Merged Summing up the evidence against Controlled Demolition

[tsig]

For what it's worth, some of us have been of the opinion that it was fire rather than structural impact damage for some time.

Having said that, there is a lot of new material from NIST, and it may be that there remains a lot of uncertainty about the significance of impact damage. Or we may even disagree with NIST. I've just started reading it myself, and it will take at least until next week for me to get through it all.

In the meantime, I encourage you to read the reports yourself.

You clearly do not have the reading speed of a twoofer many of whom have not only read it but have written "analysis" of it.

 

[A W Smith]

OP reported for merge with existing building seven thread or AAH

 

[fezzic]

(my bold)
I don't totally agree with the bolded part (I think).

My point is that a building that has fires start on multiple floor can overwhelm a sprinkler system / supplies for hose streams etc., even if the system is designed to code.

Perhaps I should start a new thread and invite leftysergeant, Hamradioguy, Sparky, njslim and a few others familiar with firefighting and fire protection engineering to participate.

Since the fires apparently started as a result of falling debris from 1 WTC, that would mean (to me) that they started as very localized fires which spread. Even an overloaded sprinkler system might have delivered sufficient water to limit the size or spread of the fires or slow the progression of the fire.

Presumably, a functioning sprinkler might have bought enough time for fire fighters to arrive and extinguish the fires.

I seem to recall that the sprinkler system above floor 20? had its own water supply and that was sufficient? to control fires on higher floors??

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Since the fires apparently started as a result of falling debris from 1 WTC, that would mean (to me) that they started as very localized fires which spread. Even an overloaded sprinkler system might have delivered sufficient water to limit the size or spread of the fires or slow the progression of the fire.

Presumably, a functioning sprinkler might have bought enough time for fire fighters to arrive and extinguish the fires.

I seem to recall that the sprinkler system above floor 20? had its own water supply and that was sufficient? to control fires on higher floors??

Some of the fire floors did have a sprinkler system independent of the main city water line, which kept some of the fires in check. There were several floors however whose primary and backup water sources were ruptured when the twin towers collapsed. The same damage also impeded fire figting efforts.

Additionally while the structural damage wasn't the primarily caus of the collapse, it had secondary effects that made the structure more vulnerable to failure.

 

[TJM]

Some of the fire floors did have a sprinkler system independent of the main city water line, which kept some of the fires in check. There were several floors however whose primary and backup water sources were ruptured when the twin towers collapsed. The same damage also impeded fire figting efforts.

Additionally while the structural damage wasn't the primarily caus of the collapse, it had secondary effects that made the structure more vulnerable to failure.

One of my buildings has a 5000 gallon backup tank on the roof that in theory will supply 28 floors with sprinkler water in case of city water failure, which is a very real possibility; The building is located San Francisco.

At 125 psi, this sprinkler system can saturate a floor very quickly, which is why I believe that the fires in WTC7 were not as severe on the upper floors. Their backup system did do its job where it wasn't damaged.

 

[TheWeirdSkeptic]

Funny part is I just know all twoofers will disregard this.

HOW CAN A FIRE COLLAPSE BUILDING?!?!??!ONE1!!!LOL111

Of course they will do bassically nothing to try to disprove it. Then when we point them to NIST they will say "in on it." When we point out how many people would be required to be in on it they'll say "We'll only a handful of people need to know though they could have mislead them (or something to this effect)"

Course they will never scientifically disprove it.

 

[Oliver]

Opening Statement Press Briefing, August 21, 2008, Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

 

[mrbaracuda]

Yea, right, the first building in the world to collapse due to fire.
For that sentence alone you'll get a facepalm.

it was the first building in the world to collapse due to fire

After all this Truther Fire/CD debunking nonsense we are back at FIRE.

What went wrong please explain!!!

Speculation met science. You might want to try it at some point.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Perhaps I should start a new thread and invite leftysergeant, Hamradioguy, Sparky, njslim and a few others familiar with firefighting and fire protection engineering to participate.

I wouldn't mind, so let me know please.

 

[Ragnarok]

The evidence was that convincing that a CD didn't occur - notice I didn't say Controlled Explosion - that NIST didn't even bother to look for means in which it could be done, instead relying on a recently invented concept named "Thermal Expansion" to explain the events of WTC7. Anyone who thinks that the representative for NIST managed a competent rebuttal to the questions in the recent press conference, is living in denial.

 

[MarkyX]

Instead Relying On A Recently Invented Concept Named "thermal Expansion" To Explain The Events Of Wtc7.

Hahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaaha

 

[Ragnarok]

Hahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahaahahaahahahahaaha

Are you going to tell me what you find so funny, or did you miss the bit where he said they only came up with the idea a year ago?

 

[MarkyX]

Are you going to tell me what you find so funny, or did you miss the bit where he said they only came up with the idea a year ago?

So NIST invented Thermal Expansion now....

LOL

 

[Ragnarok]

So NIST invented Thermal Expansion now....

LOL

That's what the speaker in the NIST press conference said, and they are supposed to be the people in the know. Are you completely satisfied with his responses from the 35 minute mark in this video link?

 

[Myriad]

The evidence was that convincing that a CD didn't occur - notice I didn't say Controlled Explosion - that NIST didn't even bother to look for means in which it could be done, instead relying on a recently invented concept named "Thermal Expansion" to explain the events of WTC7. Anyone who thinks that the representative for NIST managed a competent rebuttal to the questions in the recent press conference, is living in denial.

(emphasis added)


Since Herr Fahrenheit invented the mercury thermometer in 1714 which of course operates entirely on the concept of thermal expansion, I'd say calling thermal expansion "a recently invented concept" is, hmm, what's the word I'm looking for...

Oh, yeah. "Wrong." That's the one.

