

 

[Christopher7]

Yes, but the column would tend to hold better with less load, right ?

No. The column will fail when it is heated to it's failure point. The loads are proportionate, that is, they were both under similar stress, but it would take much longer to heat the much thicker I beams with cover plates or web plates in WTC 7.

The hold is definitely several stories high, and the structure around it seems uneven. Also, you might have noticed another large opening at the top of the structure.

It is NOT the 10 story gouge in question.
In the photograph, the first 7 floors cannot be seen.

Yes, it may actually have been larger than that.

So you think Battalion Chief Fellini is incompetent and the other firefighters were lying ?

 

[jaydeehess]

May i remind you that the 'collapse due to debris damage/fire' is also hypothesis and conjecture, ending in "appears possible".

I keep reminding you that there was fire and structural damage to back up the hypothesis that they caused the collapse whereas the other conjecture has "it looked like a CD" and there were loud noises. Both sides are using circumstantial evidence but yours is most obviously the weaker set.

Quote:
Besides in my statement what is 'hypothesis'?

A set of assumptions.

I, of course, meant what part of my statement were you referring to?

Quote:
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.

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]

You are telling us what the misinterpretation is. Why should we believe you?
You completely discount the idea of any damage to the core columns at all based on your own characterization of the eyewitness accounts. You cannot just say it and assume it is so. There is evidence that the core was reached. You then state unequivocally that this means that there could be no other core damage than perhaps to one column.

Quote:
So instead you must be speaking to the hypothesis that the mechanical damage did play a role.

No

You just stated "damage did not contribute significantly to the initiating event ".

Quote:
However we absolutely 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.

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]

Specious arguement since the area around the building was cleared by the NYFD. That alone illustrates that the command was preparing for the distinct possibility that the building would 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."

, and again since the area was cleared apparently the opinion of the command at the scene must have disagreed since the area was cleared.

Indeed they cleared the area around the building for a distance equal to the height of the building. No one was hazarding a guess as to which way it would go.

Quote:
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,

I have never said that.

Ok, but you imply it by saying that others were correct in saying it would not collapse.

Quote:
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.

Not at all. Calling it "scare mongering" is sophistry.

You state, "A few firefighters honestly thought WTC 7 was going to fall because of what they had just seen.". That is an attempt at minimizing the assesments of those men, sophistry.

Quote:
You are writing off the words and assessments of the people at the scene at that time
No. A few firefighters honestly thought WTC 7 was going to fall because of what they had just seen.

So they were traumatized into this assesment were they? their judgement was so impaired as to cause them to make a grave and erroneous statement.

Quote:
or no better reason other than to push your own hypothesis which lacks any evidence at all, and would better be described as conjecture or, at best, speculation.

What evidence is there for the debris damage/fire hypothesis ?

There was damage, but not to the critical core columns in the 'initiating event'

Gee Chris, that sounds so very absolute. How can you be so very, very sure given the statements at hand? Are you sure your prejudgement about explosives isn't affecting your conclusions?

 

[Christopher7]

I keep reminding you that there was fire and structural damage to back up the hypothesis that they caused the collapse whereas the other conjecture has "it looked like a CD" and there were loud noises. Both sides are using circumstantial evidence but yours is most obviously the weaker set.

There was debris damage and fire, therefore:
That's what caused WTC 7 to collapse

Is no more valid as evidence than

WTC 7 has all the charisteristics of an implosion, therefore:
It was a CD.


Especially when you consider that all the reported damage was to the south west corner and the middle of the south side.

The only fires reported to the east end of WTC 7, where the initiating event occurred, were:

11:30 to 2:30
Signs if fire on 23rd floor on south side were heard/seen/smelled from 22nd floor. [well above the initiating event]

Looking from the south east corner of the south face:

Fire seen on floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face, the face above fire was covered with smoke.
Fire on floor 14 moved toward the east face.
[probably from the large hole near center of the south face]
[no fires or smoke below floor 14 on east end of south side to obscure the view]

2:00 to 2:30

fires on east face floors 11 and 12 at south east corner....fires progressing north.

3:00 to 5:00

Around 3 p.m., fires on floors 7 and 12 along north face.
Later, fires on floors 8 and 13.

4:45

fires on floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near middle of north face.
Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

Summary:

As of 2 p.m., only fire in the area of the initiating event was on floor 14 as it moved from the middle of the south face to the east.

