10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

NIST Appendix L

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

FEMA Chapter 5

http:/www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

[copy and paste in URL bar]

[note: pg 18 is pg 22 on the page counter]

There was heavy debris damage to the SW corner
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
A large hole around the 14th floor just west* of center
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground
[NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]
Upper floors and roof damage, just west of center
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
Only damage to south wall on 9th floor at SW corner
[FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20]
Part of south wall gone on floor 8
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
2 elevator cars in hallway north of elevator shaft on floor 8
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
Explosion heard on floor 8
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6475257160515133665&q=wtc7+new+footage
Start at 6:20 min.
Warning: audio very loud and distorted, turn down volume before viewing]

* Steve Spak photograph with location of perimeter columns added graphically.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

***

No debris damage to east 1/3 of south face was reported

There was no fuel fed fire in the east part of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occurred.
[see post # 910]

***

There were a fires on floor 8 and 12.

NIST Apx. L pg 22 - 26:

Form 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. it burned west to east across the south side
From 2:00 to 3:00 p.m., the fire progresses north along east side
About 3:00 p.m., it reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions
A little later there was a fire on floor 8, spreading to east corner and moving to east side
By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out

******************************************************

The reports of fire to the east part of WTC 7 are not going to change in the final report.
The reports given are clear, the times are accurate enough to track the progression of the fires.

 

[jaydeehess]

That is the only place where there could be a fuel fed fire near the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

No it isn't and you are fully aware of that fact.

Quote:
I, for one, am quite aware that the generators were along the walls not in the core section of the building.

Most people are not aware that the only generator room on the east side of WTC 7 was in the north east corner of floor 5.

It is not the location of the generators that is of greatest significance in this and that has been pointed out to you several times now

Quote:
You already know the location of the tanks and supply lines. Fires along the supply lines would not neccessarily create smoke out the louvers. There are locations along the supply lines that come close to the area of collapse initiation where smoke would not, of neccessity, exit via perimeter openings on the floor where the fire is.

One would have to assume that there was NO ventilation in the middle northern section.

The generator is in a separate room behind a door and the ventilation for the generator draws air in via the louvers. A fuel fire near the elevators may well use the shaft as a chimney.

There was no fuel fed fire in the east part of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occured.

You do not have enough information upon which to make this definitive determination and you are ignoring, misrepresenting or denying any evidence that it may have occured.

You have stated many times that the evidence of demolition of WTC 7 by explosives is clear but have as yet not provided anything other than the report of the sound of an explosive detonation by persons who cannot be said to be experienced in such things and who did not see any evidence of an explosion. You have added to this that the building 'looked' like a controlled demolition which amounts to the fact that in both cases buildings fall down and gravity works.

Will you be showing us anything else?

The physical evidence was removed and destroyed before it could be analyzed.
Some volunteers from the Structural Engineers Association of NY salvaged a few pieces of WTC 7 steel for FEMA [the govt. wasn't interested]
They were not analyzed or mentioned in either the FEMA or the NIST report [that i know of]

It seems then that you are saying that the complete and utter lack of any corroborating evidence of your controlled demolition conjecture is to be, by itself, evidence that corroborates your conjecture of controlled demolition.

By that thought process you should be a suspect in the latest murder in your hometown.

 

[Christopher7]

No it isn't and you are fully aware of that fact.

I wish to differ with you on that point, at length.

It is not the location of the generators that is of greatest significance in this.....
The generator is in a separate room behind a door and the ventilation for the generator draws air in via the louvers. A fuel fire near the elevators may well use the shaft as a chimney.

True
[still assuming there is no ventilation in the area where the fire is]
However:

The fire would not be near the initiating event.
[The failure of column 79, 80 and/or 81]

It would be near column 70, in the middle of WTC 7


A piece of debris would have to:

take out 3 perimeter columns
bust thru 5 - 5 1/2" thick steel and concrete floors
including at least 1 floor support beam per floor
knock 2 elevators out of their shafts
thru the wall and into the hallway
take out a core beam
break thru a concrete masonry wall
break thru a 6" steel and concrete floor

to get to the fuel pipe, 90' inside the building.