Here are a few other not-so-recent inventions that are either necessitated by, or make use of (or both), thermal expansion:

Temperature-compensated clock pendulum: 1721 (liquid), 1726 (solid)

Expansion gaps in railroad tracks: at least since the first use of steel rails in 1857

The bi-metallic electric thermostat: 1885 (probably pre-dated by non-electric bi-metallic furnace dampers)

Hot rivet construction: for buildings, 1887 (the Eiffel Tower), but use in shipbuilding might have pre-dated that

So, for instance, Benjamin Franklin would have been completely aware of this "recently invented concept" of thermal expansion, and took it into account in the design of the Franklin stove circa 1742. (Previous iron stove designs developed cracks in the iron panels due to stresses caused by thermal expansion.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[roundhead]

(emphasis added)


Since Herr Fahrenheit invented the mercury thermometer in 1714 which of course operates entirely on the concept of thermal expansion, I'd say calling thermal expansion "a recently invented concept" is, hmm, what's the word I'm looking for...

Oh, yeah. "Wrong." That's the one.

Here are a few other not-so-recent inventions that are either necessitated by, or make use of (or both), thermal expansion:

Temperature-compensated clock pendulum: 1721 (liquid), 1726 (solid)

Expansion gaps in railroad tracks: at least since the first use of steel rails in 1857

The bi-metallic electric thermostat: 1885 (probably pre-dated by non-electric bi-metallic furnace dampers)

Hot rivet construction: for buildings, 1887 (the Eiffel Tower), but use in shipbuilding might have pre-dated that

So, for instance, Benjamin Franklin would have been completely aware of this "recently invented concept" of thermal expansion, and took it into account in the design of the Franklin stove circa 1742. (Previous iron stove designs developed cracks in the iron panels due to stresses caused by thermal expansion.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thanks, Myriad



Now kindly point out how your above history lesson has anything to do with WTC 7 being the first building in history to fall victim to this scourge, and Nist didnt even look at these"oddities" physically, yet came to the illogical conclusion they did, in spite of other options that could more logically account for the collapse.

I think the word i am looking for is "anti-science"



Unlike most "truthers" i respect NIST a lot. The task they were given, make the official lie not stink to high heaven, is a challenging task.

In the end, even an Anaconda can only open its jaws so far to swallow prey. Nist was given prey above and beyond its capability to explain.

Sadly, have they been given a clean slate and told merely find the truth, the job would have been doable

 

[OneShotKi11]

This is not the point people!!!

The point is that you guys (The JRef community) swear by these investigations put forth by our government. Anything they say you stand by and bash others with their lac of knowledge on the subjects.
You tell them for the most part to do some "Critical Thinking"

Yet when things you have totally defended for months and months on get flipped around on you all you have to say is.....

NOTHING! You just now go along with the fire explanation as if everything is ok. Now for the next couple of years you will act as if the fire explanation now handed to us by NIST is the bible for 9/11 research.
You will defend it without question!
You will state that this is now 100% factual backed by evidence and that any other theories would be wrong!
When for years you backed a theory and told others that it was a definite just because Nist said so!

Now you will act like this study will never change. You will act as if this has been your stance the entire time and its silly!

WHat would happen if in the future the decided something else caused the WTC7 to fall?
The same as now? Would you notice a trend?
Does it sound logical to keep arguing a point with people that you yourself might have to switched based on New Investigations?

Right now i am in my glory! For i do not like truthers nor do i like the Jrefs school of thought.
Thruthers are moronic and are still considered wrong by the majority, and now the JRef will be forced to hop on the "first build to ever fall because of a fire bandwagon"!

Now defend this fire stance like their is no plausible way it could ever be wrong or change!
It cant be changed right, because its backed by FACTS....

 

[roundhead]

Unfought fires.

If fires are sucessfully fought, they arent fires anymore.

 

[Pardalis]

Reasonable people can change their minds according to the available evidence.

So what's your problem, OneShot?

ETA:

If fires are sucessfully fought, they arent fires anymore.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

 

[Myriad]

Hi Roundhead,

I've taken the liberty of breaking your compound question into reasonable clauses.

Now kindly point out how your above history lesson has anything to do with WTC 7 being the first building in history to fall victim to this scourge...

Certainly. My history lesson proves that thermal expansion is a well-known physical phenomenon and has been for a long time. It's a response to attempts by other posters to imply that thermal expansion was instead a concept newly fabricated by NIST.

The reason wtc7 was the first building to fall victim to "this scourge" (if indeed it was, rather than simply the first for which the contribution of thermal expansion was recognized) is that it can only happen in a structure that is designed to take advantage of various fire safety systems such as sprinklers, heat-resistant coatings, and fire departments (for instance, it would not happen in a structure designed for fire safety through compartmentalization) but for which those systems fail or their limits are exceeded, AND when various factors such as the length of spans, the locations of fires on multiple floors, and a column carrying an unusually large proportion of the total load all align to create a vulnerability.

, and Nist didnt even look at these"oddities" physically,

I haven't read the wtc7 report yet, so I don't know what physical tests they conducted. However, I would not be surprised if they did not perform tests to directly determine the thermal expansion coefficient of steel, as that data is available in any engineering handbook of physical constants. (They probably didn't conduct their own tests of the strength of earth's gravitational field either.)

yet came to the illogical conclusion they did,

Where did they state that they came to an illogical conclusion?

Or is that your claim? In which case you're welcome to provide evidence (or at least a coherent rantionale) for it.

in spite of other options that could more logically account for the collapse.

Please support this claim by specifying these other options, in comparable detail to what NIST explained about its conclusions at the press conference. Include the causes and the actions of the underlying physical processes, the specific structural members affected, and the rationale for how those phenomena account for the observed behavior of the building.

Respectfully,
Myriad