10 story hole in WTC 7

[Norseman]

and the Zafar photo and this screen capture:
[shows corner column on 17, 16 and possibly 15]

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7045/wtc7column00001iy5.jpg

C7, what you are looking at in that picture above is the broken off edge of the south side exterior wall. The corner column is gone. In the crop I have posted below, from figure 5-16 in the FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf), you can see what the corner column actually looks like. Compare it also with figure 5-11 in the report. And keep in mind that both photos posted here are tele lens photos with compressed distances. But it is quite obvious that the wall edge is receded compared with the visible parts of the intact part of the SW corner column some floors below.

(click to enlarge)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1814147060cb62152a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8664)

[Norseman]

Here is a Power Point presentation (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/BRE/frantisek.pps) on how the Cardington tests were done. One fire in a limited compartment on one floor for each test, in a test building with a traditional steel grid construction. Nothing like the large scale fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which had a tube in tube construction, and some unique construction features on the lower floors.

The technically minded reader will find a lot more information here (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/default1.htm) at the University of Manchester.

[jaydeehess]

If you share a house with a cat, you can't be all bad.

Two cats actually. It was three until this summer when the 15 year old passed away.

Quote:
Your personal incredulity that fire caused enough damage to cause the initial failure to take place is not evidence that it did not.

Actually, it's the lack of fire on 4 contiguous floors in the area of the initiating event.

Seriously jdh, do you think office fires could heat a vertical column weighing over 4 tons per floor to 1,000 F ?
How long do you think that would take?


Originally Posted by C7
Subject shift and the traditional "MY dog is bigger than your dog" statement.

Quote:
No, it is the whole point in determing what caused the collapse of this building. Yes, there simply and concisely is more evidence that the debris damage, combined with the accumulating fire damage caused the building to collapse.

The evidence clearly shows that the fires were insufficient to cause a core column to fail.

There is NO evidence that the debris damage had a significant structural effect on the initiating event.

Now you are trying to say that the area proximate to the initiating event was in pristine condition!!

The entire building is proximate to and significant in the stresses experienced by, the columns near the initiating event.

You seem to be alluding to an idea that since the structural members near the heavy damage would bear the extra loads that there would be no effect at all on the western, "pristine" portion of the building. That is simply untrue.

The cardington tests show quite well what occurs during an office fire. ONE office fire at a time. They did not attempt to test the effect of multiple fires on the structure. They did not attempt to test the effect of other heavy structural damage to a building on fire. You seem to be unable to grasp the difference between a test and real world conditions and why tests are done when they obviously cannot mimic all real world conditions.

[Christopher7]

C7, what you are looking at in that picture above is the broken off edge of the south side exterior wall. The corner column is gone. In the crop I have posted below, from figure 5-16 in the FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf), you can see what the corner column actually looks like. Compare it also with figure 5-11 in the report. And keep in mind that both photos posted here are tele lens photos with compressed distances. But it is quite obvious that the wall edge is receded compared with the visible parts of the intact part of the SW corner column some floors below.

(click to enlarge)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1814147060cb62152a.jpgThe corner column is clearly there on floors 17 and 16 in the screen cap i posted. The broken off edge of the wall, as you call it, is the corner column. If the corner column was gone, it would have taken part of the south wall with it and there would be a ragged edge, not the straight edge that we see.

The photo you posted is not as clear as the one i posted. That might be the corner column on [about] floor 12 but it's hard to say.
The NIST photos shows the corner and the first windows are gone on floors 11, 12 and 13.

[funk de fino]

Seriously to me, I just see smoke obstructing the view so would not hang my hat on it, far less accuse people of fakery

If all these pics had no smoke and were clear then I would see the point of this discussion but they are not

leave it and move on to the real meat like silent explosives

[Christopher7]

Here is a Power Point presentation (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/BRE/frantisek.pps) on how the Cardington tests were done. One fire in a limited compartment on one floor for each test, in a test building with a traditional steel grid construction. Nothing like the large scale fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which had a tube in tube construction, and some unique construction features on the lower floors.

The technically minded reader will find a lot more information here (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/default1.htm) at the University of Manchester.
The Cardington tests don't mention columns, only beams.
The only relevance is, steel frame buildings fair better in fires than previously thought.

The reports on the Meridian Plaza [which had fires on many contiguous floors, and burned much longer than fires in the east half of WTC 7] specifically say that the columns held their loads without obvious damage.

The columns in WTC 7 [79, 80 and 81] were much heavier and therefore they would take much longer to heat up.

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on pg counter]
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.

http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/m...a_lessons.html (http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_lessons.html)
Experience in this and similar high-rise fires suggest that columns are the least vulnerable structural members, due to their mass and relatively short height between restraints (floor to floor). Major damage has occurred to horizontal members, without compromising the vertical supports.


There is no evidence to support the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

On the contrary, the evidence clearly states that vertical members do not fail, even in severe fires.

[Norseman]

The Cardington tests don't mention columns, only beams.

On the contrary, the evidence clearly states that vertical members do not fail, even in severe fires.
[/B]

Did you notice the shortened column on page 13 in the presentation (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/BRE/frantisek.pps) from the Cardington tests that I linked in my earlier post Christopher. The page is labeled "Test 2 - Column shortening".

I have shown you pictures of the same type of damage from some of the WTC buildings in earlier posts. But as usual your WTC 7 columns are immune to fire. What happened in WTC 1 and WTC 2, and what did your favorite expert, Jowenko, say about those two buildings Christopher?

[GT/CS]

Chris one huge wrench I need to throw into your analysis is that you don't know if the building was properly assembled, or if quality steel was used, or quality concrete, or quality connectors. All the scenarios you present are perfect-world, and because perfect-world probably did not exist for WTC7 they must be discounted.

Now about those silent explosives that no one could have planted in a burning building.......

[jaydeehess]

The reports on the Meridian Plaza [which had fires on many contiguous floors, and burned much longer than fires in the east half of WTC 7] specifically say that the columns held their loads without obvious damage.

bully for the Meridian Plaza. For some odd reason all real world situations do not have the same results. Go figure.

The columns in WTC 7 [79, 80 and 81] were much heavier and therefore they would take much longer to heat up.

..........<<snip>>.........

There is no evidence to support the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

On the contrary, the evidence clearly states that vertical members do not fail, even in severe fires.

[/B]

Chris, did columns 79,80 and 81 have fire insulation sprayed on them? If so, and if your contention that there was no way to have a fire large and hot enough to affect them is correct, why did the builders waste time and money putting fire protection on them?

If they were insulated then they are vulnerable which is why they were insulated. Insulation has a time rating because of the expectation that the fire will be fought.

The tests show that columns are affected by fire but that floors and beams suffer more than vertical members. To state that columns 'do not fail, even in severe fires' is a gross misrepresentation of the Cardington tests. Besides which you once again assume a building in pristine condition and no matter what spin you try to put on it, WTC 7 was not, in any way, shape, or form, pristine.

[jaydeehess]

Chris one huge wrench I need to throw into your analysis is that you don't know if the building was properly assembled, or if quality steel was used, or quality concrete, or quality connectors. All the scenarios you present are perfect-world, and because perfect-world probably did not exist for WTC7 they must be discounted.

Now about those silent explosives that no one could have planted in a burning building.......

Chris does not want to talk about explosives here. He wants to talk about explosives in the other thread (linked to in this thread, a page or two back).

Chris knows that there are mack truck sized holes in the CD contention so he would rather try and poke pin holes in the debris damge/fire damage hypothesis.

[Christopher7]

Did you notice the shortened column on page 13 in the presentation (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/BRE/frantisek.pps) from the Cardington tests that I linked in my earlier post Christopher. The page is labeled "Test 2 - Column shortening".I did not see that. My bad, there was column shortening.

I have shown you pictures of the same type of damage from some of the WTC buildings in earlier posts. But as usual your WTC 7 columns are immune to fire.WTC 7 columns 79, 80 and 81 were W14x730* cores and reinforcing plates [*730 lb per lineal foot].
The column in the Cardington test that buckled, was about W12x140 [140 lb per lineal foot].
The test building in the Cardington report is the same size as WTC 5 [8 stories].
Therefore, the columns are about the same size and weight.
The columns buckled in a similar manner.

Columns 79, 80 and 81 were 5 times as heavy as the one in the Cardington test [and WTC 5]

The heavier the column, the longer it takes to heat it up.

[jaydeehess]

WTC 7 columns 79, 80 and 81 were W14x730* cores and reinforcing plates

Did they or did they not require fire insulation?
Why?

[Christopher7]

Chris, did columns 79,80 and 81 have fire insulation sprayed on them? If so, and if your contention that there was no way to have a fire large and hot enough to affect them is correct, why did the builders waste time and money putting fire protection on them?Building codes.
[probably required fireproofing on all framing members]

The tests show that columns are affected by fire but that floors and beams suffer more than vertical members. To state that columns 'do not fail, even in severe fires' is a gross misrepresentation of the Cardington tests.Actually, the column didn't fail, it was still there and supporting its load.

Besides which you once again assume a building in pristine condition and no matter what spin you try to put on it, WTC 7 was not, in any way, shape, or form, pristine.You are using the words proximate and pristine so you can argue about their definitions.

