10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

No, Im saying that you should treat any preliminary report and what it says as that. a PRELIMINARY finding of what they have investigated thus far. As more things come to light and the more investigation they do brings out more facts, the statements made in the preliminary report can be changed.

Im not saying that they are going to change what is already FACTUALLY supported (ie the exact positions of the tanks).

OK, now we're on the same page.

The statements about the location and progression of the fires on the east end of WTC 7 backed up by photographic evidence is not going to change.
There may be some additions above floor 12 on the south side but there won't be any additions to the fires below that point or on the east and north sides.
"Around 4:45.......floor 12 was burned out by this time."
To make this determination, they had to look at the south, east and north sides. These statements are, no doubt, from reports by firefighters.

however, anything else that is speculated (ie possible, probable, likely) that is littered through the report should only be taken at that. POSSIBLE. PROBABLE and LIKELY.

We agree.

So, I hold you to the same degree of "speculation" as you hold us. YOU are speculating basing on the speculations of a preliminary report.

No. I am listing the facts that will not change, not the speculations in the report.

 

[GlennB]

Brooklyn Building Collapse Questions

Reconnaissance of the Elks Lodge Building Collapse

Building collapse in Alexandria

Building Collapse Kills One, Injures Six

Building Collapse Kills Baby and Traps 4 in Greenwich Village

Russian swimming pool collapse

Swiss swimming pool collapse

London building collapse

Mecca building collapse

Really, MM, you could get bored finding yet more examples.

When the "source please" line is trotted out over an issue that is so well known and easily researchable, you have to conclude that the questioner is rattled.

 

[Belz...]

AGAIN FOR THE umpteenth TIME CHRISTOPHER 7
you are arguing semantics from a report that isn't even completed.

I think that sums up the thread.

Thanks Arus. We can all stop posting here, now.

Oh, wait. I don't think Chris will. Darn.

 

[Belz...]

Columns 76, 77 and 78 were well beyond the elevator shafts.

You keep making a fuss about where the fires were. Are you aware that, if some columns in a building fail, other columns have to bear the extra load and that they could fail later as well at a later time ? This might be the initiating event you're looking for.

By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out because it had run out of fuel.
However, the fires on floors 7 and 13 still had fuel to burn so they may have been burning in the center or south side.

Source please ?

Get real!

Well, well. An argument from incredulity. Never seen that in a truther before...

 

[Belz...]

NIST loves drowning readers in documentation! TEN THOUSAND PAGES OF DOCUMENTATION yet given the opportunity to support their contention with a few calculations...they waffle with a summation of some.

Ooh, yes. That IS suspicious...

I can only believe it's because you are afraid. Afraid of the truth.

Speculation. Truth is power. And I WANT power.

Buildings don't like to collapse 'fwump'. If they are going to collapse they like to resist because they were engineered to resist. They collapse in pieces..gradually.. that is..if they are going to colllapse.

Might I suggest a course in structural engineering ?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Russian swimming pool collapse

Swiss swimming pool collapse

London building collapse

Mecca building collapse

Really, MM, you could get bored finding yet more examples.

When the "source please" line is trotted out over an issue that is so well known and easily researchable, you have to conclude that the questioner is rattled.

I predict the "No True Scotsman" fallacy will make an appearance soon.

"Those aren't REAL high-rises like building 7..."

 

[aggle-rithm]

The stories about swimming pool collapses reminded me of when I was a child and I built a homemade terrarium from a shoe box. Some day I will tell the traumatic story of how it catastrophically collapsed one night, sending baby frogs flying everywhere.

But...not yet. It's....it's too painful...

 

[mortimer]

Actually, debris damage and fire is essential to the NIST hypothesis.

Without the debris damage to the core columns and the diesel fuel fires, the hypothesis falls apart.

So the NIST preliminary report says that there was no fire or debris damage around the area of the initiating event, and it also says that such fire or debris damage around the area of the initiating event is what caused the collapse? Cite please?