 

[Gravy]

Hey, Chris, it's me, Mark Roberts, speaking to you from planet Earth.

You know: the real world.

You said:

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

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

"My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense."

"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)"

"The government will NEVER allow a meaningful investigation."

"Fires in buildings don't burn hot enough to weaken steel I beams. Where you get this stuff, one of those debunking sites?"

"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."

"Wrong: An investigation ENDS with a hypothesis, NIST STARTED with one"

"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."

"Bush made this self incriminating statement twice.

What more do you need to know ? http://911blimp.com/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml"

"At 63 or any age I'm trying to save my country from the unspeakibly EVIL men who MURDERED 3000 Americans on 9-11."

"It's up to us in the US to blow this thing wide open.
I won't settle for a bandaid,
We need to do some serious whole world house cleaning."

"The patriot act NULLIFIES HALF of the Bill of Rights"

"YES! Have you read the quote from The Project for the new AMERICAN Century? Refering to the need build up our military " this transformation is likely to take a long time, absent a catalizing event like A NEW PEARL HARBOUR". This was published in 2000. Members include Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz (sp) and Jeb Bush."

"The government will NEVER allow a meaningful investigation."

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

"The Loose Change interview in Vanity Fair and the CSPAN airing of Scholars for 911 truth are the first cracks in the wall. Send them some love."

"When a clear majority of Americans come to grips with the fact that 911 was an inside job, things will bust wide open and the corperate controlled news media will have to stop denying it. There will then be a MAJOR upheval because this is a global problem."

"Scholars for 9/11 Thuth have done RESEARCH and had that research verified by pier review [other Phd's].

There are more than 300 Phd's and experts with meny years of service in the military and government. Do you have any experience in government?"

"You forgot the part about 'peer review' by other qualified Phd's who CONFIRMED their findings."

"If nothing else, read this one article:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

re: Kevin Ryan (executive at Underwriters Labratory)

Since UL had certified the steel for the trade towers he was concerned.

He did the apropriate testing and concluded that the fires in the towers COULD NOT have caused the steel to fail.

This bad news may ruin your decade, but ignoring it will ruin your future."


"Weather or not you believe Jones, you won't be able to find a qualified person to say otherwise.

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!"

Can anyone possibily believe that the Pentagon, had NO air defences on 911?
***
Can you possibly believe that the PENTAGON was DEFENCELESS on 911, that there was NO on site radar or anti aircraft ability? At very least they would have stinger missels and certianly a lot more very sophisticated stuff.
***
Let's look at something that cannot be reasonibly disputed.

Can you possibly believe that the PENTAGON was DEFENCELESS on 911, that there was NO on site radar or anti aircraft ability? At very least they would have stinger missels and certianly a lot more very sophisticated stuff.

***
Do you believe that the Pentagon was defenceless on 911?
***
Can you possibly believe that the PENTAGON was DEFENCELESS on 911, that there was NO on site radar or anti aircraft ability? At very least they would have stinger missels and certianly a lot more very sophisticated stuff.
**

Now this is not rocket science, Cheney KNEW thers was a plane headed for Washington. Thats's a FACT. The 'orders' could ONLY have been to NOT shoot the plane down.

***
Can you possibly believe that the PENTAGON was DEFENCELESS on 911, that there was NO on site radar or anti aircraft ability? At very least they would have stinger missels and certianly a lot more very sophisticated stuff.

***
Can anybody believe that Washington D.C. was defenceless on 9-11 ?

The airplane came in at 7,000 ft., made a 330 degree turn while decending to less than 100 ft. and ramed th Pentagon.

Can you possibly believe that there was NO anti aircraft misles to protect our nations' capitol, that they coulden' stop a plane they knew was coming ?