Between 2:00 and 2:30 fires appeared at the south east corner on floors 11 and 12, around 3:00 the fire on 12 had spread to the north side.
During this time, this fire most likely spread to the area of the initiating event.
However, by 4:45, the fire on floor 12 had burned out on the north side.

Some have inferred that the fires in the area of the initiating event burned for 6 or 7 hours.
Such is not the case.

 

[MaGZ]

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]

Could a missile dislodge the elevator cars?

 

[MaGZ]

There was debris damage and fire, therefore:
That's what caused WTC 7 to collapse

Is no more valid as evidence than

WTC 7 has all the charisteristics of an implosion, therefore:
It was a CD.


Especially when you consider that all the reported damage was to the south west corner and the middle of the south side.

The only fires reported to the east end of WTC 7, where the initiating event occurred, were:

11:30 to 2:30
Signs if fire on 23rd floor on south side were heard/seen/smelled from 22nd floor. [well above the initiating event]

Looking from the south east corner of the south face:

Fire seen on floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face, the face above fire was covered with smoke.
Fire on floor 14 moved toward the east face.
[probably from the large hole near center of the south face]
[no fires or smoke below floor 14 on east end of south side to obscure the view]

2:00 to 2:30

fires on east face floors 11 and 12 at south east corner....fires progressing north.

3:00 to 5:00

Around 3 p.m., fires on floors 7 and 12 along north face.
Later, fires on floors 8 and 13.

4:45

fires on floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near middle of north face.
Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

Summary:

As of 2 p.m., only fire in the area of the initiating event was on floor 14 as it moved from the middle of the south face to the east.

Between 2:00 and 2:30 fires appeared at the south east corner on floors 11 and 12, around 3:00 the fire on 12 had spread to the north side.
During this time, this fire most likely spread to the area of the initiating event.
However, by 4:45, the fire on floor 12 had burned out on the north side.

Some have inferred that the fires in the area of the initiating event burned for 6 or 7 hours.
Such is not the case.

How does falling steel debris from WTC 1 cause fires?

The burning stories from WTC 1 fell onto WTC 6.

There were no reports of fires from other buildings outside the WTC complex perimeter--just WTC 7.

 

[Mancman]

There were no reports of fires from other buildings outside the WTC complex perimeter--just WTC 7.

Actually there was a small fire in the basement of 130 Liberty Street, and a larger one in 90 West Street.

 

[MaGZ]

Actually there was a small fire in the basement of 130 Liberty Street, and a larger one in 90 West Street.

Is 90 West Street near the open parking area northwest of the WTC complex where the second missile hit?

 

[DavidJames]

Is 90 West Street near the open parking area northwest of the WTC complex where the second missile hit?

What is wrong with your brain that causes it to make claims without evidence?

How would you like your auto mechanic to make a diagnosis regarding your head pain, because that's exactly what you are doing?

How would you like a district attorney to charge you with murder based on the lack of evidence you find perfectly acceptable?

Do you have a job or go to school? Is it okay to make crap on a job or in school?

 

[Belz...]

No. The column will fail when it is heated to it's failure point. The loads are proportionate, that is, they were both under similar stress, but it would take much longer to heat the much thicker I beams with cover plates or web plates in WTC 7.

Thicker but with HEAVIER LOAD. Or are you saying that a steel columns would buckle even WITHOUT a load ?

It is NOT the 10 story gouge in question.
In the photograph, the first 7 floors cannot be seen.

But you DID see the large hole at the enter of the south face, didn't you ?

So you think Battalion Chief Fellini is incompetent and the other firefighters were lying ?

False dichotomy and strawman. You're saying that they were wrong about the size of the hole. I'm simply pointing out that "wrong" doesn't necessarily mean that the hole was smaller than reported.

 

[Belz...]

There was debris damage and fire, therefore:
That's what caused WTC 7 to collapse

Is no more valid as evidence than

WTC 7 has all the charisteristics of an implosion, therefore:
It was a CD.

I'm starting to see what's wrong with your reasoning, here.

YES, contra what you've said, it is more valid evidence. Debris damage and fire are actual things that were observed. "All the characteristics of an implosion" is YOUR interpretation of the collapse's behaviour. It is an assumption based on observation, not the observation itself. You seem to confuse the two.

 

[Belz...]

Especially when you consider that all the reported damage was to the south west corner and the middle of the south side.

Except the 10 storey hole you claim wasn't there. And the damage seen to the top of the building.

 

[Christopher7]

You are telling us what the misinterpretation is. Why should we believe you?