 

[Miragememories]

Russian swimming pool collapse

Swiss swimming pool collapse

London building collapse

Mecca building collapse

Really, MM, you could get bored finding yet more examples.

When the "source please" line is trotted out over an issue that is so well known and easily researchable, you have to conclude that the questioner is rattled.

What's really boring GlennB is people like yourself who see words but don't 'read' them.

It's not just that WTC7 collapsed and I'm well aware other structures have collapsed.

Your arguing apples and oranges.

It's the TOTAL, HIGH SPEED NATURE OF THE WTC7 COLLAPSE, supposedly from fire and debris damage that is absurd!

Now cull your huge list of collapses and provide one that is comparable.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

You keep making a fuss about where the fires were. Are you aware that, if some columns in a building fail, other columns have to bear the extra load and that they could fail later as well at a later time ? This might be the initiating event you're looking for.



Source please ?



Well, well. An argument from incredulity. Never seen that in a truther before...

Are you aware that steel weakened by heat regains it's strength once it cools. No longer burning fires are a very important consideration when evaluating a building's effective structural condition.

MM

 

[Dave Rogers]

Are you aware that steel weakened by heat regains it's strength once it cools. No longer burning fires are a very important consideration when evaluating a building's effective structural condition.

Are you aware that steel doesn't necessarily regain its shape when it cools? Thermal history is also a very important consideration, and can lead to very large residual strains in a structure.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

The statements about the location and progression of the fires on the east end of WTC 7 backed up by photographic evidence is not going to change.

X-ray vision AND psychic abilities ?

What's next ?

 

[Belz...]

Are you aware that steel weakened by heat regains it's strength once it cools.

I'm also aware that it doesn't REPAIR itself once it cools.

 

[Belz...]

It's the TOTAL, HIGH SPEED NATURE OF THE WTC7 COLLAPSE, supposedly from fire and debris damage that is absurd!

Why ?

 

[Miragememories]

I'm also aware that it doesn't REPAIR itself once it cools.

Since 5x over strength was quite normal in the WTC structural steel, regaining any heat loss strength, even if it wasn't 100%, was still quite significant. Add that to the fact that there wasn't any evidence that the supporting steel was ever significantly weakened by fire, or fire-damaged to a state of vulnerable DISREPAIR, and the fire history in WTC7 gains even greater significance.

MM

 

[Dave Rogers]

Since 5x over strength was quite normal in the WTC structural steel, regaining any heat loss strength, even if it wasn't 100%, was still quite significant. Add that to the fact that there wasn't any evidence that the supporting steel was ever significantly weakened by fire, or fire-damaged to a state of vulnerable DISREPAIR, and the fire history in WTC7 gains even greater significance.

If there wasn't any weakening or deformation of the supporting steel structure, how do you explain the measured structural movement of the building? The point is that once the steel has actually deformed - and there was clear physical evidence from the FDNY transit measurements that it had done so significantly before the collapse - then the deformed structural components have the same 5x over strength as the rest of the structure. The strength of the structure then becomes the force that is actually stressing other parts of the structure, and it's quite possible for one or the other to give way as a result.

Not based on structural engineering expertise, by the way. It just seems reasonable to me that differential deformation due to thermal cycling can seriously, and potentially catastrophically, weaken a structure.

Dave

 

[Miragememories]

Why ?

Why is it absurd?

Your question is absurd..but I'll humour you.

If buildings could be induced to collapse rapidly and completely, without the use of special intervention methods, then the demolition companies that specialize in rapid complete footprint collapses would sure save a lot of time and money.

WTC7 collapsed completely.

WTC7 collapsed at high speed.

WTC7 kept a level roofline during it's high speed collapse.

WTC7 did not topple over as one area of support weakened before another.

A collapse of this sort required a uniform loss of structural supports throughout the base of the WTC7, all occurring at the same moment in time, or it would lean and topple.