My position is:
There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.
[core columns 79, 80 and/or 81]

With or without fireproofing, the fires in the east end of WTC 7 were not sufficient to heat a column weighing over 4 tons per floor to 1,000 F, on 4 contiguous floors.

[Norseman]

My position is:
There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.
[core columns 79, 80 and/or 81]

With or without fireproofing, the fires in the east end of WTC 7 were not sufficient to heat a column weighing over 4 tons per floor to 1,000 F, on 4 contiguous floors.

Christopher, I need to point out that NIST in its interim report (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) also find it possible that the initiating event could have started with components other than 79, 80 and/or 81. With this event possibly leading to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81 and then the observed exterior signs of collapse.
The initiating event may have included a number of structural components, though the
relative role of impact damage and fire need further investigation. Possible components that
may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80, and/or 81 include interior columns 69, 72, 75,
78, and 78A, the east transfer girder (which supports column 78A and frames into transfer
truss #2), and adjacent framing and floor systems.
My bolding.

This is discussed in greater detail on the preceding pages in the report, with failure mechanisms like this:
I4.4 Lateral Displacements: Fire effects may have caused column instability
failure by lateral displacements from asymmetric thermal expansion of the floor
system. Such thermally-induced displacements must overcome the restraining effect
of the remaining floor system against further lateral deflection of the
column.
This is were the large floor spans of WTC 7 comes in to play.

And by the way Christopher, where are your temperature readings of the column temperatures inside WTC 7 during the fires that day. Or alternatively your calculations or computer simulations saying that any columns couldn't have reached critical temperatures during the fires. This is what you need to come up with to disprove NIST, if the final report from NIST have calculations and simulations indicating that critical column temperatures could indeed have been reached in the fires.

[twinstead]

Building codes.
[probably required fireproofing on all framing members]


Oh, not so fast. Don't handwave that away like that. Whenever you say 'probably' that's a read flag. It means you really don't know, do you?

Why is fireproofing required on metal at all?

[jaydeehess]

Building codes.
[probably required fireproofing on all framing members]

silly codes. Obviously that code was in place for no discernable reason.

"codes,,, codes,,, we don't need no stinkin' codes"

Actually, the column didn't fail, it was still there and supporting its load.

A load Chris. Quite obviously if it has shorthened and buckled it is not carrying the load the same way as before nor is it possible for iot to carry whatever max load it could before.

You are using the words proximate and pristine so you can argue about their definitions.

You have argued about minutia throughout this discussion Chris. I use the word 'proximate' , you use 'near'. I use 'pristine', well because it fits the condition you assume the building was in, at least near/proximate to the initiating event ( and for the sake of arguement we have concentrated on that being the failure of 79,80,81 although that is by no means clear)

My position is:
There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.
[core columns 79, 80 and/or 81]

There may or may not have been but one cannot rule out damages to the structure affecting the loads on the members 79,80,81 or those close to those columns.

With or without fireproofing, the fires in the east end of WTC 7 were not sufficient to heat a column weighing over 4 tons per floor to 1,000 F, on 4 contiguous floors.

A description which would indeed require that those columns be in pristine condition.

[Christopher7]

Christopher, I need to point out that NIST in its interim report (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) also find it possible that the initiating event could have started with components other than 79, 80 and/or 81. With this event possibly leading to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81 and then the observed exterior signs of collapse.Where ever it may have started,
columns 79, 80 and 81 would have to be uniformly heated to 1,000 F over 4 stories before they would fail.

NIST L-39
I4.4 Lateral Displacements: Fire effects may have caused column instability failure by lateral displacements from asymmetric thermal expansion of the floor system. Such thermally-induced displacements must overcome the restraining effect of the remaining floor system against further lateral deflection of the column.

[The expanding floor system is holding on to the column thru the beam to girder to column connections, resisting further displacement]

NIST L-40
Welds reach yield strength at 600 deg C [1,100 F]


And by the way Christopher, where are your temperature readings of the column temperatures inside WTC 7 during the fires that day.
Or alternatively your calculations or computer simulations saying that any columns couldn't have reached critical temperatures during the fires.There must be a fire to heat a column to critical temperature.

The only fires in the area of columns 79, 80 and 81, were on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13.

By 4:45 p.m., the fire on floor 12 had burned out.

[Norseman]

Where ever it may have started,
columns 79, 80 and 81 would have to be uniformly heated to 1,000 F over 4 stories before they would fail.

What about the concept of those columns being overloaded because they have to take up the weight carried by one or more neighboring columns that fail Christopher.

[GT/CS]

Where ever it may have started,
columns 79, 80 and 81 would have to be uniformly heated to 1,000 F over 4 stories before they would fail.


Please show your engineering calculations on the bolded statement. If you can not provide such calculations we must disregard the statement as nothing more than an uneducated assumption.

[Christopher7]

What about the concept of those columns being overloaded because they have to take up the weight carried by one or more neighboring columns that fail Christopher.
Core columns were held in place by the remaining girders beams and floors around them, as well as their own strength.

NIST does not attempt to explain how the failure of column 79, 80 or 81 led to the collapse of the other two.

[Christopher7]

Please show your engineering calculations on the bolded statement. If you can not provide such calculations we must disregard the statement as nothing more than an uneducated assumption.

NIST L-38
I4.2 Unbraced Columns: .... At a floor where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure. .... This column .... would be approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 °C.

NIST L-40I4.6 .... uniform steel temperatures of approximately 570 ºC [1058 ºF] would result in column failure.


"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected.
Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

The traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600ºC applies to all steel framework members.

[Norseman]

NIST does not attempt to explain how the failure of column 79, 80 or 81 led to the collapse of the other two.
The other two what, Christopher?

[GT/CS]

NIST L-38
I4.2 Unbraced Columns: .... At a floor where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure. .... This column .... would be approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 °C.

NIST L-40I4.6 .... uniform steel temperatures of approximately 570 ºC [1058 ºF] [B]would result in column failure.


Your statement of "columns 79, 80 and 81 would have to be uniformly heated to 1,000 F over 4 stories before they would fail." is not an accurate interpretation of the above. There are other ways for the column to fail. NIST is just saying that if the column was heated to that temp it would fail.

You seem to not be able to distinguish between theoretical (perfect world) and actual (real world).

[jaydeehess]

Your statement of "columns 79, 80 and 81 would have to be uniformly heated to 1,000 F over 4 stories before they would fail." is not an accurate interpretation of the above. There are other ways for the column to fail. NIST is just saying that if the column was heated to that temp it would fail.

You seem to not be able to distinguish between theoretical (perfect world) and actual (real world).

The Cardington and other tests were used to develop the model which gives us that a uniform heating to 570o would result in column failure. In the real world some parts of that column could be heated to 700o while others parts were at 300o a condition that would stress the column more than a uniform heating to 570oeven though uniform heating to that temp would result in failure due to loss of strength due to plastic deformation.

Uniform heating would cause vertical creep. Non-uniform heating would cause twisting/bending. Non-uniform heating would be more common before the floors fail, while uniform heating would be more probable with the column being exposed due to floor failure. Floor failure would not occur right away obviously. Fire develops heating a column at one level and quite possibly one less than all 4 sides causing the hotter portions to expand and putting a bending strain on the coulmn. The flooring fails above and or below this area spreading the fire to the next level portion of the coulmn and possibly also to other faces of the column on the original and/or the new fire floors. Now you have a column that is bending, has less lateral support to constrain that bending and is also losing strength due to plastic deformation in some parts of the coulmn. Add to this a lateral pull due to damaged columns in other parts of the structure, and a situation in which there is less load-to-capacity headroom on this particular column than there is on adjacent columns and at some point it results in the failure of this column.

Complicated? Yes, its the real world and it will be more complicated than ideal conditions testing steel columns in test ovens and more complex than the Cardington tests as well. In the Cardington structure for instance each column in a fire area had the same load.

Am I saying that this IS what occured? No, but it does conform to what could happen in a real world fire

[jaydeehess]

NIST does not attempt to explain how the failure of column 79, 80 or 81 led to the collapse of the other two.

You've read the final report?
<< insert between "explain" and "how">>
", in the interim report"

[Christopher7]

Your statement of "columns 79, 80 and 81 would have to be uniformly heated to 1,000 F over 4 stories before they would fail." is not an accurate interpretation of the above. There are other ways for the column to fail. NIST is just saying that if the column was heated to that temp it would fail.I just read pg 38 - 40 again, and it refers to an unbraced column and uniform temperatures.

To fail, a column would have to bend in three places [splices were 20 or 30 feet apart]

You seem to not be able to distinguish between theoretical (perfect world) and actual (real world).In the real world, columns do not fail.

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on pg counter]
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.

[Christopher7]

The Cardington and other tests were used to develop the model which gives us that a uniform heating to 570o would result in column failure.On the contrary,
the Cardington tests show the 570º C (1,058º F) is far to low.

Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

In the real world some parts of that column could be heated to 700o while others parts were at 300o a condition that would stress the column more than a uniform heating to 570oeven though uniform heating to that temp would result in failure due to loss of strength due to plastic deformation.Source?

Uniform heating would cause vertical creep. Non-uniform heating would cause twisting/bending. Really? Source?

Fire develops heating a column at one level and quite possibly one less than all 4 sides causing the hotter portions to expand and putting a bending strain on the column.Steel is known for it's ability to transfer heat rapidly.
Any bending strain would be minimal.

