Another Steel-Framed Building Collapses Due to Fire

[chipmunk stew]

Are they, can you provide proof of this?

Why in their current hypothesis do NIST say they have found no evidence of bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition at WTC 7?

They are conducting tests based on various possible blast scenarios:

Hypothetical Blast Analysis Hypothetical Blast Analysis ​

NIST is analyzing scenarios for the event that initiated the collapse of WTC 7. As a part of this work, NIST is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST will estimate the magnitudeof hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure ofone or more critical elements as a result of blast.​

1. �� Phase I Identify hypothetical blast scenarios and materials, based on analysis and/or experience, for failing specified columns by direct attachment methods. Preliminary section cutting shall be considered. Compare estimated overpressures for each scenario against windowstrength.
2. �� Phase II For blast scenarios with overpressures that clearly would not have broken windows, the worst case scenario(s) will be analyzed using SHAMRC software to determine overpressures at windows.
3. �� Phase III If Phase II overpressures did not clearly fail windows, 3 blast scenarios will be selected to determine the sound levels that would be transmitted outside the building through intact windows.

Including thermite:

6/06 Completed draft document of evaluation of thermite as a possible blast substance for review

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf​

 

[chipmunk stew]

This building burned unchecked for about seven hours. Do you agree or disagree?

*sigh* Agree or disagree, Russell?

 

[Spins]

I was aware of the comment in the NIST FAQ, but I hadn't seen their planned Phase I, II, and III analysis before, cheers.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

Regarding the recent NIST FAQ, before they mention the planned investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios they specifically state that they have found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition. Also would I be correct in saying that the word hypothetical in this context means...

highly conjectural and not well supported by available evidence

 

[Belz...]

Look how nice and neat WTC 7 is all cleaned up with everything around left intact.

Intact ? We're not looking at the same picture, then.

Don't you wonder why?

Nope. The building was hit from the side of the street. It's only reasonable to assume that, barring any other damage, it would collapse in that direction, especially since the damage was to lower floors.

 

[Moving On]

Plain and simple. Like FEMA said, you primarily had a smothered fuel fire on 2-3 floors without significant ventilation (no windows). Diesel puts out copious amounts of smoke in proportion to the actual flame or heat. Go read about diesel.

The smoke poured out of the building and hung on the side just like actual science states, can predict and repeat at will. That is the scientific method. Not Skeptianity!

In a wind-tunnel study, recorded video images of smoke dispersion in the wake of a rectangular-shaped building were analyzed.^A continuous source of smoke was emitted at floor level, midway along the leeward side of the building.^Smoke was observed to build up within a region adjacent to the building.^Then the smoke was periodically swept away by vortices shed from the leeward building sides and roof.^

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5674684&query_id=0

Watch the following video. It is exactly as described.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KPRpNgcA_Hw

Then take the time to notice there is significant smoke being drawn into the overall smoke from the foreground and bottom left of the video well away from WTC 7.

Just admit that is what you see.

Then watch this video to see the same thing again and explain to me where the 47 story fully involved building is in the picture.

Not ONE floor that can be described as anything like fully involved and not even ONE lick of flame.

Get over it.

The explanation for the building collapsing is not out yet. YOU don't know. The building was rapidly cleaned up first. Why?

You have ZERO evidence to support your claims and it is you that is now operating purely on belief and preference.

Period.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Russell,

WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO LOOK AT ANY DOCUMENTS NEWER THAN THE FEMA PRELIMINARY REPORT!?

 

[Moving On]

*sigh* Agree or disagree, Russell?

I don't know if it was unchecked or not. I am not familiar with any success reports or not from their original interior operations.

I know it appears certain floors either burned out were extinguished.

Yes fires originated at various locations throughout the building throughout the day. Some appear to be significantly disconnected from each other and the source of the physical damage. I don't know if there was one continuous fire in any given location for 7 hours.

 

[twinstead]

I don't know if there was one continuous fire in any given location for 7 hours.

Don't you think that in order to come to an objective and rational conclusion about what happened to WTC7 you would want to know that?

 

[stateofgrace]

The explanation for the building collapsing is not out yet. YOU don't know. The building was rapidly cleaned up first. Why?

You have ZERO evidence to support your claims and it is you that is now operating purely on belief and preference.

Period.

These were posted about four pages back, I have read them have you ?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

http://www.nistreview.org/_media/documents/FOIA/ASTANEH-WTC-0139542finalrpt.pdf

http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html

Have you any comment or are you operating on pure belief?

 

[Spins]

Don't you wonder why NIST might be 6 years out from explaining it and they are including explosive specialists in the investigation?

Awarded contract for assistance with conducting analyses of hypothetical initiating fire scenarios using the ANSYS model and damage/fire scenarios developed at NIST (half to be completed by NIST, half by the contractor)

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf Page 7

Awarded contract to ARA (with CDI and SGH as subcontractors) foranalysis of hypothetical blast events and assistance with structural analysis of initiating events

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf Page 15

Russell can you please quote your source next time to avoid confusion!

To answer your question, maybe they are doing so in order to rule out a controlled demolition, this is a properly done investigation after all. For example, in Phase III they are hoping to calculate the sound levels produced by the hypothetical Phase II blast events, obviously in doing so they then know to what extent they should have been picked up by sound or seismic recordings made before the collapse, thus allowing them to definitively rule them out or not.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I don't know if it was unchecked or not. I am not familiar with any success reports or not from their original interior operations.