You are suggesting that it is not absurd to believe that 7 hours after the initial falling debris damage, the 47 storey WTC7 would suffer a catastrophic simultaneous structural failure throughout it's base as a consequence of a very tenuous fire history.

Amazing what people like yourself Belz, will argue in order to protect your cherished beliefs.

MM

 

[Dave Rogers]

If buildings could be induced to collapse rapidly and completely, without the use of special intervention methods, then the demolition companies that specialize in rapid complete footprint collapses would sure save a lot of time and money.

Yes, it would be much cheaper to build a 110 storey tower near to the building you want to demolish, then knock down the tower by a combination of fire and impact damage, then pump thousands of gallons into the building you want to demolish so it burns for seven hours.

What people who actually understand controlled demolition seem to be saying, mostly, is that the hard bit isn't getting the building to fall, it's doing so without damaging other buildings around it. Fortunately WTC7 fell slightly southwards, as studies of the rubble pile have shown, towards an area where there weren't any undamaged buildings left. However, it didn't fall vertically, and it didn't keep a level roofline - clear tilts can be seen in videos shot from some angles. As for falling fast - once the lower supports failed, it fell at the same speed as a building would fall if its lower supports failed for any other reason (e.g. explosives). If you haven't yet realised that the speed of collapse isn't sensitive to the means of initiation, then you haven't been paying attention; if you have, then you're the one arguing to protect your precious beliefs.

Dave

 

[DavidJames]

WTC7 collapsed completely.

True

WTC7 collapsed at high speed.

Please provide engineering or demolition based evidence that the speed of collapse should be considered unusual.

WTC7 kept a level roofline during it's high speed collapse.

Please provide engineering or demolition based evidence that this observation should be considered unusual.

WTC7 did not topple over as one area of support weakened before another.

Please provide engineering or demolition based evidence to support your claim, otherwise it's simply an observation by an uneducated and inexperienced person.

A collapse of this sort required a uniform loss of structural supports throughout the base of the WTC7, all occurring at the same moment in time, or it would lean and topple.

Please provide engineering or demolition based evidence to support your claim, otherwise it's simply an observation by an uneducated and inexperienced person.

 

[Miragememories]

If there wasn't any weakening or deformation of the supporting steel structure, how do you explain the measured structural movement of the building? The point is that once the steel has actually deformed - and there was clear physical evidence from the FDNY transit measurements that it had done so significantly before the collapse - then the deformed structural components have the same 5x over strength as the rest of the structure. The strength of the structure then becomes the force that is actually stressing other parts of the structure, and it's quite possible for one or the other to give way as a result.

Not based on structural engineering expertise, by the way. It just seems reasonable to me that differential deformation due to thermal cycling can seriously, and potentially catastrophically, weaken a structure.

Dave

What we have is a quote..or two, that based on transit readings, the members of the NYFD decided WTC7 was going to collapse.

We don't have any details on what was measured, other than they determined there were changes in the 'before' and 'after' measurements. We don't know if transit observations were equally noted at all 4 corners of WTC7.

We don't know if transit reading changes were a result of building changes around the area of the more significant debris damage.

We do know that on 9/11, the NYFD was using a transit on a burning building and supposedly, for the very first time, stating a total collapse prognosis, even though such an event had never happened before.

I say this because prior to 9/11, no concrete and steel building had ever completely collapsed in NYC due to fire and initial debris damage.

The transit measurements could certainly provide warning of possible WTC7 debris collapse, possibly very large debris, which would place anyone in the immediate area at serious risk.

We know they were questioning the structural integrity of WTC7, and that it was most likely that after already witnessing the unexpected collapse of the world's two tallest buildings that day, combined with the horrific loss of over 300 firefighters and 2700 civilians, they might have been extremely ripe to the idea that WTC7 might suffer the same fate.

There is no logical reason, or evidence, to assume that representatives of the NYFD had reason to logically deduce a high speed total collapse of WTC7 based on transit readings.

MM