The flooring fails above and or below this area spreading the fire to the next level portion of the coulmn and possibly also to other faces of the column on the original and/or the new fire floors.In the real world [WTC 7] there were fires on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13.
The fire on floor 12 burned out more than 1/2 hour before the building imploded.

Now you have a column that is bending,No
has less lateral supportYes
and is also losing strength due to plastic deformation in some parts of the coulmn.No
Add to this a lateral pull due to damaged columns in other parts of the structure,Framework between the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 and columns 79 - 81, would take up any lateral stress.

and a situation in which there is less load-to-capacity headroom on this particular column than there is on adjacent columns and at some point it results in the failure of this column.NIST said that point is about 570º C.
Cardington tests put it much higher.

Complicated? Yes, its the real world and it will be more complicated than ideal conditions testing steel columns in test ovens and more complex than the Cardington tests as well.Brilliant, my dear Watson.

In the Cardington structure for instance each column in a fire area had the same load.Tests are very specific and detailed. Designed to test a particular piece of framework or section.
The results can then be used to set standards.
They can also be used to analyize events in the real world.

Am I saying that this IS what occured? No, but it does conform to what could happen in a real world fireYou throw around terms like plastic deformation, twisting/bending, bending strain, lateral pull and the cool sounding, but irrelevant 'load-to-capacity headroom'.

In the real world, none of these things you have mentioned has caused a column in a high rise building to fail!

[fagin]

So if it didn't happen in the real world, presumably the WTC collapsed in your imaginary world. Could have sworn I watched it on TV.
I sincerely hope I am not a figment of your fevered imagination.

[GT/CS]

In the real world, columns do not fail.

[/B]

:jaw-dropp
I simply cannot believe you wrote that. In your honor I am going to use your words for my new signature. In the real world, columns do not fail. Wow! Engineers around the world will be thrilled to learn the columns they design will never fail.

[Dave Rogers]

:jaw-dropp
I simply cannot believe you wrote that. In your honor I am going to use your words for my new signature. In the real world, columns do not fail. Wow! Engineers around the world will be thrilled to learn the columns they design will never fail.

You can't have the Stundie nomination, I beat you to it.

Dave

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
The Cardington and other tests were used to develop the model which gives us that a uniform heating to 570oC would result in column failure.
On the contrary,
the Cardington tests show the 570º C (1,058º F) is far to low.

Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

I was addressing Your number, 570oC which you quoted. Use any number you feel is correct then Chris.

Quote:
In the real world some parts of that column could be heated to 700oC while others parts were at 300oC a condition that would stress the column more than a uniform heating to 570oCeven though uniform heating to that temp would result in failure due to loss of strength due to plastic deformation.
Source?

Undergraduate physics course and hanging around with undergrad engineering students

Quote:
Uniform heating would cause vertical creep. Non-uniform heating would cause twisting/bending.
Really? Source?

ditto above

Quote:
Fire develops heating a column at one level and quite possibly one less than all 4 sides causing the hotter portions to expand and putting a bending strain on the column.
Steel is known for it's ability to transfer heat rapidly.
Any bending strain would be minimal.

Source?
Hell I have cookie sheets that twist and bend in the oven at only 350oF that illustrate this.

Quote:
The flooring fails above and or below this area spreading the fire to the next level portion of the coulmn and possibly also to other faces of the column on the original and/or the new fire floors.
In the real world [WTC 7] there were fires on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13.
The fire on floor 12 burned out more than 1/2 hour before the building imploded.

Thank you for illustrating the temperature differentials.

Quote:
Now you have a column that is bending,
No

Yes

Quote:
has less lateral support
Yes
it would be hard to argue otherwise.

Quote:
and is also losing strength due to plastic deformation in some parts of the coulmn.
No

yes

Quote:
Add to this a lateral pull due to damaged columns in other parts of the structure,
Framework between the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 and columns 79 - 81, would take up any lateral stress.

that stress just does not disappear into the ether Chris.

Quote:
and a situation in which there is less load-to-capacity headroom on this particular column than there is on adjacent columns and at some point it results in the failure of this column.
NIST said that point is about 570º C.
Cardington tests put it much higher.

I was referring to the design strength and normal loading on the building before 9/11. These columns may have held more load than the other nearby columns. Not that in normal circumstances this would be a problem and would still be well within design specs but when other factors start increasing the loads (vertical and lateral) and reducing the strength of the columns it will be the ones with the greatest original load that will fail first.


Quote:
Complicated? Yes, its the real world and it will be more complicated than ideal conditions testing steel columns in test ovens and more complex than the Cardington tests as well.
Brilliant, my dear Watson.

Thank you Moriarity


Quote:
In the Cardington structure for instance each column in a fire area had the same load.
Tests are very specific and detailed. Designed to test a particular piece of framework or section.

Something that had seemed to escape you....

The results can then be used to set standards.
They can also be used to analyize events in the real world

yes, and that is how the standards are set but they cannot cover all circumstances and all designs.


Quote:
Am I saying that this IS what occured? No, but it does conform to what could happen in a real world fire.


You throw around terms like plastic deformation, twisting/bending, bending strain, lateral pull and the cool sounding, but irrelevant 'load-to-capacity headroom'.

It would be good if you understood them too.

In the real world, none of these things you have mentioned has caused a column in a high rise building to fail!
....
... In the real world, columns do not fail.

In the real world the situation for the buildings in the WTC complex had never occured previously. That includes the situation in WTC 7 in which major structural damage had been done by impacts of large, dense and fast objects and then suffered unfought major fires for half a day.

[jaydeehess]

http://fseg.gre.ac.uk/fire/structural_response_of_steel.html

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/101019598/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
differential heating across the stud section causes the. stud to bend

http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fire/pdfreports/CWastney_02.pdf
Stresses within the beams did however change with heating, particularly in the earlier stages of the fire. These stresses arise from thermal bowing of the beam; this is the result of differential heating, and hence differential rates of expansion through the cross-section.

Most refer to the effect of differential heating in beams. Beams are usually much thinner than columns and the thicker a steel member the greater the thermal gradient. Beams tend however, to be more subject to heating on one side than do columns since in a normal post and beam construction the columns are most likely to experience fire on all sides at once and the differential would in that case be along the vertical axis not laterally through the column. But if the column is part of a firewall and is heated only on one side then it does indeed suffer differential heating which does indeed cause differential expansion(bending stress/strain). Since columns are under load and therefore constrained from expanding vertically, this stress contributes to both the vertical load on the column and the lateral stresses it is experiencing.

[Galileo]

Your statement of "columns 79, 80 and 81 would have to be uniformly heated to 1,000 F over 4 stories before they would fail." is not an accurate interpretation of the above. There are other ways for the column to fail. NIST is just saying that if the column was heated to that temp it would fail.

You seem to not be able to distinguish between theoretical (perfect world) and actual (real world).

Basically, NIST is implying that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, since they have implied that it is scientifically impossible to explain its collapse from office fires and/or structural damage.

[funk de fino]

Basically, NIST is implying that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, since they have implied that it is scientifically impossible to explain its collapse from office fires and/or structural damage.

Basically your reading comprehension sux

[GT/CS]

Basically, NIST is implying that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, since they have implied that it is scientifically impossible to explain its collapse from office fires and/or structural damage.

Now, that's an interesting interpretation.

Chris you seem to have signed in as Galileo, again. Having 2 identities is a real pain isn't it?

[jaydeehess]

Galileo is C7? If this is true then Chris just went down a notch in my estimation.

Gawd, I hate it when people do that. (not that I know that it has in this case)
Its public maturbation., people who have to create a false persona to have it look like someone else is agreeing with them or putting out statements that they won't put out themselves (self stroking). creepy!!

[GT/CS]

Can't say for sure; just a hunch based on a response by Galileo a few dozen posts back. 3599, 3600, 3603

[Christopher7]

GT/CS: Galileo is a different person.
JREF decorum:
Attack the message, not the messenger.

I was addressing Your number, 570oC which you quoted. Use any number you feel is correct then Chris.I was quoting the NIST number which is far too low according to the Cardington tests.

In the real world some parts of that column could be heated to 700oC while others parts were at 300oC a condition that would stress the column more than a uniform heating to 570o C even though uniform heating to that temp would result in failure due to loss of strength due to plastic deformation.
Source?
Undergraduate physics course and hanging around with undergrad engineering students
NIST did not mention plastic deformation.
They said the unbraced column would not be able to carry the load if uniformly heated to 570o C

NIST l-40
I4.6 Uniform High Temperatures: If initiating event components were sufficiently exposed to fire effects to be uniformly heated to elevated temperatures, the steel strength would be reduced below that required to support the load. Figure L–39 shows that for interior columns subject to service loads (shown as approximately 20 ksi of compressive stress), uniform steel temperatures of approximately 570 ºC would result in column failure.

Steel is known for it's ability to transfer heat rapidly.
Any bending strain would be minimal.
Hell I have cookie sheets that twist and bend in the oven at only 350oF that illustrate this.
You're comparing a cookie sheet to a column weighing 730 pounds per lineal foot?

In the real world [WTC 7] there were fires on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13.
The fire on floor 12 burned out more than 1/2 hour before the building imploded
Thank you for illustrating the temperature differentials.The differential is between floors, not one side of the column to the other.