***

1) The tail did not damage the building

2) The fuselage did not damage the spools

3) There is no decernible reckage outside the building

***

We need only show that the 'official story' is false

1) The tail did not damage the building

2) The fuselage did not damage the spools

3) There is no discernible wreckage outside the building

***
Chris TRIES TO LECTURE ANTI-SOPHIST ON THERMODYNAMICS

Sigh, I'm going to have to teach you basic science, aren't I?

***

The evidence that the Pentagon was hit by someting other than a 757 is right in front of you but you just can't deal with it. Antisophist said the tail "is incredibly weak" and thats why it didn't do any damage. You use a poor analogy about a car. There's no way to ignore the FACT that tail of a 757 would have done some damage.

You're grasping at straws. At some point you have to stop lying to yourself and accept the reality contained in those two photographs.

***
You are ignoring the FACT that the tail didn't do ANY damage.
Yes, the wings would do more damage, but the tail would have done SOME.
Forget the analogies and look at what is in front of you.

***

I am NOT a no-planer! I have stated that something other than a 757 hit the pentagon because the tail of a 757 would do 'some' damage.

***

1) The tail did not damage the building

2) The fuselage did not damage the spools

3) There is no decernible reckage outside the building

***

We need only show that the 'official story' is false

1) The tail did not damage the building

2) The fuselage did not damage the spools

3) There is no discernible wreckage outside the building

***
Chris TRIES TO LECTURE ANTI-SOPHIST ON THERMODYNAMICS

Sigh, I'm going to have to teach you basic science, aren't I?

***

The evidence that the Pentagon was hit by someting other than a 757 is right in front of you but you just can't deal with it. Antisophist said the tail "is incredibly weak" and thats why it didn't do any damage. You use a poor analogy about a car. There's no way to ignore the FACT that tail of a 757 would have done some damage.

You're grasping at straws. At some point you have to stop lying to yourself and accept the reality contained in those two photographs.

***
You are ignoring the FACT that the tail didn't do ANY damage.
Yes, the wings would do more damage, but the tail would have done SOME.
Forget the analogies and look at what is in front of you.

***

I am NOT a no-planer! I have stated that something other than a 757 hit the pentagon because the tail of a 757 would do 'some' damage.

***
Gumboot: explosions don't = explosives but it's certally a strong possibility, especially since there were NO FIRES anywhere in the building EXCEPT WHERE THE PLANES HIT.

***
I haven't heard of any fires between the impact zone and the lobby, have you?
No smoke, no fire. Nothing to cause anything to explode.

***

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 ?

******

There's a couple problems with the "kerosene" causing an expolsion.
The kerosene would be burning all the way down and would not have had enough bang left to blow the elavator doors off and dislodge huge marble panels, and why only the lobby?

Ever use a kerosene lamp? Kerosene DOES NOT EXPLODE! it burns.
The explosions in the basement were huge and had to have been pre positioned demolition charges. (or just one hellofa coinsidence)
An expolsion big enough to destroy the machine shop and a 50 ton hydrolic press was definately NOT caused by kerosene.
The whole kerosene = explosion in the lobby is f*in rediculous.

******
It burns faster but it does not EXPLODE with enough power to blow elevator doors, and why did it not blow the doors off the 27th floor or the 67th floor. There was a HUGE explosion in the basement that completely destroyed the machine shop. It's a bit more likely that this was the cause of the distruction in the loby.

***
On the angle-cut piece of steel that has torch marks on it:
Note the sides have been cut and the ends have been 'melted' and re-hardened like candlewax.

***

The firemen were pulled off the 'pile' after a few days, when rescue operations ended and recovery operations began.
The question is: Were there people cutting beams during those first few days and if so, why was this core beam cut ?

***
Now i dont have a physics degree, im just a commoner using common sense, but it seems to me that a sizeable portion of the of the central framework would have remained standing.

***
Dont even tell me that 50 stories of this massive central framework, after surviving the collapse, 'broke' at hundreds of joints, not to mention all the cross bracing joints.


