Some simple Tower 7 questions

[defaultdotxbe]

I AM A TRUTHER NOT A NUTTER-
Everyone that has suffered from the 9/11 catastrophe, whether direct or indirect wants retaliation of sorts..........they want a neat little evil package that they can punch and kick and let out their frustration, and point out......yep thats who did it. The last thing that they want to do is look at complicity by their own people, their psychology is not ready for the web of deceit. This is very much like a person addicted to some chemical.....in the exasperation the easy thing to do is to satisfy that addiction. This is exactly what is happening here.
1) Metal does not vanish from simple fires.
2) Open diesel fires do not conpromise high tensile steel. you can go to a fire place, puddle a large diesel fuel all day long and it wont affect 1/2" steel plates - you could not even record the difference between a cold steel plate and one that has been heated by diesel fuel while attempting to bend it using a hydraulic press. In fact you can see nist doing studies of heat transfer in metal beams ............but you dont see those beams bending.
3) If the building was indeed comprise, never in a million years would all of the steel reinforcement fail simultaneously. If someone tells you that they can............they are surely lying to you.
3) If an irregular fire capeable of affecting a modern code approved steel structure, it surely would not cause the building to fall so neatly on its own footprint. Today no building department has taken any measures to reinforce buildings in light of the 9/11 catastrophe. All codes regarding steel structures are conducted exactly the same way that they were before 9/11. Contrast that with the devastation of Hurricane Andrews in miami-dade county. Companies and engineers scrambled to make a better building --------- hence the strict Miami-dade product approval requirements. I have yet to see any building department making any new code requirements in light of the NIst / fema report. I think that deep down inside they dont believe that simple fires could bring down a code approved, UL certified, engineer approved steel structure.
4) Please dont insult my intelligence by telling me that a gash in the 10 floor constitute a "110 floor building falling on it."
5) NO MODERN CODE APPROVED, UL TESTED METAL STRUCTURE HAS EVER COLLAPSE ENTIRELY ON ITS OWN FOOT PRINT.

WHAT DO THE NUTTERS SAY:
"Yesterday as i was driving I95 there was a diesel truck engulf in flames, first it exploded into a giant fire ball and in a matter of an hour the entire truck completely collapse on its foot print. Part of the engine had melted and was glowing red hot."

"Last night the power went out...........so i took my kerosene lamp and lit it.........and guess what??? it melted!!!!"

"While preparing dinner on my sailboat's kerosene stove. the pot melted and poured all of the contents all over the teak floor!"

​

1) strawman, no one said the steel vanished

2) false analogy, a stove is made of cast iron, not steel, but more importantly it isnt load-bearing

3) unsupported claim

4) the circumstance of 9/11 were unique, the structural damage to all building was unprecendented, although your claim that no improvements have been made is false, many buildigns currently being designed (and built such as the comcast tower) are taking suicide airplane attacks and their aftermath into account

5) strawman, no buildings collapsed entirely into their footprint on 9/11

 

[HeyLeroy]

 

[The Almond]

The last thing that they want to do is look at complicity by their own people, their psychology is not ready for the web of deceit.

And yet, the former head of Enron who is now enjoying a prison cell wishes that were true. We as a society seem perfectly capable of understanding a web of deceit.

This is very much like a person addicted to some chemical.....in the exasperation the easy thing to do is to satisfy that addiction. This is exactly what is happening here.

It's interesting that you bring up a psychological argument. I would like to bring up another one. I believe that conspiracy theories are a coping mechanism. People are less afraid of the dangers that they can see and control than they are of the dangers that they can not. More people are afraid of flying than they are of driving despite the fact that far more people die each year in automobile crashes than they do in airplane crashes.
It follows, then, that people would be more afraid of random, unknown terrorists suddenly killing them than a vast, corrupt government out to kill them. The government is an evil that many people have come to accept and control, but terrorism is not. I would posit that conspiracy theorists are the ones using a psychological coping mechanism, not the skeptics.

1) Metal does not vanish from simple fires.

Actually, welders might have something to say about that. People who weld and work with metal for many years have been shown to have higher risk for chronic lung disease. The culprit is vaporized heavy metals, despite the fact that the welding temperature for the metal is well below the sublimation or vaporization threshold. I'm listing some relevant websites for you to read:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7389069&dopt=Citation
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/56/1/8
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9184789&dopt=Citation

I'm also curious about the definition of a "simple" fire. I don't believe I've ever seen that as a reference in a physics or chemistry paper. Does simple refer to wood or paper burning? Does it refer to the heat of the fire? Does it refer to the heat evolved?

2) Open diesel fires do not conpromise high tensile steel.

Do you have a source for this? Why are we considering diesel fires?

you can go to a fire place, puddle a large diesel fuel all day long and it wont affect 1/2" steel plates - you could not even record the difference between a cold steel plate and one that has been heated by diesel fuel while attempting to bend it using a hydraulic press.