Framework between the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 and columns 79 - 81, would take up any lateral stress.
that stress just does not disappear into the ether Chris.Any lateral stress to core columns in the west half of WTC 7 would be pulling primarily to the south.
The stress would be the greatest to adjacent columns and less to columns further away as the stiffness [shear strength] of the framework would 'take up' the lateral stress.

NIST said that point is about 570º C.
Cardington tests put it much higher.

I was referring to the design strength and normal loading on the building before 9/11. These columns may have held more load than the other nearby columns. Not that in normal circumstances this would be a problem and would still be well within design specs but when other factors start increasing the loads (vertical and lateral) and reducing the strength of the columns it will be the ones with the greatest original load that will fail first.
The columns with the greatest load would be the largest and therefore take longer to heat up.
Since the loads are proportionate, the column with the greatest original load would be proportionately stronger so the failure temperature would be roughly the same.

The failure of column 79, 80 or 81 would put additional vertical and lateral loads on adjacent columns.
This includes exterior columns and core columns 76, 77 and 78.
Though exposed to the same fires, these columns did not fail until about 7 seconds after the collapse sequence began.

In the real world the situation for the buildings in the WTC complex had never occured previously. That includes the situation in WTC 7 in which major structural damage had been done by impacts of large, dense and fast objectsYou keep implying that the debris damage to the west half of the south side had a significant effect on core columns in the east end of the building.
It did not.

and then suffered unfought major fires for half a day.OTers keep using the praise 'unfought fires' as if it meant something.
The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for 19 hours. Firefighting was ineffective because of low water pressure. The fires burned on many contiguous floors and were therefore more intense than the limited fires in the east half of WTC 7.

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on pg counter]
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.

[LashL]

Remind me, what 110 storey tall building crashed into the Meridian Plaza?
And remind me, wasn't the source of that fire some linseed oil soaked rags in a single office on a single floor?
And remind me, wasn't that fire ultimately extinguished by working sprinkler systems?
And remind me, wasn't it the case that there was no structural damage to the building prior to the fire?

:rolleyes:

ETA: Oh, and remind me, did the fire department not consult with structural engineers who determined that there was a risk of collapse?

And, remind me, was it not the case that the Philadelphia fire department was confronted with an "essentially impossible situation" even though the Meridian Plaza had not been smashed into and damaged by any 110 storey tall skyscrapers, and even though the fire had originated from a single source in a single office, and even though the building wasn't built atop a Con-Ed station, and even though there had not been hundreds of firefighters, dozens of police officers, and thousands of civilians already killed in neighbouring buildings that day?

[respublicus]

Remind me, what 110 storey tall building crashed into the Meridian Plaza?

None did. The first paragraph of the FEMA report cited above on the Meridian Plaza fire says that 20 months after the fire the building was still standing. What is your point here?

A few posts back someone here was saying Chris hasn't given a single shred of evidence of CD and that the burden of proof was on him.

The true situation is entirely the contrary. So much so that it doesn't really matter if there was a 10 story gash or not. Since we know it was a CD, if there was a gash, then it was probably created the same way as the CD was.

One poster kept being sarcastic about silent explosives as if this were the last word. But many witnesses heard explosions, some even heard the countdown for the CD.

The burden of proof is entirely on the OCT' ers, the defenders of the big lie, or 911liars.

Just go to ae911truth.org, the website of the 192 degreed Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and see where the truth is and where the burden of proof is:

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:
1. Rapid onset (http://www.ae911truth.org/videos/gallery/WTC7-eyewitness-2-PFC.wmv) of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions (http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7/WTC7-eyewitness-2-PFC.wmv) at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)
3. Symmetrical “collapse” (http://www.wtc7.net/verticalcollapse.html) – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
4. Squibs (http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7/WTC7sidebysidePFC.wmv), or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
5. “Collapses” into its own footprint (http://www.wtc7.net/rubblepile.html) – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds (http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7/RG-fireman-witness-wtc7.avi)
7. Tons of molten Metal (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html) found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
9. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html) on structural steel samples
10. Expert corroboration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I) from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
11. Fore-knowledge (http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html) of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/history.html) with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

This is an absolutely crushing burden of evidence.

[beachnut]

None did. The first paragraph of the FEMA report cited above on the Meridian Plaza fire says that 20 months after the fire the building was still standing. What is your point here?

A few posts back someone here was saying Chris hasn't given a single shred of evidence of CD and that the burden of proof was on him.

The true situation is entirely the contrary. So much so that it doesn't really matter if there was a 10 story gash or not. Since we know it was a CD, if there was a gash, then it was probably created the same way as the CD was.

One poster kept being sarcastic about silent explosives as if this were the last word. But many witnesses heard explosions, some even heard the countdown for the CD.

The burden of proof is entirely on the OCT' ers, the defenders of the big lie, or 911liars.

Just go to ae911truth.org, the website of the 192 degreed Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and see where the truth is and where the burden of proof is:

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:
1. Rapid onset (http://www.ae911truth.org/videos/gallery/WTC7-eyewitness-2-PFC.wmv) of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions (http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7/WTC7-eyewitness-2-PFC.wmv) at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)
3. Symmetrical “collapse” (http://www.wtc7.net/verticalcollapse.html) – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
4. Squibs (http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7/WTC7sidebysidePFC.wmv), or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
5. “Collapses” into its own footprint (http://www.wtc7.net/rubblepile.html) – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds (http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7/RG-fireman-witness-wtc7.avi)
7. Tons of molten Metal (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html) found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
9. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html) on structural steel samples
10. Expert corroboration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I) from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
11. Fore-knowledge (http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html) of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/history.html) with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

This is an absolutely crushing burden of evidence.
Dr Jones? He is nuts, he made up thermite 4 years after 9/11. Total nut case on 9/11 topics, he has no clue, and repeating his junk makes you a poor researcher.

Meridian Plaza was torn down, the fire destroyed the strength of the steel if the the fire control systems and the fire department had not fought the fire and worked, the upper sections of the building may of collapsed and destroyed other things in the city of Betsy
Ross. Do some work here and stop telling lies of 9/11 truth.

Show me tons of molten metal. Have not seen any.

The building in Spain was torn down, it was destroyed by fire. Oops, fires destroy the strength of steel. Oops, better go back to school on this one. You are just repeating junk from 9/11 truth, old debunked junk.

dust evidence, right, you know how many iron spheres are in my back yard; go get a magnet and find your own; Wow, your house has evidence of thermate! Better get Dr THermite Jones! Who you going to call, Thermite Jones? He was fired for being an biased political liar.

[jaydeehess]

None did. The first paragraph of the FEMA report cited above on the Meridian Plaza fire says that 20 months after the fire the building was still standing. What is your point here?

Point was made that the engineers consulted warned of the possibility of collapse. That it still stood at the time the fire was out does not invalidate their warning. The fact that once it managed to stay upright after the fire and for several months afterward simply means that it suffered no further insult. It was also shored up after the fire to help make sure that it did not collapse before it could be taken down deliberatly.

A few posts back someone here was saying Chris hasn't given a single shred of evidence of CD and that the burden of proof was on him.

,,, and he hasn't

The true situation is entirely the contrary. So much so that it doesn't really matter if there was a 10 story gash or not. Since we know it was a CD, if there was a gash, then it was probably created the same way as the CD was.

ROFLMAO

So as long as you can simply declare it a CD that's all there is to it,,, yes, I see.:rolleyes:

One poster kept being sarcastic about silent explosives as if this were the last word. But many witnesses heard explosions, some even heard the countdown for the CD.

A few witnesses state that they heard explosions during the collapse. One could expect loud banging and booming noises from any collapse.
The countdown story is unconfirmed at best and frankly , laughable.


The burden of proof is entirely on the OCT' ers, the defenders of the big lie, or 911liars.

The contention of CD is an extrodinary claim and therefore requires extrodinary evidence. This has not materialised. FACT is that the building had suffered major debris damage and then suffered fire damage over several hours in many areas of the building, each fire would have been considered a major fire by itself and there was no fire fighting effort made or possible.


As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:
1. Rapid onset (http://www.ae911truth.org/videos/gallery/WTC7-eyewitness-2-PFC.wmv) of “collapse”

Not a unigue indicator of CD

2. Sounds of explosions (http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7/WTC7-eyewitness-2-PFC.wmv) at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)

People at the ground level could not know that there was an internal collapse taking place. The setting of this sound as coming 1 second before any collapse occurs simply cannot be said to be correct. In fact it is likely that the sounds heard are the result of the collapse starting in the interior of the building.
3. Symmetrical “collapse” (http://www.wtc7.net/verticalcollapse.html) – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

Absolutely not. The collapse began in the interior of the building which accounts for the caving inwards. The supposed 'free fall" ignores the several seconds during which the interior of the building collapsed and applies only to the outer walls and even then is inaccurate given that it is 10-20% longer time of collapse than free fall drop which means that the acelleration was 20-40% less than g.
4. Squibs (http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7/WTC7sidebysidePFC.wmv), or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos

Windows breaking as the building collapsed. these 'squibs' only go off as the building has already started its collapse. In fact they don't go off until the outer wall begins to come down.
5. “Collapses” into its own footprint (http://www.wtc7.net/rubblepile.html) – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment

Given that the collapse started in the interior of the building this is as expected. The debris had to be cut up to be transported away.
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds (http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7/RG-fireman-witness-wtc7.avi)

In real CD's the dust cloud appears even though all interior walls, glass, carpets, furniture,,,,, has been removed. In WTC 7 all these items remained in the building and were crushed during the collapse creating a hell of a lot more dust than one would ever get in a true controlled demolition.
7. Tons of molten Metal (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html) found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)

Really? Source?
8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

Yeah, he found sulfur. An element present in decent quantities, in drywall and ABS plumbing.
9. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html) on structural steel samples

How is any evidence of incidiary action a hallmark of CD? I am unaware of any use of incidiaries in CD. (except in Los Vegas where they put in fireball creating gasoline bombs just for the show aspect.)
10. Expert corroboration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I) from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
Top? You award him a title he either gave himself or was bestowed upon him by CT's
11. Fore-knowledge (http://www.wtc7.net/foreknowledge.html) of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

Yeah, right from the outset when they started looking over the damage to the building they were aware of the danger that the building might collapse. that's not 'foreknowledge' that's good deduction.
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

actually the building was deformed and material was falling off during the day.
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

Collapse started in the interior and the last part to come down was the north wall, as far as we know. That would be the intact, north wall.
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

Starting at 300oC IIRC and office fires can and do get much hotter than that.
4. High-rise buildings (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/history.html) with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

None of which had been severly damaged in any way prior to the fires.