***

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


THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE THEORY
WTC7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire.

***
The fact that there was very little fire on the north side IS THE EVIDENCE!

***

84 pages of spin [nitpick and talk it to death] cannot explain how a 47 story steel framed building disninigrated into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds. All 4 corners and the walls between them started falling at the same time. Only a controlled demolition could cause all 57 exterior support beams to fail at the same time.
There simply is no other explanation.

***

They are videos, he's an expert, he analyzed them, there will be no follow-up analysis because his analysis was:
"Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

*******

However.........................It doesn't explain how all 58 exterior support columns failed at the same time. My belief is 'no fire could burn so perfectly as to heat 58 steel I beams to the fail point at the same time, especially the 2 corners of the north side'.
The bldg. had to have been riged for demolition BEFORE 9-11 and therein lies the rub.
Fact is, all 58 exterior columns did fail at the same time, it was NOT a case of progressive collapse.
**
You avoided the FACT that all 58 exterior support columns failed at the same time.
What's your spin on that?
**
You won't address the FACT all 58 exterior columns failed at the same time.
No way could a fire burn so perfectly.
**
Then all 58 exterior steel columns fail at the same time, as would be expected in a CD.
Please take a look and decide for yourself.
**
I'm a contractor and i understand construction. A failure in the center will not cause all the exterior walls to fall, much less at the same time. The only way that can happen is if all the exterior supports fail at the same time.
***
No way could a fire cause all 58 exterior support columns to fail at the same time or cause a steel frame building to collapse into a pile of rubble.
**
Not by NIST, all they got was a walk through. Who inspected the steel and what if anything did they say about the precisely cut ends?

***
The firemen had just seen the Trade Towers collapse and they lost a lot of people.
Their assumption that WTC 7 was going to fall IS NOT EVIDENCE that it fell due to fire!
***

Should read: "WTC7 was not hit by a plane but fell faster than free fall speeds in air.
Thats where you got into trouble.
The conclusion in the video was, "WTC 7 fell 100m in 4.5 sec. The same time required for a 100m free fall in a vacume"
They said 'approximately' in their first statement, so discussing free fall in air or in a vacume [.2 sec.] is kinda mute.
Using high school physics, The video shows, clearly, the building fell AT freefall speed.
This issue has been debated for a long time and now you have provided the scientific evidence that even Antisophist can agree with.
ie:
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.
You can see the framework section mentioned in this video leaning up aginst the Vorizon building at the right.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1643313543353229958&q=wtc7
Heres a close-up of a beam that has been cut with an acetylene torch and/or a shaped charge

*************

We agree that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed
Lets add 'straight down'. The NIST report says WTC 7 landed mostly in its original footprint.
All the exterior supports failed at the same time
The only thing that can make that happen is a CD.

*******

WTC 7 disinigrated into a pile of rubble in free fall and landed mostly in its original footprint.
Can anyone site another cause for a global collapse in freefall and mostly into the original footprint ?

WTC 7 disinigrated into a pile of rubble in free fall and landed mostly in its original footprint.
A CD can make a 47 story building disinigrate into a pile of rubble in freefall.
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

***

I'm calling you out, Chris Sarns.

Me, Mark Roberts. Do you stand by these statements, O ye of great experience in the construction industry?

Do you? If not, exactly how have you altered your opinions? Exactly which statements do you now retract?

You have been called out, Mr. 63-64 year-old construction contractor.

Provide your evidence now.

 

[Christopher7]

Love ya Gravy

I am truly honored, that you took all that time, to gather together my posts from 3 forums.

However, this thread is about the debris damage and fire to WTC 7.

If you would like to discuss my former posts, start a thread for it, call it the Gravy v C7 pissing match.

Meanwhile, i thought i'd post this again in hopes you might read it and post something relevant.


