WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[RedIbis]

Engineering is a math-based design process created using theoretical concepts validated through physical testing. The entire point is to do things as efficient and cost effective as possible. There is no need to have physical anything to run an engineering analysis.

What? We're not talking about building a new building, we're talking about the collapse of an existing one.

And not just any building but the first high rise, steel framed bldg to collapse due to fire. Why you still defend NIST's lack of physical evidence when proposing an unprecendented mode of collapse is not a mystery I'm likely to spend a whole lot of time figuring out. I chalk it up to a special brand of jref selective "skepticism".

 

[DGM]

Freefall acceleration of a football field size building should make you and anyone else suspicious.

Not when it takes place well into the collapse of a building and only includes an (unknown) portion. Let's not forget the penthouses (and all the visible cues of internal collapse before your "free-fall") .

And yes, I do think the fires were intentionally set. I do not believe flaming embers from 350 feet away set those fires in WTC 7. In reality, the collapses of the towers should have smothered the fires in them and there would have been nothing to set thing as far away as WTC 7 ablaze unless an electrical short or something like that was caused in the building hit with debris.

I also doubt the fires were (wholly) caused by these "flaming embers". Do you really find it hard to believe there could be electrical shorting after viewing the pictures of the building damage? I don't.

Fires on 10 floors of WTC 7 being caused by the North Tower collapse is nothing short of hocus pocus.

That would be (almost) true if one of the most important fire protection methods was not compromised. I'm talking about the buildings fire stop design that would prevent spread of fire from one floor to another. Do you believe this was not compromised by the collapse of the towers?

I tend to look for the more simple explanation for events I see, Do you see any flaws in the explanations I just gave for the suspicions you have? If so, what?

 

[Justin39640]

What? We're not talking about building a new building, we're talking about the collapse of an existing one.

And not just any building but the first high rise, steel framed bldg to collapse due to fire. Why you still defend NIST's lack of physical evidence when proposing an unprecendented mode of collapse is not a mystery I'm likely to spend a whole lot of time figuring out. I chalk it up to a special brand of jref selective "skepticism".

It's called forensic engineering and we're talking about one that doesn't exist any longer. It's kinda hysterical that you expected them to keep steel from one building when so many were damaged and/or destroyed. What are you gonna tell us next, that the Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was an inside job cause they didn't keep its parts either? Did Larry make out like a bandit on that one too?

 

[LSSBB]

What? We're not talking about building a new building, we're talking about the collapse of an existing one.

And not just any building but the first high rise, steel framed bldg to collapse due to fire. Why you still defend NIST's lack of physical evidence when proposing an unprecendented mode of collapse is not a mystery I'm likely to spend a whole lot of time figuring out. I chalk it up to a special brand of jref selective "skepticism".

How many high rise, steel frame buildings have been demolished with explosives that leave no obvious auditory, visual or physical evidence?

 

[Animal]

It's called forensic engineering and we're talking about one that doesn't exist any longer. It's kinda hysterical that you expected them to keep steel from one building when so many were damaged and/or destroyed. What are you gonna tell us next, that the Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was an inside job cause they didn't keep its parts either? Did Larry make out like a bandit on that one too?

The only thing that having the steel sitting around for would be to verify its strength with a little sampling. It would have been useless WRT determining the collapse sequence.

 

[GlennB]

Fires on 10 floors of WTC 7 being caused by the North Tower collapse is nothing short of hocus pocus.

Fires were set not only in Barclay (i.e. just north of WTC7) but a good deal further away, for example in the parking lot beyond Verizon and the Irving Trust to the NW. Judy Wood and other loonies claimed they were evidence of space beams 'toasting' cars.

Can you please get just one thing right?

 

[BasqueArch]

.....
And yes, I do think the fires were intentionally set. .....
Fires on 10 floors of WTC 7 being caused by the North Tower collapse is nothing short of hocus pocus.

