10 story hole in WTC 7

[aggle-rithm]

It seems that no one here has anything to add.

My last post, using facts from the FEMA and NIST reports, clearly shows that there was NO debris damage or fuel fed fires in the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

No one can dispute these facts contained in these reports.

No one here can bring themselves to admit that debris damage and fire did not bring down WTC 7.

ALL fires are fuel-fed. I assume by fuel you are referring to diesel fuel.

There was more than enough combustible material in that building to keep secondary fires going for a long, long time. Assuming you are correct and the fire on the east wall was secondary, why do you say it was unsufficient to bring down the building? The report said that ANY column failure in that area could had initiated collapse. How do you KNOW that secondary fires could not have done this?

As always, please include your calculations.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Logical positivism?
I haven't heard that one before.

Do you know the difference between hypothesis [set of assumptions] and facts ?

There wee NO fuel oil tanks in the eastern half of WTC 7.

No damage to the eastern 1/3 of WTC 7 was reported.

Yes, but the PowerPoint presentation you linked to SHOWED fires on that side of the building. Did you forget? Or do you think that fires in an office building can't do any damage?

 

[Miragememories]

This is a very telling statement. You have clearly not been exposed to logical positivism yet.

"Why" statements can show how a given theory is insufficient, incomplete or inferior to an alternative theory. Stateofgrace posed questions fully answered by the NIST hypothesis that are not answered by the controlled demolition hypothesis. Theories are evaluated based on which are capable of encompassing and explaining most of the available evidence. In the case of the controlled demolition hypothesis, a significant portion of the evidence is imaginary.

Given the positivist position, the NIST self-initiated collapse theory does encompass more of the available data and is the better theory.

I think you are espousing illogical negativism The Almond.

Christopher7's post #1082 addresses specifically the history of physical conditions that existed in WTC7 on 9/11. He is providing solid data based on NIST's own reporting.

This thread is about whether fire and debris damage could account for the collapse of WTC7. Christopher7 has presented a strong case which supports the argument that something, something other than fire and debris damage, caused the rapid, symmetrical, total collapse of WTC7 on 9/11.

The only remaining logical scientific explanation to this question is CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Posing a list of 'why' questions does not undermine the logic of this scientific WTC7 collapse explanation regardless of how interesting the questions are.


MM

 

[Belz...]

This thread is about whether fire and debris damage could account for the collapse of WTC7. Christopher7 has presented a strong case which supports the argument that something, something other than fire and debris damage, caused the rapid, symmetrical, total collapse of WTC7 on 9/11.

He has not done so. The fact is, as Aggle said, that it doesn't follow that the worst fires will deal the critical blow to the building.

The only remaining logical scientific explanation to this question is CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

That is a non sequitur, even if its premise were true.

Posing a list of 'why' questions does not undermine the logic of this scientific WTC7 collapse explanation regardless of how interesting the questions are.

In the absence of actual evidence for a controlled demolition, one must wonder about the motive for such a demolition before one would even consider it.

 

[Miragememories]

He has not done so. The fact is, as Aggle said, that it doesn't follow that the worst fires will deal the critical blow to the building.

I totally agree; "it does not follow that the worst fires will deal the critical blow to the building."

That is a non sequitur, even if its premise were true.

It is not a "non sequitur". Buildings fall because they can no longer resist the force of gravity. If fire and debris damage are insufficient to achieve this, than some other powerful force must have caused the sudden collapse of this over-engineered building. It was a beautiful September day, at least it was weatherwise. It is quite logical to infer that human intervention, via explosives, was the most scientifically feasible explanation for the rapid, symmetrical, total collapse of this 47-storey tower.

In the absence of actual evidence for a controlled demolition, one must wonder about the motive for such a demolition before one would even consider it.

One should consider motive, but one is not logically dependent on knowing the motive in order to consider that controlled demolition was the cause.

MM

 

[The Almond]

Logical positivism?
I haven't heard that one before.

Not surprising. I would suggest that you read up on the concept.

Do you know the difference between hypothesis [set of assumptions] and facts ?

Actually, I know the difference between a hypothesis based on objective, verifiable data, and a theory whose formulation requires the rationalization of contrary data as being part of a massive cover-up. No, a hypothesis is not merely a set of assumptions. Rather, it is an attempt to rationalize significant data. You have failed to provide specific data to support your hypothesis, and your subsequent defense of said hypothesis lacks the logical robustness demanded by logical positivism.

 

[Christopher7]

aggle-rithm: Thank you for catching that. I did mean fuel oil [diesel]

Not surprising. I would suggest that you read up on the concept.