NIST Appendix L

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

FEMA Chapter 5

http:/www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

[copy and paste in URL bar]

[note: pg 18 is pg 22 on the page counter]

There was heavy debris damage to the SW corner
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
A large hole around the 14th floor just west* of center
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground
[NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]
Upper floors and roof damage, just west of center
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
Only damage to south wall on 9th floor at SW corner
[FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20]
Part of south wall gone on floor 8
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
2 elevator cars in hallway north of elevator shaft on floor 8
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
Explosion heard on floor 8
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6475257160515133665&q=wtc7+new+footage
Start at 6:20 min.
Warning: audio very loud and distorted, turn down volume before viewing]

* Steve Spak photograph with location of perimeter columns added graphically.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

***

No debris damage to east 1/3 of south face was reported

There was no fuel fed fire in the east part of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occurred.
[see post # 910]

***

There were a fires on floor 8 and 12.

NIST Apx. L pg 22 - 26:

Form 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. it burned west to east across the south side
From 2:00 to 3:00 p.m., the fire progresses north along east side
About 3:00 p.m., it reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions
A little later there was a fire on floor 8, spreading to east corner and moving to east side
By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out

******************************************************

The reports of fire to the east part of WTC 7 are not going to change in the final report.
The reports given are clear, the times are accurate enough to track the progression of the fires.

 

[jaydeehess]

Chris ask yourself, what happens to a previously weakened column if proximate columns later foreshorten due to heat?(extra compressive forces)
What happens if the weakened columns suffer damage on proximate floors rather than on the same floor?(additional shear forces)

You really are one of the most one dimensional thinkers I have ever interacted with.

 

[twinstead]

You really are one of the most one dimensional thinkers I have ever interacted with.

Yup. A single-mindedness of focus on irrelevant minutiae and self-determined anomalies that only a true conspiracy theorist can possess.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris ask yourself, what happens to a previously weakened column if proximate columns later foreshorten due to heat?(extra compressive forces)
What happens if the weakened columns suffer damage on proximate floors rather than on the same floor?(additional shear forces)

You really are one of the most one dimensional thinkers I have ever interacted with.

Two rhetorical questions, one insult.

You did not challenge anything in my summary because you have read the NIST and FEMA reports and you know that every statement is true.

It would be very difficult for debris to eject elevator cars thru a wall and into the hallway.
The debris would have to have been coming down at a 45 degree angle, almost straight on south to north, after taking out 3 perimeter columns, busting thru 5 - 51/2" steel concrete floors and a core column.

 

[Belz...]

All we know for sure is, Daryl heard what sounded like a clap of thunder.

Chris: what sound does a steel column make when it snaps ?

my posts [with references] are about the damage to WTC 7 based on the research i have done.

Are you willing to concede that your research might be incomplete ?

The physical evidence was removed and destroyed before it could be analyzed.

Is that an excuse ?

The photographic evidence is enough for me but not for a prosecutor.

Yes, and that should tell you something about REAL investigations.

 

[jaydeehess]

Two rhetorical questions, one insult.

You did not challenge anything in my summary because you have read the NIST and FEMA reports and you know that every statement is true.

It would be very difficult for debris to eject elevator cars thru a wall and into the hallway.
The debris would have to have been coming down at a 45 degree angle, almost straight on south to north, after taking out 3 perimeter columns, busting thru 5 - 51/2" steel concrete floors and a core column.


[qimg]http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1968/wtc7fl8editow0.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/6676/copyofworldtradecenterir6.jpg[/qimg]

You are making definitive statements based on incomplete data that you treat as complete. You do this while also ignoring other data that suggests your definitive is incorrect.

To my mind this is no better than what the Bush administration did in making a 'case' for going to war with Iraq. If you take that as an insult , sorry,,, if that isn't the shoe size you want, don't buy it.....

I am illustrating that there are many other senarios other than the ones you assume NIST/FEMA must utilize. You assume that since the initiation of collapse was due to the failure of one or more of three elements that all damage leading to that failure must be localised at those elements. This is simply not the case.

You also assume that since the report is of two of the elevators in that shaft were ejected that none of the others were affected. You assume that since those elevators were ejected that whatever caused it had to have hit them and them only.