Fires were set not only in Barclay (i.e. just north of WTC7) but a good deal further away, for example in the parking lot beyond Verizon and the Irving Trust to the NW. Judy Wood and other loonies claimed they were evidence of space beams 'toasting' cars.

Can you please get just one thing right?

He no longer cares about being wrong. This is a trivial point to falsify, like you and tfk did.

He's doubling down on his mistakes, like the 7 fires being intentionally set by ... whom, the FDNY?
This is kamikaze klaiming, the desperate end of any pretense to rational claims.

 

[LSSBB]

He no longer cares about being wrong. This is a trivial point to falsify, like you and tfk did.

He's doubling down on his mistakes, like the 7 fires being intentionally set by ... whom, the FDNY?
This is kamikaze klaiming, the desperate end of any pretense to rational claims.

If the true believers keep chanting their prayers when facing the enemy, their faith will save them.

 

[Robrob]

Freefall acceleration of a football field size building should make you and anyone else suspicious.

And yes, I do think the fires were intentionally set. I do not believe flaming embers from 350 feet away set those fires in WTC 7. In reality, the collapses of the towers should have smothered the fires in them and there would have been nothing to set thing as far away as WTC 7 ablaze unless an electrical short or something like that was caused in the building hit with debris.

Fires on 10 floors of WTC 7 being caused by the North Tower collapse is nothing short of hocus pocus.

Please elaborate:

1) What do you think you mean by "free fall acceleration?"

2) What evidence do you have the WTC fell at "free fall acceleration?"

3) What does "free fall acceleration" indicate to you in relation to the WTC and CD?

Please confirm you already knew the WTC7 fire started when it was struck by large sections of the falling North Tower and not simply by "embers."

Please elaborate why you think a collapsing burning building "should have smothered the fires?"

 

[ozeco41]

He no longer cares about being wrong....

Yes. His nonsense is way past the point of any care for truth or reasoning. As for engineering - it is nowhere in sight.

...This is kamikaze klaiming, the desperate end of any pretense to rational claims.

..and accepting support from trolls is a sure sign of desperation. It is inherently self defeating.

If the true believers keep chanting their prayers when facing the enemy, their faith will save them.

The faith based analogies hold true.

 

[Redwood]

Fires were set not only in Barclay (i.e. just north of WTC7) but a good deal further away, for example in the parking lot beyond Verizon and the Irving Trust to the NW. Judy Wood and other loonies claimed they were evidence of space beams 'toasting' cars.

Can you please get just one thing right?

Cars and buses were set ablaze far up West Broadway north of WTC 7. You can see this in newsman Vince Dementri's video.

 

[tfk]

NIST tells us it was 2.25 seconds or about eight stories of the fall. Please bear in mind that irrespective of any argument about columns having a minimum resistance during buckling, that there would be eight stories of mass to be accelerated by the falling upper mass if the collapse were natural. This would cause a decrease in velocity due to conservation of momentum alone. Why don't we see this?

Oh Cripes…

No, Tony, if the supports for those 8 floors buckle, they are NOT accelerated by the upper block.

Any more than the 30th thru the 39th floor are accelerated by the 40th thru 47th.

Those 8 buckled floors, along with every floor above it, are accelerated by exactly the same thing: their proximity to that hunk of rock called "the earth". i.e., by gravity.

The buckling (more accurately, the failure of the connections near the top & bottom of that 8 floor segment), has detached those floors from BOTH 1) the floors below AND 2) the floors above.

Detachment from the floors below means that those floors immediately start to fall on their own. Again, due to gravity.

Detachment from the floors above means that the impact of those 8 floors' deceleration when they collide successively with the floors below them is NOT transmitted to the upper block.

It is only once the lowest floor of the upper block which is still structurally connected to the rest of the upper block contacts the lower debris, that the upper block slows from free-fall. As it did after the "Stage II" fall. And this contact happens after about 8 stories of free fall.
___

And I hadn't thought of this before, but this constitutes proof that the unseen, disappeared in the rubble cloud, lower floors of the upper blocks of the WTC towers were NOT "disintegrated" or "blown apart". If they had been blown apart or disintegrated, then the upper-most segment of the upper block (i.e., the roofline) would have entered free-fall, just like WTC7 did.