Do you have a reference for this? Have you published this study in a peer-reviewed journal? Have you done the thermal gradient calculations I suggested earlier in this thread?

In fact you can see nist doing studies of heat transfer in metal beams ............but you dont see those beams bending.

NIST wrote a rather complex computer algorithm to do many of the calculations I've suggested that you replicate in your experiment. But where do you get this conclusion that you don't see the beams bending? Where is that referenced?

3) If the building was indeed comprise, never in a million years would all of the steel reinforcement fail simultaneously.

Is this your professional opinion? Where does NIST state that all of the steel reinforcement fails simultaneously?

If someone tells you that they can............they are surely lying to you.

That conclusion is circular.

3) If an irregular fire capeable of affecting a modern code approved steel structure, it surely would not cause the building to fall so neatly on its own footprint.

Is this your professional opinion? How do you define irregular in relation to a fire?

Today no building department has taken any measures to reinforce buildings in light of the 9/11 catastrophe.

Yet, earlier in this thread, we posted pictures of buildings being built with a reinforced concrete core in order to prevent a similar collapse scenario.

All codes regarding steel structures are conducted exactly the same way that they were before 9/11.

This is demonstrably false. The ASCE design codes for steel structures have changed significantly since 2001.

Contrast that with the devastation of Hurricane Andrews in miami-dade county. Companies and engineers scrambled to make a better building --------- hence the strict Miami-dade product approval requirements.

How many hurricanes hit Florida every 10 years? How many fully loaded passenger jets strike skyscrapers in New York every 100 years?

I have yet to see any building department making any new code requirements in light of the NIst / fema report.

You regard the NIST report as a fabrication; a product of false evidence produced by bureaucrats who were paid off by the government as part of the cover-up of 9/11. Given your paradigm, why should anyone make changes to the code based on NIST's report?

I think that deep down inside they dont believe that simple fires could bring down a code approved, UL certified, engineer approved steel structure.

Can you define simple fires for me?

4) Please dont insult my intelligence by telling me that a gash in the 10 floor constitute a "110 floor building falling on it."

Appeal to intelligence, straw man.

5) NO MODERN CODE APPROVED, UL TESTED METAL STRUCTURE HAS EVER COLLAPSE ENTIRELY ON ITS OWN FOOT PRINT.

No structure has ever been hit by a fully loaded 767 traveling at over 400 miles per hour. Why do you consistently present these two facts separately?

WHAT DO THE NUTTERS SAY:
"Yesterday as i was driving I95 there was a diesel truck engulf in flames, first it exploded into a giant fire ball and in a matter of an hour the entire truck completely collapse on its foot print. Part of the engine had melted and was glowing red hot."

Do you have a reference for this quote?

"Last night the power went out...........so i took my kerosene lamp and lit it.........and guess what??? it melted!!!!"

Or this one?

"While preparing dinner on my sailboat's kerosene stove. the pot melted and poured all of the contents all over the teak floor!"

​

What point are you trying to make with these last three posts?

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm also curious about the definition of a "simple" fire. I don't believe I've ever seen that as a reference in a physics or chemistry paper. Does simple refer to wood or paper burning? Does it refer to the heat of the fire? Does it refer to the heat evolved?

There is often a confusion among those not cognizant of the difference, between heat and temperature.

A lightning bolt can generate temperatures within the atmosphere affected that exceed the temperature on the surface of the Sun. However the Sun produces an enormous quantity of heat per second the far exceeds the heat produced per second in a lightning bolt.

The steel plate stove that does not buckle is a favorite of CT's. However it illustrates that the heat produced is not sufficient to keep the steel at the temp of the flames throughout the mass of steel. It also ignores the fact that over time that steel stove does indeed warp even though it is under no load whatsoever other than its own weight. Get a steel plate stove(and yes some woodstoves are made of cast iron but those are the expensive ones) , place a 200 pound object on it, fire it up and get a roaring fire going. Within the hour that stove will be warping and the only thing keeping it from collapsing will be that the legs are designed to remain cool and there is a brick lining on the bottom of the stove to insulate it from the fire.

 

[maccy]

maccy; The kink developed 5-6s before the global collapse initiation.

Just looked at it again. I dont see it that way. I guess its a matter of interpretation.
In any case, its consistant with a CD.

"Once sufficient interior supports fail, all other supports will fail, including the exterior ones"

It is their working hypothesis. The draft of the final report is not yet published.

They had access to the plans, they no doubt did the calculations* and could not prove this assumption. If you think another 80 boxes of documents will yield the answer you want, your dreaming.

Please provide evidence of this crossbracing. And your calculations* of how the external structure was able to support the whole building.