This is an absolutely crushing burden of evidence.

No, its all hand waving arguement based primarily upon a desire to pin this on a hated political entity.
I don't like Bush, Cheney or neo-con ideology either but I am unwilling to let that colour my perception.

An open mind is one thing, but do not allow it to open so much that your brains fall out.

[GT/CS]

No, its all hand waving arguement based primarily upon a desire to pin this on a hated political entity.
I don't like Bush, Cheney or neo-con ideology either but I am unwilling to let that colour my perception.

An open mind is one thing, but do not allow it to open so much that your brains fall out.

Love it! Well said.

[jaydeehess]

Love it! Well said.

Thanks but I should note that i borrowed
"An open mind is one thing, but do not allow it to open so much that your brains fall out." from a poster on another forum.

[Dave Rogers]

6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds (http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7/RG-fireman-witness-wtc7.avi)

Respublicus, this is not a characteristic of controlled demolition with explosives, it's a characteristic of volcanic eruptions. And using this argument is not a characteristic of people who boldly and independently think for themselves, it's a characteristic of obedient followers of the truth movement who've picked up some impressive sounding words on a website somewhere and don't realise that using them for the 9257th time in a place where their real meaning is well understood will make them look like an idiotic truther drone.

Dave

[jaydeehess]

The building in Spain was torn down, it was destroyed by fire.

Indeed Beach. It must be noted that the steel in the Windsor did indeed fail and collapseon several upper stories. the only thing that kept it from becoming a global collapse was the concrete core coulmns which retained enough strength to remain standing. Concrete simply stands up better in fire than does steel.

When you watch the Windsor fire you notice that the steel sags and then sudenly lets go and the outer portion collapses quickly.

[LashL]

<snip to remove all of the cut and paste "Twoofer 101" entry level nonsense> None did. The first paragraph of the FEMA report cited above on the Meridian Plaza fire says that 20 months after the fire the building was still standing. What is your point here?


It looks like you deliberately missed my point. In fact, it looks like you just chose the nearest sentence to quote, without bothering to read the post, so that you could then jump in head first with the standard cut and paste twoofer CD nonsense that has been completely refuted here numerous times before.

All of the items on your list have been discussed here before. You could easily do a search for threads on those subjects, were you interested in learning rather than just cutting and pasting from the usual twoofer sites/suspects.

Should you conduct that search, in addition to learning about the very topics you raised in your post, you will likely also find some useful explanations of how to avoid the logical fallacies that you have employed, and you will, without a doubt, be exposed to the scientific method, critical thinking, and analytical thinking in action, all of which you could benefit from immensely, should you choose to try your hand at them.

Please do consider it, and good luck.

[jaydeehess]

GT/CS: Galileo is a different person.
JREF decorum:
Attack the message, not the messenger.
Good then.
If a messenger does pull such offense tactics though I feel free to attack them.

I was quoting the NIST number which is far too low according to the Cardington tests.

Do you deny that even 570oC would severly compromise the strength of a column?
No, I thought not.



NIST did not mention plastic deformation.
They said the unbraced column would not be able to carry the load if uniformly heated to 570o C

Read the last few paragraphs of the interim report again Chris. The part about further calculations.

You're comparing a cookie sheet to a column weighing 730 pounds per lineal foot?

The temp gradient across a thin cookie sheet would be minimal, accross a thick column it would be much greater.



Any lateral stress to core columns in the west half of WTC 7 would be pulling primarily to the south.
South and west, the core failed and the progression was east to west.

The stress would be the greatest to adjacent columns and less to columns further away as the stiffness [shear strength] of the framework would 'take up' the lateral stress.

So, a giant spring extended to the south and west.


The columns with the greatest load would be the largest and therefore take longer to heat up.
I am stating that given two identical columns adjacent to each other that one is going to be carrying more load thatn the other and both would still be well within their design loads But given the same damage to each it would be the one with the greatest load that will fail first. The penthouse contained some very heavy equipment and although the mass was well within the design load of the columns beneath the penthouse there would be some that were carrying more than the others..

The failure of column 79, 80 or 81 would put additional vertical and lateral loads on adjacent columns.
This includes exterior columns and core columns 76, 77 and 78.
Though exposed to the same fires, these columns did not fail until about 7 seconds after the collapse sequence began.

Yeah, after they then suffered additional damage from the falling debris of the penthouse and all below it.

You keep implying that the debris damage to the west half of the south side had a significant effect on core columns in the east end of the building.
It did not.

Says you.

OTers keep using the praise 'unfought fires' as if it meant something.
The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for 19 hours. Firefighting was ineffective because of low water pressure. The fires burned on many contiguous floors and were therefore more intense than the limited fires in the east half of WTC 7.

each one of those 'limited fires' would have been considered a major fre by themselves.
Concerning Meridian, see above posts

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on pg counter]
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.



Now that was a limited fire and it occured in a pure post and beam structure that was completely intact at the outset of the fire.

[respublicus]

The video evidence, by itself, is not enough to convict

If we had a society free of indoctrination and intimidation, the speed of fall alone would be enough to convince everyone it was a CD, and to indict a lot of suspects, too.

We obviously do not have such a free-thinking forum.

It is very simple and clear cut. There is no need to obfuscate hundreds of pages and six years. Can you walk through a closed door as fast as an open one?

That speed of fall was only possible if the doors were opened, if the support columns were instantaneously severed.

No 911 Big Liar yet has come up with an alternative explanation - for the simple reason there isn't one. It's the only way to do it.

Come on 911 liars. We truthers are open minded. Please tell us, while keeping your dogma of the 911 big lie intact, how the buildings could come down at the speed of a fall through air?

Never mind all this other verbiage. It doesn't cut one piece of steel. Just answer this one killer question. While keeping the rules of physics intact too, of course.

[Gravy]

The video evidence, by itself, is not enough to convict but the testimony of these experts that "This is controlled demolition. Wow. At least that's one piece of progress in a year (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2347941&postcount=913).

I'm tellin' ya, somebody should really look into this WTC 7 thing.

[LashL]

If we had a society free of indoctrination and intimidation, the speed of fall alone would be enough to convince everyone it was a CD, and to indict a lot of suspects, too.

Um, no. The length of time it took for the building to fall is not even suspicious, let alone enough to convince any rational person that it was a controlled demolition, and most certainly not even remotely close to being enough to indict anyone. Spouting nonsense on subjects about which you have no knowledge does not promote your cause in a positive fashion.

Never mind all this other verbiage. It doesn't cut one piece of steel.

What you call "all this other verbiage", rational people call facts and evidence.

Just answer this one killer question. While keeping the rules of physics intact too, of course.

What "killer question" is that? I don't see one.

And, while I'm here, I will reiterate this prior post to which you did not respond:

t looks like you deliberately missed my point. In fact, it looks like you just chose the nearest sentence to quote, without bothering to read the post, so that you could then jump in head first with the standard cut and paste twoofer CD nonsense that has been completely refuted here numerous times before.

All of the items on your list have been discussed here before. You could easily do a search for threads on those subjects, were you interested in learning rather than just cutting and pasting from the usual twoofer sites/suspects.

Should you conduct that search, in addition to learning about the very topics you raised in your post, you will likely also find some useful explanations of how to avoid the logical fallacies that you have employed, and you will, without a doubt, be exposed to the scientific method, critical thinking, and analytical thinking in action, all of which you could benefit from immensely, should you choose to try your hand at them.

Please do consider it, and good luck.

[Dave Rogers]

Please tell us, while keeping your dogma of the 911 big lie intact, how the buildings could come down at the speed of a fall through air?

Never mind all this other verbiage. It doesn't cut one piece of steel. Just answer this one killer question. While keeping the rules of physics intact too, of course.

OK, let's look at the rules of physics. I posted this with some errors on another thread, but newtons bit was kind enough to point out the amount of energy expended in inelastic deformation, so I think it's about right now.

Suppose a building starts to fall, for whatever reason. Let's not get hung up on the reason for collapse initiation, because that has nothing to do with your question. A complete floor's worth of support columns has, for some reason, broken, and the building falls till the next floor up hits either the next floor down or the ground. What are the forces on the falling building?