Actually, I know the difference between a hypothesis based on objective, verifiable data, and a theory whose formulation requires the rationalization of contrary data as being part of a massive cover-up. No, a hypothesis is not merely a set of assumptions. Rather, it is an attempt to rationalize significant data. You have failed to provide specific data to support your hypothesis, and your subsequent defense of said hypothesis lacks the logical robustness demanded by logical positivism.

If you had actually read and verified the data using the references given, you would know that every statement is a direct quote from the FEMA and NIST reports, or is verified by the pages noted. This data is not going to change in the final report.
[note: in the Fires section, the reference pages for the location of the generator room and the supply pipe - FEMA pg 14 - 15]

Before making another stupid statement like "you have failed to provide specific data", read the specific data.
Do you know of any specific data that contradicts any of the data listed?

The damage to the south side will be updated in the final report but the damage to the east 1/3 of WTC 7 below floor 12 will not change.

NIST Apx. L pg 24 [28 on page counter]
Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
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:
There was NO smoke or fire below floor 12 to obscure the view.

There was NO damage reported to this area.

 

[The Almond]

If you had actually read and verified the data using the references given, you would know that every statement is a direct quote from the FEMA and NIST reports, or is verified by the pages noted. This data is not going to change in the final report.

And yet, your interpretation of the data is what is in question. Indeed, by looking at the same evidence NIST considered, a team of the country's best structural and materials engineers came up with a radically different conclusion. That would lead me to conclude one of two things:
1) You're cherry picking data which would seem to support your hypothesis
2) You're misrepresenting the evidence

[note: in the Fires section, the reference pages for the location of the generator room and the supply pipe - FEMA pg 14 - 15]

Before making another stupid statement like "you have failed to provide specific data", read the specific data.
Do you know of any specific data that contradicts any of the data listed?

The damage to the south side will be updated in the final report but the damage to the east 1/3 of WTC 7 below floor 12 will not change.

NIST Apx. L pg 24 [28 on page counter]
Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
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:
There was NO smoke or fire below floor 12 to obscure the view.

There was NO damage reported to this area.

I'm glad that you accept NIST's analysis and report as factual. Perhaps you could comment on L.2.5, starting on page 30.

The simultaneous failure of screenwall and west penthouse structures, window breakage on the west side of the north facade, and initiation of global collapse (see Fig. L–28) indicates that the building loads could no longer be supported. Horizontal progression of the collapse appears to have occurred after the vertical collapse on the east side of the building. The greater strength of Floors 5 and 7 relative to the other floors and the transfer trusses between these floors suggests that this region of the building played a key role in destabilizing the remaining core columns, and the global collapse occurred with few external signs prior to the system failure.

Now then, given that the horizontal progression appeared after vertical collapse, how does a controlled demolition account for this sequence? This is the evidence, it is not in dispute, as you are so fond of recounting.

I might also like you to comment on L.3.2 where NIST notes:

If interior columns had been severed or severely deformed, they may have failed immediately.

How does this statement conform to the controlled demolition hypothesis?

 

[stateofgrace]

Excellent work Christopher7.

True to form, when presented with a thorough anaylsis of the conditions that actually existed at WTC7 on 9/11, the responders take shelter by avoiding the inarguable points raised in your post #1082.

stateofgrace your collection of questions are very nice but they are totally irrelevant. You are asking a whole pile of WHY questions in reply to a post that is about the HOW. If your questions are so pertinent to the issue of, HOW could the WTC7 collapse given the lack of sufficient damage and fire then you should be able to address Christopher7's post directly and explain how your WHYquestions scientifically negate his post!

MM

The questions I have asked are but a snap shot of the very real questions that will be posed if and when a working alternative theory is put forward as to how WTC 7 fell. They will not go away and they need to be addressed for any alternative thesis to be taken seriously.

It is not enough to simply cherry pick NIST and proudly declare ¨hey they are wrong, therefore WTC 7 was demolished¨. A complete and proper alternative theory must take in all, each and every single known fact, eyewitness account and piece of scientific data.

What is being suggested is that a building was purposefully and knowingly pre rigged with explosives and demolished for some sinister reason. Therefore you must provide a workable theory, one that will not simply stall out because somebody asks you questions on it. You seem to forget or wish to ignore the fact that any alternative theory does not have meet the approval of this forum , or any internet forum, it has to meet the approval of the entire scientific and engineering community. To do this it will have to meet a very strict and rigid criteria.

Your theory cannot simply dismiss what you don’t like or facts that simply do not fit into it but must compass them all. From the fire fighter on the ground who said he heard the building groaning , right through to the damage caused by the collapsing tower and the subsequent fires. All this must be included.

Equally so for your theory to be even consider to be realistic you must with it offer up a whole new set of recommendations to prevent it happening again. See,you guys continually go on and only about how steel framed building have never collapsed as a result of fire before, well NIST to date have offered no less than 30 recommendations to prevent this happening again. So what to do with these? Simply ignore them ? I have no doubt when the final report into WTC 7 comes out there will be further recommendations, so you must offer your own. You must decide the best way to prevent large building in highly populated areas from being demolished again. You must push for a complete U turn on those recommendations that have been put forward and offer better more workable solutions.

