9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'

[Grizzly Bear]

I try not to indulge false analogies,

It's a simple concept red, you're asking for evidence that thermal expansion buckled a column, I'm asking for evidence that a piece of thermal insulation doomed a space shuttle in re-entry. How does it feel to be confronted with your own hypocrisy?

You provide precedent of the same kind of break-off damaging shuttles:

Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"

I provide precedent showing thermal expansion damaging the structural integrity of a building:

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-049.pdf

Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted--some as much as three feet--under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

None of the precedents before the cases Columbia and WTC incidents was fatal, but they show that in both cases they were a threat, and a concern, and that under all the right circumstances they can be fatal. You are hypocrite for accepting this in one case but not in another. I suggest you get your priorities straightened before you start lecturing what evidence is, because your goalposts shift continually.

Speaking of which, perhaps we can request to get this merged with the old thread?

 

[A W Smith]

Redibis..

Newtons first law.

"Every body perseveres in its state of rest "or of uniform motion in a right line "unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.

agree or disagree?

Can Newton's Law be proven? The answer is no, because it's impossible to be sure that your reference frame is without any accelerations.

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-01Physics-IFall1999/VideoLectures/detail/embed06.htm

 

[johnny karate]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.

And how's that expectation panning out? You know, among all the engineers and scientists you've talked to about the validity of computer modeling.

Red, you've claimed you would expect a "real skeptic" to share your concerns regarding the validity of the NIST WTC7 Report.

Please define what you mean by "real skeptic" (i.e. Would this include industry professionals, or merely just laypersons such as yourself?), and please let us know upon what you base this expectation.

 

[cyclonic]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence, just not on jref.

 

[SezMe]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2004/jan/11/features.magazine67

At least get your links right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2004/jan/11/features.magazine57

OK, Red, I read it. Very interesting. But I have no idea what conclusions you might draw from it regarding 9/11. Care to elucidate?

 

[Wildy]

Imagine that... a big chunk of frozen water can slice into steel ~1 inch thick at 20 kts, who woulda thunk it?

It wasn't a chunk of ice, it was an ice castle.

Grizzly Bear agrees with me...

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I would think any real skeptic would be frustrated by a collapse theory that is not supported by physical evidence,

You mean compared to theories that have absolutely no evidence?

Apparently you feel that the photos showing WTC7 getting smashed by the collapsing north tower, smoke from massive fires pouring from every floor and the dozens of firefighter testimonies of massive fires, severe structural damage and hearing creaking coming from inside the building isn't "evidence".

 

[RedIbis]

You mean compared to theories that have absolutely no evidence?

Apparently you feel that the photos showing WTC7 getting smashed by the collapsing north tower, smoke from massive fires pouring from every floor and the dozens of firefighter testimonies of massive fires, severe structural damage and hearing creaking coming from inside the building isn't "evidence".

Ok, first show me a photo of smoke pouring from every floor of WTC 7. Next explain how "severe structural damage" contributed to the collapse of the bldg. Be forewarned, NIST will not support your explanation.

 

[johnny karate]

Ok, first show me a photo of smoke pouring from every floor of WTC 7.

Firefighter testimony supports the presence and size of the fires in WTC7. A point Sword_Of_Truth made which you conveniently ignored. Do you honestly need photographs to corroborate what these firefighters reported, or are you just engaging in another trollish game of "gotcha"?

Next explain how "severe structural damage" contributed to the collapse of the bldg. Be forewarned, NIST will not support your explanation.

Where was the claim made that severe structural damage contributed to the collapse of WTC7?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Ok, first show me a photo of smoke pouring from every floor of WTC 7.

And some supplemental reading: LINK
Start reading three pages up from where the link places you in the book.

Next explain how "severe structural damage" contributed to the collapse of the bldg.

Damage to infrastructure allowing the fires to ignite on multiple floors, and disabling the city water mains that fed many of the sprinklers on the fire floors, allowing the fires to burn completely unabated.

Be forewarned, NIST will not support your explanation.