For a fall through one storey height, the force is -mg, where positive force is defined as upwards. Net acceleration is -g.

When the building hits the next floor, the columns of that floor can exert an upwards force. This force causes the columns to shorten elastically up to about 0.2% of their original length, at which point they start to buckle. Hooke's law tells us that the force exerted by an elastically compressed body is directly proportional to its compression, so the force exerted upwards by the columns increases linearly from zero to the failure load over this 0.2% compression. If we assume a safety factor of three (i.e. each column is able to support three times the weight of the building above it), then the average upward force over this stage is half the force (3mg) at the point of failure, giving 1.5mg. We also have gravitational force of -mg, so the net force is +0.5mg and the net acceleration is +0.5g. This will slow the falling block, therefore, by about 0.1% of the speed with which it hit the lower floor.

Next, the columns buckle inelastically. Newtons bit tells me that this dissipates about ten times the energy of the elastic shortening phase and continues until the column is shortened by about 3%, at which point it fractures and can no longer exert any upward force. During the inelastic shortening phase, the average upward force exerted is therefore (10 x 1.5 x 0.002) / 0.03 = mg (ratio of energy expended x average force in the elastic phase / ratio of distances travelled in the two phases). The gravitational force is still -mg, so the average net force on the falling block in this phase is zero; the falling block continues to fall at the same speed. [1]

After the columns fracture, the only force on the falling block is -mg, so it then accelerates at -g for the remaining 97% of the fall until the point the next floor hits the ground.

So we have a net force on the falling block over 0.2% of the distance of +0.5g, over another 3% of zero, and over the remaining 96.8% of -g. The average acceleration is therefore g x (-0.968 + 0.5 x 0.002) = 0.967g.

WTC7 was 186m tall. With g=9.81ms-2, we have a fall time in freefall of sqrt ( 2 x h / g ), which gives 6.16 seconds. Allowing for the resistance of the columns, we have t = sqrt (2 x h / 0.967g ), which gives 6.26 seconds. The resistance of the columns alone is expected to add about 0.1 second to the collapse time. That's not a difference you could measure from any of the collapse videos, so it looks like it fell in the same time as freefall.

I've answered your killer question while keeping the laws of physics intact. Are you happy now?

Dave

[1] This explains, of course, why the building continued to fall. The force exerted by the columns on a falling mass is nowhere near enough or exerted for long enough to bring it to a halt. If it doesn't get stopped by the first impact, it's travelling even faster at the second, and so on down.

[twinstead]

Why do people say the event defied the laws of physics when it most certainly does not? Except for a few either dubiously biased or dubiously credentialed scientists, the vast majority of physicists don't think so; why would somebody discount their opinions to parrot a few kooks?

[Dave Rogers]

Why do people say the event defied the laws of physics when it most certainly does not? Except for a few either dubiously biased or dubiously credentialed scientists, the vast majority of physicists don't think so; why would somebody discount their opinions to parrot a few kooks?

Because, apart from Steven E. Jones and what's-his-face that tried to suggest that the top of WTC2 could have fallen a whole storey without bending most of the support columns, all the physicists in the world are terrified of being quietly murdered by the CIA for outing the conspiracy, so none of us have the guts to stand up and state what we know to be true. For a profession that includes Andrei Sakharov, I find that a bit of a stretch.

Dave

[twinstead]

Because, apart from Steven E. Jones and what's-his-face that tried to suggest that the top of WTC2 could have fallen a whole storey without bending most of the support columns, all the physicists in the world are terrified of being quietly murdered by the CIA for outing the conspiracy, so none of us have the guts to stand up and state what we know to be true. For a profession that includes Andrei Sakharov, I find that a bit of a stretch.

Well it IS true that the vast majority of relevant experts in the world care more about their jobs and tenure than exposing mass murder of thousands of innocent people.

I guess that explains it. ;)

[funk de fino]

The corner column is clearly there on floors 17 and 16 in the screen cap i posted. The broken off edge of the wall, as you call it, is the corner column. If the corner column was gone, it would have taken part of the south wall with it and there would be a ragged edge, not the straight edge that we see.

The photo you posted is not as clear as the one i posted. That might be the corner column on [about] floor 12 but it's hard to say.
The NIST photos shows the corner and the first windows are gone on floors 11, 12 and 13.

Fig L-22b seems to show quite well the ragged edge and missing parts of the building which would seem to me leads us to the conclusion that the Zafr photo is the one with seeming anomolies?

This could be due to the different view angle as has already been mentioned

either that or Nist have faked another photo?

What is your take on Fig L-22b C7?

[jaydeehess]

If we had a society free of indoctrination and intimidation, the speed of fall alone would be enough to convince everyone it was a CD, and to indict a lot of suspects, too.

Really? Who would be indicted by this supposed evidence republicus? Names please.

It has been pointed outto you on several occasions that the rate of fall ("speed" of fall is bad science since the speed was not constant) is not out of line with a collapse. Why do you continue to harp away that it is?

[Belz...]

If we had a society free of indoctrination and intimidation, the speed of fall alone would be enough to convince everyone it was a CD, and to indict a lot of suspects, too.

We obviously do not have such a free-thinking forum.

Speaking of free thinking, why did you reply with such an oft-used tactic ? Accusing others of being close-minded instead of answering their points.

That speed of fall was only possible if the doors were opened, if the support columns were instantaneously severed.

You don't know much about physics, do you ?

No 911 Big Liar yet has come up with an alternative explanation - for the simple reason there isn't one. It's the only way to do it.

Come on 911 liars. We truthers are open minded. Please tell us, while keeping your dogma of the 911 big lie intact, how the buildings could come down at the speed of a fall through air?

Maybe because they were falling through air.

Oh, no, wait. They DIDN'T fall at that speed, so your question is irrelevant.

[Dave Rogers]

WTC7 was 186m tall. With g=9.81ms-2, we have a fall time in freefall of sqrt ( 2 x h / g ), which gives 6.16 seconds. Allowing for the resistance of the columns, we have t = sqrt (2 x h / 0.967g ), which gives 6.26 seconds. The resistance of the columns alone is expected to add about 0.1 second to the collapse time.

Just as an update: The above is averaged over distance, not time. I wanted to average it over time but the numbers got a bit, well, numerous, so I ended up putting the whole thing into a spreadsheet. From that, I got a rather more refined collapse time of 6.24 seconds counting column resistance alone. This is a simplified model, in that the only assumption it makes about weight and column strength is that the demand-to-capacity ratio of the support columns is constant for every floor; in practice it would be expected to vary, as the column thickness is not tapered continuously for higher floors but instead uses a limited number of sections of reducing cross-sectional area, but I think it's not a bad first approximation.

In a spreadsheet, of course, it's easy to vary specific parameters, so I took a quick look at how the collapse time varies with the factor of safety. A factor of ten still gives a collapse time less than the commonly quoted 6.5 seconds, so unless WTC7 was able to support more than ten times its own weight, there's nothing at all surprising about the collapse time.

There will be a couple of other factors to consider, mainly the conservation of momentum from the fact that the falling mass had to accelerate the lower floors up to its falling speed. However, for WTC7 this is a much smaller term than the twin towers, because the main collapse started low down and hence the mass of the upper block was a much greater proportion of the whole. Overall, 6.5 seconds or so looks like a very sensible time for a gravity-driven collapse.

Dave

[jaydeehess]

Basically what occurs when a CT speaks about the collapse time is that they calculate the time of fall of a dense object (which would be very very close to the fall in a vaccum) and then compare that to the estimated time of collapse of the perimeter of WTC 7.

The two numbers are close and therefore this tweaks personal incredulity in people like our own republicus here. They then ignore any explanation that involves actual calculatons that show that the two number would indeed be close and that the free fall time always can be shown to be less than the collapse time. From there they advance to something akin to, " it could not be a natural collapse, therefore something aided collapse and therefore it must have been explosives". Of course the biggest problem with this is that they start from a position of personal incredulity that they will not shake even when shown their error.

[GT/CS]

Basically what occurs when a CT speaks about the collapse time is that they calculate the time of fall of a dense object (which would be very very close to the fall in a vaccum) and then compare that to the estimated time of collapse of the perimeter of WTC 7.

The two numbers are close and therefore this tweaks personal incredulity in people like our own republicus here. They then ignore any explanation that involves actual calculatons that show that the two number would indeed be close and that the free fall time always can be shown to be less than the collapse time. From there they advance to something akin to, " it could not be a natural collapse, therefore something aided collapse and therefore it must have been explosives". Of course the biggest problem with this is that they start from a position of personal incredulity that they will not shake even when shown their error.

And don't forget clunkity clunk.

[Christopher7]

Do you deny that even 570oC would severly compromise the strength of a column?
Meridian Plaza fire analysis:
Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

Cardington tests:
Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Read the last few paragraphs of the interim report again Chris. The part about further calculations.Why don't you take your own advise and stop claiming that WTC 7 collapsed because of DD/F until NIST can explain how it happened.
They have only a hypothesis [a set of assumptions] that they admit, may not hold up.
"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation."

The temp gradient across a thin cookie sheet would be minimal, accross a thick column it would be much greater.How much could that difference be in a column of the size and shape of the columns 79, 80 and 81, given steel's ability do disperse heat rapidly?
How much bend could occur in 12 feet?