How did you arrive the elevators in question being the ones you illustrate above? Is there a better description of which bank of elevators were involved? There is another bank to the east of the one you point to.

A wheel assembly of one of the planes punched through perimeter columns in WTC 1 on the far side from impact. Steel debris from the north tower collapse would easily be many times the mass of that wheel assembly and would be travelling at about 100 MPH, comparable to the velocity at which that wheel assembly hit the p[erimeter column. The WTC perimeter columns were greater in size and strength than those of WTC 7.

Debris need not crunch through several steel & concrete floors if it has entered the elevator shafts.

 

[Christopher7]

You are making definitive statements based on incomplete data that you treat as complete.

The data on the time and location of the fires in the eastern 1/3 of WTC 7 is not complete*, as you say.
However, the fire on floor 12 burned for about 6 hours as it worked it's way around, south wall to east to north. A fire on another floor would do the same, more or less.

There were NO fuel fed fires in the eastern part of WTC 7.
In the unlikely event that debris severed the fuel supply pipe the fire would have been in the middle of WTC 7.

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
Looking from the SE corner of the south face:
Fire seen on floor 14 (corrected to floor 12 in NIST Final 4-5-05) on the south face, the face above the fire was covered with smoke.

Inherent in this statement is:
The area below floor 12 was NOT obscured during this time.
Any serious damage to this area would have been seen and reported.
*That leaves the possibility of damage above the 12th floor.

*In this photograph, there is no damage or fire in the area that can be seen beyond the large hole around floor 14.

You do this while also ignoring other data that suggests your definitive is incorrect.

What data?

I am illustrating that there are many other senarios other than the ones you assume NIST/FEMA must utilize. You assume that since the initiation of collapse was due to the failure of one or more of three elements that all damage leading to that failure must be localised at those elements. This is simply not the case.

Depends on your definition of local.
A fire or debris damage in the middle of WTC 7 would not cause the eastern most core columns to fail.

You also assume that since the report is of two of the elevators in that shaft were ejected that none of the others were affected.You assume that since those elevators were ejected that whatever caused it had to have hit them and them only.

No

How did you arrive the elevators in question being the ones you illustrate above?

Steve Spak's photo/graphic shows the large hole around floor 14.

Column 7 is about center of that hole.

Is there a better description of which bank of elevators were involved?

Not that i know of. You?

There is another bank to the east of the one you point to.

The debris, coming from the direction it came from, could not eject those elevators into the hallway.

A wheel assembly of one of the planes punched through perimeter columns in WTC 1 on the far side from impact. Steel debris from the north tower collapse would easily be many times the mass of that wheel assembly and would be traveling at about 100 MPH, comparable to the velocity at which that wheel assembly hit the perimeter column. The WTC perimeter columns were greater in size and strength than those of WTC 7.

That wheel assembly was inside a 100,000 lb. airplane going 580 mph,
hardly comparable to a large piece of debris falling.

However, the hole in Steve's photo appears to be about 30' by 40'. [very roughly]
I will wait for the final report for clarification on this damage, but
a piece of debris big enough to make that hole, might be able to break thru 3 perimeter columns, 5 - 5 1/2" steel and concrete floors including at least 1 floor support beam per floor, take out a core column, eject 2 elevators thru a wall and into the hallway, take out some framing and a concrete masonry wall, [bypassing the 14" RC floor on 7] break thru a 6" steel and concrete floor and sever the fuel supply pipe, 90' inside the building.

The end result would be a fuel fed fire in near column 70 [NIST #] the middle of the building.

 

[Dog Town]

There were NO fuel fed fires in the eastern part of WTC 7.
In the unlikely event that debris severed the fuel supply pipe the fire would have been in the middle of WTC 7.

Yes, of course, because no pipes it fed, could have been affected! How many fires have you noticed, with PLENTY of flammables, just die with no fighting? Absurd!

DT

 

[Belz...]