Don't take my word for it. Read the statements i have listed, come to your own conclusion.
The 10 story gouge cannot co-exist with:

no heavy debris in lobby area

only damage to south facade of 9th floor at SW corner

Steel ripped out from between floors 3 and 6 across the facade on Vesey Street.

Inherent in this statement is: steel not ripped out below floor 3.
The 10 story gouge would not only rip out the steel from floors 1 through 3, they would be gone, not there any more.
Do you really think Battalion Chief Fellini didn't notice that ?

NIST Apx. L pg 24
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Looking from the south east corner of the south face.
Fire seen on floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face, the face above the fire was covered with smoke.

[the floors below floor 14 were not obscured by smoke]

You completely discount the idea of any damage to the core columns at all based on your own characterization of the eyewitness accounts.

No. The damage to core columns attributed to the '10 story gouge' did not happen as it would have left a lot of heavy debris in the lobby.

I have said that whatever ejected the elevators probably damaged/severed 1 core column.

You cannot just say it and assume it is so. There is evidence that the core was reached. You then state unequivocally that this means that there could be no other core damage than perhaps to one column.

There is no evidence of damage to more than 1 core column.
There is no evidence of damage to the core columns except for the elevator cars being ejected.
No mention was made of the huge piece of debris that supposedly busted through the ceiling and ripped out the wall south of the elevator shaft.
It is more likely that an explosion, described by the people trapped on the 8th floor, ejected the elevator cars.

Steve Spak's website shows the:
"large debris hole near center of the south face around the 14th floor"
as being from column 5 to 8 [counting from SW corner]
This lines up with core columns 69 and 72.

You are assuming that this huge piece of debris penetrated WTC 7 nearly 100' as it would have to do in order to eject 2 elevator cars.

Where it is possible that your hypothesis is correct, it ain't bloody likely.
IMHO

 

[Christopher7]

Especially when you consider that all the reported damage was to the south west corner and the middle of the south side

Except the 10 storey hole you claim wasn't there. And the damage seen to the top of the building.

Even the '10 story gouge' was said to be in the middle.
The damage to the top of WTC 7 was west of center.

 

[jaydeehess]

I have said that whatever ejected the elevators probably damaged/severed 1 core column.
There is no evidence of damage to more than 1 core column.
There is no evidence of damage to the core columns except for the elevator cars being ejected.
No mention was made of the huge piece of debris that supposedly busted through the ceiling and ripped out the wall south of the elevator shaft.
It is more likely that an explosion, described by the people trapped on the 8th floor, ejected the elevator cars.

Steve Spak's website shows the:
"large debris hole near center of the south face around the 14th floor"
as being from column 5 to 8 [counting from SW corner]
This lines up with core columns 69 and 72.

You are assuming that this huge piece of debris penetrated WTC 7 nearly 100' as it would have to do in order to eject 2 elevator cars.

Where it is possible that your hypothesis is correct, it ain't bloody likely.
IMHO

Whereas your hypothesis is possible there is absolutly no evidence to support it whatsoever.

You keep repeating "WTC 7 has all the charisteristics of an implosion, therefore:
It was a CD." but have as yet to post any evidence other than the fact that the way the building fell as constituting 'all' the characteristics of a controlled demolition.

Your 'evidence' is still only 'it looked like it to me' and some guys stated that a loud noise that hundreds of people must have also heard, sounded like an explosion to them. No one saw an explosion. No one saw anything that would indicate an explosion. Any explosive cutting of columns in WTC 7 would require greater explosive power than is normally used in CD's since in a normal cd the column and the building in general is prepped to allow the demolition to occur in a predictable way and for the building to come apart easily. this simply could not be accomplised ahead of time in #7.

-You have no evidence of any prepping of the structure which would be characteristic of a controlled demolition.
-You have no evidence of explosive use on any structural member of WTC 7
-You have no evidence of any explosives being set off except a few weak arguements that can easily be ascribed to other effects.


I see now that in one of your last posts you now use 'implosion' as meaning demolition. Did you not in another post argue that "When a building falls in on itself, that's called an implosion, whatever the cause. "

You then stated that "The sequence of the collapse is consistent with the NIST report and a building implosion."

Since you have no evidence of explosives you have made it your mission to minimize or totally discount the effect of impact damage and fire on the building in order to attempt to show that the only thing left to explain the collapse is the use of those non-evident esxplosives.

,,,,,,, and that sir, is sophistry.

There were fires and heavy smoke was indeed emanating from south face, which was the lee side of the building that day.
There was damage that in at least one case reached the core of the building.