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3325/wtc7debris71iq4.jpg

If you knew anything about framing you wouldent have to ask that question.


I've already said: the load transferred to them was too great so they failed.

Theres nothing to support that statment. On the contrary, NIST tried to porve it and could not.

Please use the quote function of the board, it makes things clearer.

Regarding the crossbracing: do you believe the entire tower wall was constructed with sections like the one you've shown in your photo?

Where would the office windows go if that was the case?

You still haven't shown a calculation or even an estimate as to how much of the structure was supported by the outer walls. If you can't do this, please answer this question: if the outer walls were built to support the building, why bother with internal supporting columns and a core?

Regarding the rest: NIST have already demonstrated how it is possible for the building to have collapsed as the result of fire and structural damage. That their hypothesis is possible is not in doubt.

What they are still working on is showing how this happened.

I say you are ignorant and guessing. But if you have a coherent criticism of NISTs work so far why not show it to some structural engineering professors?

 

[uk_dave]

Cross bracing is used to strengthen a frame against lateral (sideways) loading from wind. It's been with us in buildings for centuries and has very little to do with vertical load capacity.

 

[maccy]

Because I can't be bothered to go through this with Christopher7 step by step, here's relevant stuff from the NIST interim report which shows how the section from his photo fits into the building's structure.

L.1.9 Lateral System
Above Floor 7, WTC 7 had a perimeter moment frame. Exterior columns were typically rolled W14
shapes of ASTM A36 grade steel. Column trees were fabricated for the east and west facades with field
splices occurring every other story in the columns and at the spandrel beam midspan between columns,
where the tree stubs were spliced with a bolted connection. On the north and south facades, the moment
frames were constructed with spandrel connections at the face of the columns. Some column splices were
shown on the erection drawings to be partial penetration groove welds between the column flanges.

At Floors 5 to 7 and Floors 22 to 24, there was a perimeter belt truss, shown in Fig. L–19. Below Floor 7,
a combination of moment and braced frames around the perimeter and a series of braced frames in the
core, is shown in Fig. L–20. The strong diaphragms of Floors 5 and 7 transferred load from the perimeter
to the core. Above the loading dock at the south facade, two of the columns were hung from the belt truss
at Floors 5 through 7. Above the Con Edison vault at the north facade, eight columns were also hanging
from the belt truss between Floors 5 and 7.

from http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf pages L-15 to L-16.

 

[uk_dave]

I reckon the cantilever truss over the sub-station is the culprit...in the library with the candlestick.

 

[maccy]

maccy; The kink developed 5-6s before the global collapse initiation.

Just looked at it again. I dont see it that way. I guess its a matter of interpretation.
In any case, its consistant with a CD.

How is it a matter of interpretation?

How is the timeline below consistent with CD?

source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf page 26

 

[maccy]

I reckon the cantilever truss over the sub-station is the culprit...in the library with the candlestick.

Observations on Fifth Floor

• Critical columns (79, 80, 81) carrying large loads from about 2,000 ft2 of floor area were
present on the 5th floor.

• The 5th floor was the only floor with a pressurized fuel line supplying the emergency power
generators.

• Two 6,000 gallon fuel tanks supplying a pressurized line possibly contributed to fires; tanks
were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after collapse.

• In a 1997 facility condition survey, fireproofing was observed to be prominently missing on 5th floor
framing above main lobby; possible repair not confirmed.

• A majority of the 5th floor was not protected by sprinkler systems, with the exception of mechanical
space to east and office area to north side of building; no evidence of sprinklers in enclosures on
5th floor (also on floors 7, 8, and 9) which housed OEM generators and day tanks. Seventh floor
generator room may have been sprinklered, conflicting data.

• Two of the three sprinkler risers which were located next to stairs (#1 and #2) on the west side of
the building transferred towards center on the 5th floor along with stairs.

• Sprinkler systems on floors 1 through 20 were supplied directly from the city distribution system
through an automatic pump located on the 1st floor; water supply could be interrupted by loss of
power to fire pump or significant damage to underground city main in vicinity of building.

source http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf page 39

 

[beachnut]

I AM A TRUTHER NOT A NUTTER-
WHAT DO THE NUTTERS SAY:

I think most of them say what you say! Denial, they name is se(seven)ensnakes.

Do most nutters have numbers in their names like you? (some r normal people)

So when will the world see your facts? Now that all steel will never bend!

http://www.texas-barbeque.com/forge2.htm

oops

http://www.picture-newsletter.com/fire/index.htm

more bent steel, oops

Darn you are a nutter.

 

[jaydeehess]

I reckon the cantilever truss over the sub-station is the culprit...in the library with the candlestick.

To the south of the sub-station the lower floors were high ceiling lobbies. The cantilever support on the south side of the con-ed station then also had less lateral support than it would have had if it was typical 3 meter ceilings on every floor. Of course the columns were much stronger and cross braced(the NIST report shows all of this) but it means that each structural member is more important to the overall capacity than in a typical post and beam construction.