Chris: what sound does a steel column make when it snaps ?

 

[jaydeehess]

The data on the time and location of the fires in the eastern 1/3 of WTC 7 is not complete*, as you say.
However, the fire on floor 12 burned for about 6 hours as it worked it's way around, south wall to east to north. A fire on another floor would do the same, more or less.

Given the very different floor plans it is doubtful that a fire on the 7th floor or 5th floor would burn in the same pattern as on the 12th floor.

There were NO fuel fed fires in the eastern part of WTC 7.
In the unlikely event that debris severed the fuel supply pipe the fire would have been in the middle of WTC 7.

You simply have no way of definitively stating this. I too put the probability of a fuel fire on the east side of the eastern most elevator shaft as fairly low but I cannot discount the possibilty completely.

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
Looking from the SE corner of the south face:
Fire seen on floor 14 (corrected to floor 12 in NIST Final 4-5-05) on the south face, the face above the fire was covered with smoke.
Inherent in this statement is:
The area below floor 12 was NOT obscured during this time.
Any serious damage to this area would have been seen and reported.
*That leaves the possibility of damage above the 12th floor..

But it does not preclude a fire on the 7th floor in an area with no windows and a hole in the elevator shaft funneling smoke to the 12th floor or above.

*In this photograph, there is no damage or fire in the area that can be seen beyond the large hole around floor 14.

[qimg]http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4597/wtc7holecleanqo5.jpg[/qimg]

In THAT photograph.

What data?

Simply that the fuel lines do indeed run nearby the area under concern and that the building had suffered physical damage that in at least one place can be shown to have caused major damage and that similar damage occured to Banker's Trust from imapct from WTC 2 debris.

Depends on your definition of local.
A fire or debris damage in the middle of WTC 7 would not cause the eastern most core columns to fail.

I am glad you have established the exact route of any heavy debris that hit WTC 7 to such a definite degree.

Steve Spak's photo/graphic shows the large hole around floor 14.

[qimg]http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9000/copyofwtc7holeanalysiscyk0.jpg[/qimg]

Column 7 is about center of that hole.

Also good to know that you definitivly established the trajectory of WTC 1 debris to such an exact nature.

Not that i know of. You?

Nope, which is why I can't say definitively which elevator bank was involved , unlike you.

The debris, coming from the direction it came from, could not eject those elevators into the hallway.

More definitives that require that you have somehow come to a definitive trajectory and route through WTC 7 for such debris.

That wheel assembly was inside a 100,000 lb. airplane going 580 mph,
hardly comparable to a large piece of debris falling.

Irrelevent. The kinetic energy of the wheel assembly alone, as it hit the far wall on its way out of the building, is what would allow it to punch through. That wheel assembly was doing less than 100 MPH when it hit the last perimeter column. The column it hit was larger than any in WTC 7 and the wheel assembly had a mass that would easily be much less than the mass of a portion of structural steel hitting WTC 7. Debris hitting WTC 7 could easily be doing 100 MPH.

I will wait for the final report for clarification on this damage, but
a piece of debris big enough to make that hole, might be able to break thru 3 perimeter columns, 5 - 5 1/2" steel and concrete floors including at least 1 floor support beam per floor, take out a core column, eject 2 elevators thru a wall and into the hallway, take out some framing and a concrete masonry wall, [bypassing the 14" RC floor on 7] break thru a 6" steel and concrete floor and sever the fuel supply pipe, 90' inside the building.

The end result would be a fuel fed fire in near column 70 [NIST #] the middle of the building

Or ,,,,, using the same data available to me as to you,,,,, a steel column 2' X 2' wide and 30 ft long entered WTC 7 at floor 14 at an angle to the face of the building and punched through the floor pan entering the eastern most elevator bank severing all elevator cables, the lower end of the column section jamming at floor 5, the elevator cars crashing down hitting this steel column and being ejected to the north, the east and north walls of the elevator shaft being severly damaged, breeched at floor 7 and causing damage to column 79(IIRC) and kinking the fuel pipe that fed the generator causing fuel to poll at the north of the elevator shaft and eventually ignite sending smoke up through the 'chimney' created by the debris to exit the building at the 12th floor or higher.