It is no good from this point simply watching a ¨you tube video and saying hey that looked like a controlled demolishion, NIST have to be wrong¨. You and your group have to offer a completely plausible , working alternative theory, with a complete list of recommendations to back it up. It is not NISTs job to disprove you, it is not even mine or anybodies to disprove you, it is your burden to provide something that is workable and plausible and not just say ¨Hey NIST got this wrong, it looked like a controlled demo, therefore it must be¨.

When and if you do offer such a thesis and as requested offer up a completely plausible set of recommendations that actually make large steel framed building safer for everybody, then you may be taken seriously by the scientific community. At this moment you are simply whistling in the wind, cherry picking have offered nothing.

So my questions stand, they remain and will do so until you and your movement offer something more tangible than your gut feelings and cherry picking of NIST.

 

[Christopher7]

ALL fires are fuel-fed. I assume by fuel you are referring to diesel fuel.

There was more than enough combustible material in that building to keep secondary fires going for a long, long time. Assuming you are correct and the fire on the east wall was secondary, why do you say it was unsufficient to bring down the building? The report said that ANY column failure in that area could had initiated collapse. How do you KNOW that secondary fires could not have done this?

Secondary?
I listed the statements from NIST Apx. L pg 13 - 16, about the time and location of the fires in the east half of WTC 7.
There is no mention of 'secondary' fires.

Office fires burn thru the available fuel in a couple hours in a particular location. Even though the fires in WTC 7 were not fought, the fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned out by 4:45 p.m.

Read the timeline and view the photos [click on links]


I don't believe that WTC 7 was designed so poorly that the failure of a single column would lead to a global collapse.
NIST was not at all sure.

The likely reigon: NIST Apx. L pg 47 - 50
[I left out a lot of the boring technical stuff and got down to the essence of this section]

Horizontal collapse progression scenarios.

The likely region in which the horizontal progression occurred.....floors 5 and 7
strong lateral ties between interior columns may have been able to impose lateral displacements on adjacent columns.
Assuming that a vertical collapse of one or more bays occurred...
debris is likely to have severed....
transfer trusses #1 and #2 and the east transfer girder may have been damaged
possible responses of floors 5 and 7 following a vertical collapse of one or more bays.

- H2.1 Collapse does not progress

- H2.3 Collapse progresses

It goes on like that. In every paragraph there is a 'may have been', 'would tend to' or 'if'.

 

[Gravy]

It goes on like that. In every paragraph there is a 'may have been', 'would tend to' or 'if'.

You don't say? I think they should have investigated those things! This is very disturbing!

Christopher, won't you join with me in calling for an investigation into what caused the collapse of WTC 7?

I'm going to be busy in the morning. Would you mind calling Mike Newman at NIST and asking him why these things haven't been investigated?

Thanks.

–Mark

 

[Christopher7]

And yet, your interpretation of the data is what is in question. Indeed, by looking at the same evidence NIST considered, a team of the country's best structural and materials engineers came up with a radically different conclusion.

Dude, they did not come to a conclusion!

They said that their hypothesis "appears possible".

That would lead me to conclude one of two things:
1) You're cherry picking data which would seem to support your hypothesis
2) You're misrepresenting the evidence

Of course, to make a point one must list the facts that support that point.
Do you know of anything in those reports that conflicts with the statements i listed?

Read the evidence i listed. Check the references provided.
Please don't assume that i have misrepresented anything.

If you can find fault with anything in post #1082, say so, prove me wrong.
Be specific.

I'm glad that you accept NIST's analysis and report as factual. Perhaps you could comment on L.2.5, starting on page 30.

I accept the data as factual but the analysis is a bit 'iffy'.
"appears possible" is not a statement of fact.

Now then, given that the horizontal progression appeared after vertical collapse, how does a controlled demolition account for this sequence? This is the evidence, it is not in dispute, as you are so fond of recounting.

This thread is about the debris damage and fire to WTC 7
It is not about CD.

I might also like you to comment on L.3.2 where NIST notes:
If interior columns had been severed or severely deformed, they may have failed immediately.

The entire report is awash with could have, may have, if, possibly, etc.
It is the most indecisive thing i have ever read.
You can't hang your hat on "appears possible".

 

[Christopher7]

You don't say? I think they should have investigated those things! This is very disturbing!

Christopher, won't you join with me in calling for an investigation into what caused the collapse of WTC 7?

I'm going to be busy in the morning. Would you mind calling Mike Newman at NIST and asking him why these things haven't been investigated?