Any lateral stress to core columns in the west half of WTC 7 would be pulling primarily to the south.
South and west, the core failed and the progression was east to west.
The core columns at the east end of the building failed first.
NIST L-49 and 50 show Trusses 1 and 2 collapsing to the east, the opposite direction of the lateral pull you say contributed to the collapse.

each one of those 'limited fires' would have been considered a major fre by themselves.They were not as extensive as the ones in the Meridian Plaza.

Now that was a limited fire and it occured in a pure post and beam structure that was completely intact at the outset of the fire.It was a much bigger fire than the ones in WTC 7.
The area of the initiating event was completely intact.
The columns were much heavier and would take longer to heat up.

[GT/CS]

that they admit, may not hold up.
"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation."



Chris you never cease to amaze me with the things you write. We've been trying to tell you that for, what, 8000 posts? Now that you agree may we put this to rest until the report comes out?

[jaydeehess]

Meridian Plaza fire analysis:
Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

Cardington tests:
Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Both structures fully intact at the outset, both structures not nearly as tall as WTC 7 , both structures of a less complex structural design.

Why don't you take your own advise and stop claiming that WTC 7 collapsed because of DD/F until NIST can explain how it happened.
They have only a hypothesis [a set of assumptions] that they admit, may not hold up.
"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation."

As pointed out Chris we have wanted you to do just that for some time now. It is you who makes all the definitive statements about what DID bring down the building, about what could and could not occur.

How much could that difference be in a column of the size and shape of the columns 79, 80 and 81, given steel's ability do disperse heat rapidly?
How much bend could occur in 12 feet?

Gradient would be greater the bigger the column Chris. Its 1st year thermodynamics, take a course in it. The cookie sheet would dissapate heat faster than a thick column. Steel has a finite rate of conduction, it is greater than concrete but less than copper or aluminum.


The core columns at the east end of the building failed first.
NIST L-49 and 50 show Trusses 1 and 2 collapsing to the east, the opposite direction of the lateral pull you say contributed to the collapse.

Which only indicates where something let go. If this were a spring then it failed at the anchor point.

They were not as extensive as the ones in the Meridian Plaza.It was a much bigger fire than the ones in WTC 7.

Each fire was as hot as the Meridian fire.


The area of the initiating event was completely intact..

In all other fires the entire building was intact at the outset of the fire.

The columns were much heavier and would take longer to heat up

,,, and the fires in WTC 7 were moe extensive.

[jaydeehess]

[url]http://www.spiraxsarco.com/resources/steam-engineering-tutorials/steam-engineering-principles-and-heat-transfer/heat-transfer.asp[\url]

You might notice that heat transfer slows at higher temps and that heat transfer slows for a thicker object. (Gee I guess that explains why a thicker layer of insulation means less heat transfer through that insulation. If you now try to tell me that is because its insulation and not steel Chriss, I will laugh in your face and tell you to take a course in thermodynamics again))

[Dave Rogers]

http://www.spiraxsarco.com/resources/steam-engineering-tutorials/steam-engineering-principles-and-heat-transfer/heat-transfer.asp

You might notice that heat transfer slows at higher temps and that heat transfer slows for a thicker object.

You might also notice that the thermal conductivity of steel is actually very low for a metal. "Steel's ability to disperse heat rapidly" is as much of a myth as anything else the truth movement has to say.

Dave

[jaydeehess]

You might also notice that the thermal conductivity of steel is actually very low for a metal. "Steel's ability to disperse heat rapidly" is as much of a myth as anything else the truth movement has to say.

Dave

inaddition to iron and steel getting worse as the temp rises , as compared to the other metals listed over the three temps shown in the table. 13% less conductivity at a temp of 225C than it has at 25C.

Just by looking at the first few paragraphs of that web page it becomes obvious why heat sinks are made of copper or aluminum and why structural steel must have passive fire protection .

It was only one of many pages that came up with a google search for "heat transfer" + steel. Witha little more searching one could find steel's heat conductivity at temp of 500/600/700C but I know it will be even less than at 225C.
this illustrates that there is a point at which heat input will easily be greater than heat dissipation via conduction through the steel itself. Further adding to this is that in compartments that are on fire the insulation will degrade over the first hour whereas the compartments above and below the fire will still be well insulated. Thus the heat that is conducted to cooler areas, those compartments that are not on fire, the heat cannot easily be dissipated through radiation or convection from the steel to the air in the cooler compartments.

The CT bugaboo about the conductivity of steel is a non-starter.

[GT/CS]

People who live in Texas know that the best way to cook meat is to expose to very low temperatures for a long time. Can steel in a building fire "cook" the same way or does it lose its heat faster than it absorbs it?

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher
Why don't you take your own advise (sic) and stop claiming that WTC 7 collapsed because of DD/F until NIST can explain how it happened.
They have only a hypothesis [a set of assumptions that they admit, may not hold up.

"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation."

Chris you never cease to amaze me with the things you write. We've been trying to tell you that for, what, 8000 posts? Now that you agree may we put this to rest until the report comes out?No
I have known this for a long time and i have been asking you all to stop claiming that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F for a long time.
This does not mean we should ignore the evidence contained in the NIST and other reports.
NIST is stalling because they cannot demonstrate how the fires could have caused the collapse.
You would like to have us all ignore the facts and wait for another snow job from an administration that systematically distorts scientific documents.

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by Christopher
Why don't you take your own advise (sic) and stop claiming that WTC 7 collapsed because of DD/F until NIST can explain how it happened.
They have only a hypothesis [a set of assumptions that they admit, may not hold up.

"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation."

No
I have known this for a long time and i have been asking you all to stop claiming that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F for a long time.
This does not mean we should ignore the evidence contained in the NIST and other reports.
NIST is stalling because they cannot demonstrate how the fires could have caused the collapse.
You would like to have us all ignore the facts and wait for another snow job from an administration that systematically distorts scientific documents.

Chris you just exposed yourself for what you really are.

You state, as a fact, that NIST is stalling because they cannot demonstrate how the fires could have caused the collapse. If you state this as a fact, and you have no idea whether this is true why should we listen to any of your other facts?

You also tell me that I would like to us you all ignore the facts and wait for another snow job.........

How can you be so arrogant as to tell me what I would like? Again, you are making up facts, just like you have for the past few months. Have I not told you that I am a Bush-hater, and that I'd love to nail him and his goons with a conspiracy? In light of that your statement is nonsense. In fact, it just proves that you cannot process data like a mature adult. You can only look for things that support your belief, and you ignore everything else.

Give it a rest and wait for the report to come out, then tear it apart if you want.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher
Why don't you take your own advise (sic) and stop claiming that WTC 7 collapsed because of DD/F until NIST can explain how it happened.
They have only a hypothesis [a set of assumptions that they admit, may not hold up.

"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation."

No
I have known this for a long time and i have been asking you all to stop claiming that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F for a long time.
This does not mean we should ignore the evidence contained in the NIST and other reports.
NIST is stalling because they cannot demonstrate how the fires could have caused the collapse.
You would like to have us all ignore the facts and wait for another snow job from an administration that systematically distorts scientific documents.

Whoa!!!

It has been stated many times by many here that the evidence for DD/F having caused the collapse far outweighs the evidence for CD. This is not a definitive statement, it is saying thatthere is chance that something else caused or contributed to the collapse, albeit a small one.

It is you who has made the definitive statements concerning what could or could not have occured in WTC 7 due to fires and debris damage. How many times have I complained about your definitive statements in this thread Chris? Given the number of times it has occured I would have to believe that you recall my having called you on it.

I too am a Bush hater. I hate the global temp change data fudgeing, the stem cell research obstacles etc. I have stated many times in JREF forums that I hate GWB and that I feel that he will go down in history as the worst POTUS to date. Yet somehow I cannot allow my own feelings about the man and his administration to affect critical thinking. I certainly am not allowing my own political views and feelings concerning the administration to drive my assessment of the events of 9/11, that much is obvious. Can you say the same?

Now you claim inside knowledge of the workings of NIST, specifically you accuse NIST of working towards a pre-determined conclusion, of distortion and obfuscation. Do I detect an 'out' for you when/if NIST's final report does indeed have a good model of DD/F resulting in the collapse and very little evidence of CD?
In other words it will matter not what conclusions are drawn and what tech/science is employed, you will stick to YOUR predetermined conclusion.

[Christopher7]

Both structures fully intact at the outset, both structures not nearly as tall as WTC 7 , both structures of a less complex structural design.Meridian Plaza was 37 stories tall.
The Cardington tests were to examine how different framework members react in extreme fire conditions.
That data could be used in a computer model of WTC 7.

How much could that difference be in a column of the size and shape of the columns 79, 80 and 81, given steel's ability do disperse heat rapidly?
How much bend could occur in 12 feet?
Gradient would be greater the bigger the column Chris. Its 1st year thermodynamics, take a course in it. The cookie sheet would dissapate heat faster than a thick column. Steel has a finite rate of conduction, it is greater than concrete but less than copper or aluminum.
You did not answer the question because you don't know what the actual effect would be.
Your theory means nothing unless you can apply it to the case at hand.