There MUST be intact, load bearing structure between the crush zone & the topmost visible component of the building, if that topmost element is NOT descending at free fall.
___

This does clarify for me one thing that had been running around the back of my mind about the collapses:

Why did WTC7 go into free fall (for a short period) while the towers did not?

The answer seems to be: WTC7 failed at two vertical locations separated by 8 stories (i.e., an 8 story buckle), while both towers failed at essentially one vertical location (a one story buckle).

 

[tfk]

What? We're not talking about building a new building, we're talking about the collapse of an existing one.

And the engineering programs used to analyze the stresses & strains in a new building is nearly identical to the math used to design a new building, with one subtractions: the new building design hasn't (in the past) had to consider building response to fire (loss of strength & creep).

In the future, structural engineers are likely to have to perform this analysis for new buildings too.

And not just any building but the first high rise, steel framed bldg to collapse due to fire. Why you still defend NIST's lack of physical evidence when proposing an unprecendented mode of collapse is not a mystery I'm likely to spend a whole lot of time figuring out. I chalk it up to a special brand of jref selective "skepticism".

The purpose of collecting & analyzing samples of the metal was to ascertain only one thing: that the steel met the physical properties of the specified alloys. That is, that the contractors did not substitute a cheaper, weaker steel.

That was the only reason to save & analyze the steel.

The engineers knew from the start that the analysis of "what caused the collapse" was going to come out of computer modeling of the event.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why did WTC7 go into free fall (for a short period) while the towers did not?

The answer seems to be: WTC7 failed at two vertical locations separated by 8 stories (i.e., an 8 story buckle), while both towers failed at essentially one vertical location (a one story buckle).

Are you espousing a theory that the full interior had collapsed progressively, first in the vertical on the east side, and then from east to west before any of the exterior, and that the full perimeter of WTC 7 then underwent an 8 story buckle and that it would permit freefall?

 

[carlitos]

Are you espousing any theory at all?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Are you espousing any theory at all?

For starters, the NIST report is non-explanatory. Their collapse initiation mechanism is impossible and their model does not replicate the proven freefall period. That is why I want a new investigation. Failure analyses need to replicate the observables.

 

[Robrob]

For starters, the NIST report is non-explanatory. Their collapse initiation mechanism is impossible and their model does not replicate the proven freefall period. That is why I want a new investigation. Failure analyses need to replicate the observables.

Can you explain just exactly what you mean by "free fall?"

What "free fall" indicates?

How "free fall" occurs or doesn't occur in other collapses?

 

[carlitos]

For starters, the NIST report is non-explanatory. Their collapse initiation mechanism is impossible and their model does not replicate the proven freefall period. That is why I want a new investigation. Failure analyses need to replicate the observables.

It was a yes or no question. There are only two possible answers that don't involve sophistry.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Can you explain just exactly what you mean by "free fall?"

What "free fall" indicates?

How "free fall" occurs or doesn't occur in other collapses?

Freefall of a mass can only occur when all of its potential energy is converted to motion and it accelerates at full gravitational acceleration of 9.81 ms^2, with no work being done by the falling mass, such as bending or deforming other structural elements by buckling, crushing etc.

Freefall indicates that the falling mass is not doing any other work.

If the mass is doing other work it can't be in freefall as some of the potential energy is being used to do that work and is not being converted to motion.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It was a yes or no question. There are only two possible answers that don't involve sophistry.

No, you want me to commit to a particular theory and that would be premature. My provable point is that the NIST WTC 7 report contains impossibilities and is therefore non-explanatory and it also does not replicate the observed freefall period. This is why we need to investigate again to determine just what did happen and to replicate the observables this time around. There is no sophistry involved in that.