The fire creating a creep of the column(s) nearest it and putting extra load on the physically damaged, yet cooler column nearby which could no longer take the load, which then failed suddenly causing its load to be transfered to the nearby columns including the ones already suffering from loss of strength thus shortening even more very quickly pulling in on nearby columns which starts the vertical progression that sees the penthouse collapse and which increases the canteranry force on beams to the south wall causing the connections along the south side of the core columns to break and allow the perimeter walls to move southward , penthouse structure falling down starts causing further problems higher up, the core now pulling in on the north wall which is intact, the east section pulls free at the intiation point along the east side of the Con-ed building and falls north east whiole the rest of building to the west falls over the Con-ed building crushing it and sending its debris south.

BTW, you are aware that in the crash of the aircraft into the Empire State Building in which the plane was actually climbing, and perpendicular to the building, and doing about 120 MPH, one engine entered the elevator shaft, plunging to the ground down it?

 

[Miragememories]

If these were Demolition Charges going off, how come the Demolition teams didn't hear them?

How do you know that these are explosions, rather than someone describing them as explosions?

Do you have any evidence that these 'explosions' are Demolition charges going off, and not anything else?

How do you know they aren't?

MM

 

[CHF]

How do you know they aren't?

MM

Asking your opponent to prove a negative.

A debate tactic straight out of grade 4.

 

[Miragememories]

You never see the JREFers address the points made about how totally UN-NATURAL the WTC7 collapse was.

They ignore that issue and confine their rebuttals to firefighter quotes, debris damage and unfought fire.

It's mind-boggling how JREFers refuse to use their lifetime of learned experience when considering this event.

Of course you have to consider the fire and debris damage. But counting how many bricks were broken is largely irrelevant when you consider the complete picture.

You have to consider the rest of what happened as well.

Supposing you folks are right and no controlled demolition was applied to WTC7.

Suppose your also right that the fires burned long enough and hot enough to introduce structural failure.

Is it not a reasonable expectation to expect the structure to weaken and fail at one location first, rather than at all locations at the same time?

Is it not reasonable to expect this first location structural failure to cause a lean or topple of part or all of the structure above?

Is it not more reasonable to expect progressive structural failures resulting it a badly damaged partially collapsed WTC7?

The firefighters certainly prepared for a topple.

BUT WTC7 didn't topple.

We didn't see WTC7 fall piecemeal.

We didn't see part of WTC7 remain standing.

We did see a simultaneous uniform structural failure leading to a high-speed, symmetrical, near-footprint, COMPLETE collapse of WTC7.

Is it really necessary to be a structural engineer to suggest that this was extremely unlikely to occur without artificial assistance?

Is it so unreasonable to suggest that the observed; high-speed, symmetrical, near-footprint collapse of WTC7 was better explained by preplanned controlled demolition?

MM

 

[CHF]

MM,

explain to me why

a) we didn't hear the rapid explosions that usually accompany a demolition

b) why WTC7 was leaning before it fell

c) how the demo charges survived the fires

d) why seismographs did not detect the charges

e) why the FDNY knew it would come down several hours before it did

f) why no structural engineers agree with you

 

[DavidJames]

Is it so unreasonable to suggest that the observed; high-speed, symmetrical, near-footprint collapse of WTC7 was better explained by preplanned controlled demolition?

MM

No, intelligent people rely on evidence, you tin hatters rely on gut feel.

I feel sorry for you.

 

[JimBenArm]

You never see the JREFers address the points made about how totally UN-NATURAL the WTC7 collapse was.

There's a natural way for a building to collapse?

Do tell!

Gee, do you think getting hit by debris from a neighboring building, being on fire for hours just MIGHT have something to do with how "unnatural" the collapse was?

I love you guys! You keep me laughing all day long!