Thanks.

–Mark

Why don't you read post # 1082 and post something relevant?

 

[Gravy]

Why don't you read post # 1082 and post something relevant?

Oh, I've read it, and I'm right with you!

Why does NIST refuse to investigate the collapse of WTC 7?

I demand answers!


You're gonna make that call to Mike Newman, right?

 

[Belz...]

It is not a "non sequitur". Buildings fall because they can no longer resist the force of gravity. If fire and debris damage are insufficient to achieve this, than some other powerful force must have caused the sudden collapse

True.

of this over-engineered building.

Over-engineered ? Do you have a source for that ? Or is that just a way to make 7 WTC's collapse look more suspicious ?

It was a beautiful September day, at least it was weatherwise. It is quite logical to infer that human intervention, via explosives, was the most scientifically feasible explanation for the rapid, symmetrical, total collapse of this 47-storey tower.

Correction: IF fire and physical damage from 1 WTC's collapse didn't do it, controlled demolition is ONE possible explanation, one not supported by the evidence.

One should consider motive, but one is not logically dependent on knowing the motive in order to consider that controlled demolition was the cause.

Without proof ? Really ?

 

[twinstead]

You can't hang your hat on "appears possible".

You have GOT to be kidding me. Your ENTIRE movement hangs its hat on "appears possible" AND "appears impossible".

What a double standard.

When NIST says "appears possible" it comes from the carefully considered investigation of experts in the relevant fields.
When your movement says "appears possible" it comes from ideologically-biased laymen expressing personal incredulity.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Secondary?
I listed the statements from NIST Apx. L pg 13 - 16, about the time and location of the fires in the east half of WTC 7.
There is no mention of 'secondary' fires.

Then you admit that the fires on the east side were fueled by diesel oil. Now, we're getting somewhere.

Office fires burn thru the available fuel in a couple hours in a particular location.

You mean, in general?

According to...whom?

I don't believe that WTC 7 was designed so poorly that the failure of a single column would lead to a global collapse.

First, your belief is irrelevant. Second, in ideal conditions it probably would not have been sufficient. However, with the building in the condition it was (heavily damaged by debris and on fire), NIST believed that a single column could trigger the initiating event.

NIST was not at all sure.

The likely reigon: NIST Apx. L pg 47 - 50
[I left out a lot of the boring technical stuff and got down to the essence of this section]

Well, that boring technical stuff is key to understanding what happened.

Horizontal collapse progression scenarios.

The likely region in which the horizontal progression occurred.....floors 5 and 7
strong lateral ties between interior columns may have been able to impose lateral displacements on adjacent columns.
Assuming that a vertical collapse of one or more bays occurred...
debris is likely to have severed....
transfer trusses #1 and #2 and the east transfer girder may have been damaged
possible responses of floors 5 and 7 following a vertical collapse of one or more bays.

- H2.1 Collapse does not progress

- H2.3 Collapse progresses

It goes on like that. In every paragraph there is a 'may have been', 'would tend to' or 'if'.

Given that ignorance breeds confidence far more easily than does knowledge, what do you make of the fact that the highly skilled investigators at NIST were not sure exactly what happened, but you, with no expertise at all, are CERTAIN as to what happened?

 

[Belz...]

You can't hang your hat on "appears possible".

This coming from a member of the "truth" movement, a group that bases its conclusions SOLELY on bare possibilities ? Laughable.

 

[Belz...]

Given that ignorance breeds confidence far more easily than does knowledge, what do you make of the fact that the highly skilled investigators at NIST were not sure exactly what happened, but you, with no expertise at all, are CERTAIN as to what happened?

I second that question.

 

[Kent1]

Just a small note. NIST reports (See NIST Testimony Sept 8/06) suggest that the pressurized fuel supply piping system was damaged from the collapse of WTC1. One possiblilty especially is the point where the pipes entered the value box and or the pipe and containment pipe. A fracture of the pipe at the valve box would release fuel under pressure very close to column 79. (Mounted on the underside of the floorslab (6)) I see nothing suggesting that debris was needed to reach this point to cause pipe fracture. No seismic design was added to the piping system.

NIST also mentions airflow may of been altered due to south face damage. So you may not see smoke coming out of the exhaust vents. There were no exterior windows on the 5th floor.

Furthermore "no residual petroleum product or sludge was found in the tanks or piping. Examination of the gravel below the tanks and the sand below the slab on which the tanks were mounted showed some fuel contamination, but none was found in the organic marine silt/clay layer below. Witnesses also reported that the two 6,000 gal fuel tanks were always kept full for emergencies and were full that day. "(See Finding 1b4 and 5 June 04)

A fracture would continue to cause tanks to pump fuel until tanks were empty or at least one generator was running.


So its likely the fuel burned.
Cheers.