Doesn't matter, even the comatose could understand that the loss of the city water mains was a bad sign... for any sort of firefighting effort to could have taken place.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Indeed, the case is quite closed, especially after this:

I use extremely un-detailed computer models to design new buildings. None of these building have fallen down. Why would extremely detailed models used to analyze buildings that have already collapsed be unacceptable?

 

[BigAl]

[qimg]http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i268/representativepress/WTC7Fire.jpg[/qimg]
And some supplemental reading: LINK
Start reading three pages up from where the link places you in the book.


Damage to infrastructure allowing the fires to ignite on multiple floors, and disabling the city water mains that fed many of the sprinklers on the fire floors, allowing the fires to burn completely unabated.

Yup. That's WTC7 flaming away. You can see the 140 West St building in the foreground and it was hit with debris and fire damage, too, but unlike WTC7/1/2, it was a pre-1938 building which meant it had real fireproofing.

It and other pre-1938 buildings around WTC survived because of that fireproofing.

 

[RedIbis]

Doesn't matter, even the comatose could understand that the loss of the city water mains was a bad sign... for any sort of firefighting effort to could have taken place.

Sure, but according to NIST,the fire never burned out of control on more than six lower floors.

And even more importantly, NIST admits that the fires weren't extraordinarily hot, but the collapse occurs because floor-span systems thermally expanded at temps “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings."

In short, WTC 7 was never the raging, completely involved inferno that has often been claimed here.

 

[stateofgrace]

Sure, but according to NIST,the fire never burned out of control on more than six lower floors.

And even more importantly, NIST admits that the fires weren't extraordinarily hot, but the collapse occurs because floor-span systems thermally expanded at temps “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings."

In short, WTC 7 was never the raging, completely involved inferno that has often been claimed here.

Not here Red, by those that were there.

"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak

" All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild."

"you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames."

"At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire"

"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories."

Lots more here, feel free to read them and let us know which fire fighter is telling lies, ok ?

 

[BigAl]

Sure, but according to NIST,the fire never burned out of control on more than six lower floors.

And even more importantly, NIST admits that the fires weren't extraordinarily hot, but the collapse occurs because floor-span systems thermally expanded at temps “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings."

And the fireproofing (aka resistance) of the steel in the WTC towers was, in hindsight (for most of us) woefully substandard by any standard and more-so given the unfought, gas-fueled fire. This doesn't begin to address the structural damage caused by the impact and the unplanned 100+ tons of load located in places near the structural damage and may have exceeded floor loading specs all on it's own.

In Report From Ground Zero (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when comparred to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.

Page 310, Report From Ground Zero;
http://snurl.com/j54ud [books_google_com]
Who is Vincent Dunn?
http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn
​

You, sir, will of course ignore this post in any substantive way.

 

[RedIbis]

Not here Red, by those that were there.



Lots more here, feel free to read them and let us know which fire fighter is telling lies, ok ?

Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event.

I don't fault them, but NIST simply does not agree with their assessment. The bldg was not fully involved, all 47 stories were not on fire.

 

[BigAl]

I don't fault them, but NIST simply does not agree with their assessment. The bldg was not fully involved, all 47 stories were not on fire.

Strawman and so what? It wasn't set up for man-made demolition, either.

 

[RedIbis]

You, sir, will of course ignore this post in any substantive way.

Well, I certainly will if you try to conflate the Twin Towers' collapse theories with WTC 7. Let's stick to the topic at hand.

 

[dtugg]

Hey Red, what's your theory regarding WTC7? You have one better than NIST's, remember.

I do have a theory better than NIST's.

(Red will fly away from this question again. Guaranteed).

 

[stateofgrace]

Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event.

I don't fault them, but NIST simply does not agree with their assessment. The bldg was not fully involved, all 47 stories were not on fire.

Wow I am impressed you read all those fire fighters statements so quickly and then deduced they were all wrong.

Have you thought about telling those that were there they got it all wrong and you know better?