(its sort of a more eggs in the basket analogy)

Its OK as long as all the forces that the engineers could have designed for are the only ones that the building suffers. However they did not design for the damage that might be caused if large steel rams hit the building at 70 mph and then are subject to fire. Put simply that is the hypothesis that NIST has put forward. They do not have the details, maybe they never will. The building has suffered damage that was evident right after the north tower collapsed and was subject to fires that were not fought.

It is very well established that the entire building was leaning right after the collapse of the North Tower. That indicates that there was significant structural damage at that time. Anyone stating that the official history is a claim that WTC 7 fell only due to fire is misrepresenting the facts.

When GWB misrepresents the facts we are told he is lieing. Thus by the same measure anyone misrepresnting the facts about WTC 7 in this way is also lieing.

The CT's who want a detailed explanation of how this building collapsed don't have any details either. Stating that explosives could explain the collapse is an attempt to put forward a hypothesis without any evidence to back it up. While NIST does have the impact damage and the fires the CT has,,,,,,,,nothing whatsoever.

So this is also a misrepresentation of facts.

When GWB misrepresents the facts we are told he is lieing. Thus by the same measure anyone misrepresnting the facts about WTC 7 in this way is also lieing.

That is unless the 9/11 Truth Movement would like to change their definition of lieing when it comes to misrepresenting the facts.

 

[jaydeehess]

Do most nutters have numbers in their names like you?

It seems that many are fascinated by numbers in a new age mystical way. Although I do not know if Seven is a numerologist it does fit the slight trend among the CT's.

 

[Christopher7]

How is it a matter of interpretation?

How is the timeline below consistent with CD?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1238745831767697e9.jpg
source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf page 26

The kink was in the penthouse, not the north face

At 7 sec. Movement of entire north face of WTC7

The window failure [floors 37 - 46] in line with the penthouse were due to stresses from the falling columns and floors under the penthouse.

ETA
Taking out the supports under the penthouse and letting everything fall for 7 sec. would create a hole and set up the kink so the east and west walls could fall inward. then the rest of the center is dropped just before the outside walls to bring them in. The exterior supports are then blown togeather creating "a clap of thunder.......a shockwave ripping through the building [possibly cutter charges] and the windows all blasted out..." Emergency worker - Ear/eye witness]

Everyone had been pulled back 700' at this time. The crackeling that firefighters heard in the Towers could have meen missed at that distance.

 

[Christopher7]

source http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf page 39

When the power went off the pressure pump would have stopped

 

[defaultdotxbe]

When the power went off the pressure pump would have stopped

the fuel was to power generators when the power is out, so your comment makes no sense

the tanks could have used a battery powered pump, or a hydraulic or pneumatic pressure system

 

[TjW]

Skeptics are impossible to satisfy. They ask for an expert or a whistleblower that supports the CT. As soon as one is produced they are declared to be nuts!

No, I don't think you get it. I don't want an expert, I want actual evidence. Evidence can be looked at by a variety of experts, and me too.

CTs quote experts only to say "Look, this guy agrees with my position".

Skeptics point to physical evidence, and show that it has been vetted by many, many experts, who are in general agreement about what can be determined from that evidence.

When you can bring in an expert with evidence that can stand up to being evaluated by other experts, maybe you'll have something.

 

[Christopher7]

It is very well established that the entire building was leaning right after the collapse of the North Tower. That indicates that there was significant structural damage at that time. Anyone stating that the official history is a claim that WTC 7 fell only due to fire is misrepresenting the facts.

Chief Hayden saw a bulge in the south west corner between floors 10 and 13 and he was pretty sure WTC7 would collapse.
[He also said "It took a while for those fires to develop"]

Chief Felini said that the steel was ripped out from between the third and the sixth floors.

Firemen leaving the building at 12:15 said "No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area. [NIST Apendex L pg 18]

Firefighter: " the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner." [FEMA pg 20]

The 10 story hole is in conflict with these statements yet it was first shown as a "possibie reigon of impact" [NIST Apendex L pg 23] and then as an "approximate rigon of impact" [pg 31]

 

[Christopher7]

the fuel was to power generators when the power is out, so your comment makes no sense

the tanks could have used a battery powered pump, or a hydraulic or pneumatic pressure system

If the generators came on then why was there still no power?

I heard the power went off, I didnt haar anything about it comming back on.

Correct me if im wrong.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

If the generators came on then why was there still no power?

I heard the power went off, I didnt haar anything about it comming back on.

Correct me if im wrong.

apparently no one started them (presumably they had evactuated)

but the point is that the means of getting to fuel to the generators must be separate from the main power grid otherwise you wouldnt be able to start the generators when the power goes out