Read this:
http://tinyurl.com/zemur
"The Emergency Response Operations"

Excerpt: Summary of World Trade Center Building 7 Emergency Response​

​

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.
• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.
• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.
• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.
At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

I know it appears certain floors either burned out were extinguished.

Yes fires originated at various locations throughout the building throughout the day. Some appear to be significantly disconnected from each other and the source of the physical damage. I don't know if there was one continuous fire in any given location for 7 hours.

Okay. Thanks for making your position clear.
Next question: Many experienced people on the ground feared a collapse, and few were surprised when it did. Agree or disagree?

 

[Pardalis]

The explanation for the building collapsing is not out yet. YOU don't know. The building was rapidly cleaned up first. Why?

You have ZERO evidence to support your claims and it is you that is now operating purely on belief and preference.

Period.

YOU don't know either.

YOU are operating purely on belief and preference and have no evidence to back any of YOUR claims.

What YOU do is pure speculation, based on YOUR loose interpretation of PICTURES.

Why don't you wait for the NIST final report on WTC7?

They have plenty more evidence than a couple of pictures on the net, I'm sure they'll come up with an intelligent hypothesis on what happened. Do you?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Please go back and see who made a big deal about it. I did not.

Certain members here decided to drastically misrepresent and attack me based on dating a firefighter and feeling that somehow as an attorney they know everything.

I am responding as I will not tolerate the lies and tactics that you people here resort to in an effort to defend your religion.

i have 2 very simple questions for you, please do not dodge them or tell me to go back and read 25 pages of this thread

1: do you beleive WTC7 was "fully involved" with fire?

2: if no, why do you think the FDNY described it this way?

 

[Moving On]

Russell,

WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO LOOK AT ANY DOCUMENTS NEWER THAN THE FEMA PRELIMINARY REPORT!?

I DON'T REFUSE.

HEAVY BLACK SMOKE COMING OUT OF SOUTH FACE GASH; NO FIRE OBSERVED (Sound familiar???)

NO MENTION OF "FULLY INVOLVED".

FIRES WERE SEEN AT VARIOUS TIMES THROUGHOUT THE DAY

WHERE IS THE FULL INVOLVEMENT AT 5:20?

Even NIST disagrees with you!

April 2005 - http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf

Do you see what I mean by facts are not enough for you??

 

[Pardalis]

I don't know if it was unchecked or not. I am not familiar with any success reports or not from their original interior operations.

I know it appears certain floors either burned out were extinguished.

Yes fires originated at various locations throughout the building throughout the day. Some appear to be significantly disconnected from each other and the source of the physical damage. I don't know if there was one continuous fire in any given location for 7 hours.

So basically, you have no idea of what went on that day in that building.

Guess what, professional scientists and engeneers are working on it as we speak. WAIT FOR THEIR FINAL REPORT ALREADY AND STOP SPOUTING YOUR NONESENSE.

 

[Pardalis]

Russell, in the reports you have read, did you come across any report of people seeing bombs in that building?

 

[stateofgrace]

Even NIST disagrees with you!

So you now agree with NIST?

So if NIST conclude in the final report that the collapse of WTC 7 was due to the damage and fire you will accept it?

Yes or no?

 

[Pardalis]

[qimg]http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/nist1.jpg[/qimg]

HEAVY BLACK SMOKE COMING OUT OF SOUTH FACE GASH; NO FIRE OBSERVED (Sound familiar???)

From your own link:

fires seen at floors 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 20's and 30's


ETA: maybe you haven't seen those, it's written in RED

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...Do you see what I mean by facts are not enough for you??

Excuse me? Link to me one post where a person, other than yourself, claimed that either (1)WTC 7 was fully involved or (2)WTC 7 had to be fully involved in order for fire to contribute to the collapse.

The only times you have referenced NIST is in support of your strawman argument, which has been repeatedly pointed out to you and you have blatantly ignored.

 

[Moving On]

Okay. Thanks for making your position clear.

Next question: Many experienced people on the ground feared a collapse, and few were surprised when it did. Agree or disagree?

They did not fear that the initial structural damage would cause WTC 7 to collapse. They would not have allowed firefighters inside after search and rescue was complete if they did. To be perfectly honest, if they thought collapse was imminent they would not have sent firefighters inside at all. Cost/benefit analysis. Protect the rescuer is actually rule number one.

The true indication of when they feared collapse is when they actually evacuated the building for good.

Here is an interesting dialogue from the oral histories in relation to the towers:

As I was walking towards the Fire command post, I found Steve Mosiello. I said, Steve, where's the boss? I have to give him a message. He said, well, what's the message? I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out.

He escorted me over to Chief Ganci. He said, hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are going to collapse. His reply was who the f___ told you that? Then Steve brought me in and with Chief Ganci, Commissioner Feehan, Steve, I believe Chief Turi was initially there, I said, listen, I was just at OEM. The message I was given was that the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down and that's when the building came down, the first tower came down.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110161.PDF

The incident command did not expect the first buildings to collapse. Some mysterious source predicted it. Who was that source? The fact that firefighters were told of the collapse of WTC 7 in the same way mitigated their surprise. Of course they were surprised that 3 steel frame buildings collapsed for the first time in history - one of them not struck by a plane and with a collapse initiation that was not in the area of the physical damage.