The core columns at the east end of the building failed first.
NIST L-49 and 50 show Trusses 1 and 2 collapsing to the east, the opposite direction of the lateral pull you say contributed to the collapse.
Which only indicates where something let go. If this were a spring then it failed at the anchor point.
So now it's the 'spring effect' ..... please
I suppose you have a URL for this phonynomanon.

Each fire was as hot as the Meridian fire.
You are right, the fires were similar, except the fires in the Meridian Plaza were on contiguous floors.
WTC 7 was designed better and had far less vertical expansion of fires.
[except for the SW corner]


http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6030/meridianplazacbg5.jpg

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/7082/e7yn8.jpg

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/4300/copyof3zn0.jpg


In all other fires the entire building was intact at the outset of the fire.So what?
The area where the collapse began was not damaged by debris or weakened by the damage.
You have shown no data to back up your claim that the debris damage had a significant structural effect on the east end of the building.

Like all your so called evidence for DD/F, it's just inference and innuendo.

The columns were much heavier and would take longer to heat up
,,, and the fires in WTC 7 were moe extensive.Wrong
See photos above.

[Christopher7]

You state, as a fact, that NIST is stalling because they cannot demonstrate how the fires could have caused the collapse. If you state this as a fact, and you have no idea whether this is true why should we listen to any of your other facts?If they were able to show how the fires caused the collapse of WTC 7, they would have released the report.
You are looking for an excuse to ignore the facts contained in the NIST and other reports.
These facts are not 'my facts', they are simply 'the facts'.

Again, you are making up facts, just like you have for the past few months. Wrong

I have listed facts from the FEMA and NIST reports, as well as data from the Tr-049 report, the Cardington tests and others.

[jaydeehess]

Meridian Plaza was 37 stories tall.
The Cardington tests were to examine how different framework members react in extreme fire conditions.
That data could be used in a computer model of WTC 7.
,,a nd may well be used in the NIST report. Gee, maybe we could wait for it.


You did not answer the question because you don't know what the actual effect would be.
Your theory means nothing unless you can apply it to the case at hand.

So you now at least admit that steel does not conduct heat as well as you wish it could and that a temp gradient will result in bending? All you dispute is the degree?


So now it's the 'spring effect' ..... please
I suppose you have a URL for this phonynomanon.

Look back. I used your description of what was taking place.

You are right, the fires were similar, except the fires in the Meridian Plaza were on contiguous floors.
WTC 7 was designed better and had far less vertical expansion of fires.
[except for the SW corner]

Yeah, go figure, all buildings don't react exactly alike.
How do you quantify "WTC 7 was designed better"?

So what?
The area where the collapse began was not damaged by debris or weakened by the damage.
You have shown no data to back up your claim that the debris damage had a significant structural effect on the east end of the building.

Like all your so called evidence for DD/F, it's just inference and innuendo.

At least it is infered by the existance of debris and fire damage, unlike the inference that CD caused the collapse which is pure fantasy

Wrong
See photos above.

My bad, I thought you were reffering to the Cardington structure there.
How much longer Chris?

[TerryUK]

So you now at least admit that steel does not conduct heat as well as you wish it could and that a temp gradient will result in bending? All you dispute is the degree?





Steel conducts heat approx 60 times better than concrete.

[Christopher7]

It has been stated many times by many here that the evidence for DD/F having caused the collapse far outweighs the evidence for CD. This is not a definitive statement,You got that part right.

It's just a "My dog is bigger than your dog" statement.

You refuse to acknowledge the evidence for CD and then and claim inference and innuendo is better than nothing.

it is saying that there is chance that something else caused or contributed to the collapse,
Something else?
Something other than a CD?

albeit a small one.
A small one indeed.



I hate GWB and that I feel that he will go down in history as the worst POTUS to date. ......... am not allowing my own political views and feelings concerning the administration to drive my assessment of the events of 9/11, that much is obvious. Can you say the same?
Yes

We agree that GWB is the worst President ever but unlike you, i don't hate Bush, i despise and fear him.
Yet my first reaction to the video of WTC 7 was denial.
I told myself "That's not really WTC 7"
When i saw it again on the History Channel, it finally hit home.

Now you claim inside knowledge of the workings of NISTNo

specifically you accuse NIST of working towards a pre-determined conclusion, of distortion and obfuscation.Yes

Do I detect an 'out' for you when/if NIST's final report does indeed have a good model of DD/F resulting in the collapse and very little evidence of CD?
In other words it will matter not what conclusions are drawn and what tech/science is employed, you will stick to YOUR predetermined conclusion.Given that the Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents, i would need independent review and verification of the data to believe it.

The facts do not support the DD/F hypothesis.
On the contrary, they show that vertical support columns do not fail in tests or the real world.*

What makes you think NIST will find some data that contradicts the data in the Tr-049 report, the Lessons Learned report, and the Cardington tests?


*The Windsor Tower had light weight exterior box columns [18 pounds per lineal foot] on the upper 10 floors.
These cannot be compared to the columns in the Meridian Plaza or the 730 lb per lin. ft. columns in WTC 7.

[jaydeehess]

You got that part right.

It's just a "My dog is bigger than your dog" statement.

As I said before, two dogs in the yard and a 2 foot wide by 1 foot deep hole with paw prints indicating it was dug by a dog. One dog is a Pomeranian and the other a German Shepard. What are the odds that the Pomeranian did the deed? the Shepard? a third dog that was not seen by anyone?
(OK maybe I used different breeds before, the comparison stands.)

You are saying that because the evidence for DD/F is more compelling than CD, that CD is the more likely to have been the cause? Sorry Chris lack of evidence is not evidence.

You refuse to acknowledge the evidence for CD and then and claim inference and innuendo is better than nothing

The 7 supposed hallmarks of CD? You are kidding right? 7 items drummed up by people out to prove a predetermined conclusion who leave out any characteristic of CD that just happens to not bolster that predetermined conclusion.
The supposed cut columns that oddly enough all seem to have occured at splices?
The loud booming or banging sounds that all occur AS the building is collapseing? Yes, of course falling debris should make whistleing, or soft rustleing noises.

Something else?
Something other than a CD?

No, I was including CD, your fav, but also leaving it open space based beam weapons, mini-nukes, and UFO's, the favs of some others in the CT camp.

A small one indeed.
Hmm, sarcasm or agreement?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,



Yes

Well it is patently obvious that my political dislike of GWB isn't colouring my stance. Its not so obvious in your case.

We agree that GWB is the worst President ever but unlike you, i don't hate Bush, i despise and fear him.

OK I don't actually hate the man, I disagree with him and look forward to someone else taking over from him.

Yet my first reaction to the video of WTC 7 was denial.I told myself "That's not really WTC 7"

Denial that it was WTC 7?
Please don't make yourself sound like the no-planers.

When i saw it again on the History Channel, it finally hit home.

That it was indeed WTC 7.

No

Yes

Sure you do. you claim that you know for a fact that NIST will create data soley to support a predetermined conclusion. That means you have some inside knowledge on the inner workings of NIST.

Given that the Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents, i would need independent review and verification of the data to believe it.

It would require that you can show that the science was manipulated IN THIS CASE.

The facts do not support the DD/F hypothesis.

The debris and fire damage are they only facts in evidence that point to a cause.

On the contrary, they show that vertical support columns do not fail in tests or the real world.*

Yes, in fact columns do fail. This is another case of a definitive sentence of yours that is simply incorrect. Buildings have collapsed due to fire and in those cases the vertical columns failed. They did so in buildings not the size of WTC 7 but those buildings were intact before the fires.

What makes you think NIST will find some data that contradicts the data in the Tr-049 report, the Lessons Learned report, and the Cardington tests?

Contradict? Neither of those state that columns are immune to fire damage failure.

I asked you how much longer the columns of WTC 7 would take to heat up than for instance, those of the Meridian Plaza. Let's assume equal heat input which only requires that one compartment be on fire in each case.

[BenBurch]

Steel conducts heat approx 60 times better than concrete.

Move to strike as non-responsive.

[jaydeehess]

Move to strike as non-responsive.

I am sure he thinks he has a point but its up to him to actually put it down in words.

[jaydeehess]

Steel conducts heat approx 60 times better than concrete.
concrete withstands fire better than steel. You have a point??

Address post 3087 (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showpost.php?p=3044970&postcount=3807)

[jaydeehess]

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire07/PDF/f07021.pdf

page 45-46 (actual page #)

As illustrated in Figure 17, non-uniform heating can be full height, but incomplete fire exposure of entire column section contour or a partial height exposure of some or all the section contour. Loaded column tests with non-uniform heating are expected to show asymmetric structural response and failure mechanisms that are not obviated from the currently unloaded,uniformly-critical E 119 temperature tests with their idealized conditions.
<<snip>>
Provision for investigating loaded column and wall response under non-uniform fire exposure should be studied, as this may be a more severe condition than uniform heating.

[Christopher7]

You are saying that because the evidence for DD/F is more compelling than CD, that CD is the more likely to have been the cause? No
First of all, that sentence doesn't make sense.
I believe you meant "the evidence for DD/F is less compelling ....."
I have stated that the lack of evidence for DD/F does not prove CD [or vise versa].

Hmm, sarcasm or agreement?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Both

specifically you accuse NIST of working towards a pre-determined conclusion, of distortion and obfuscation.Yes
you claim that you know for a fact that NIST will create data soley to support a predetermined conclusion. That means you have some inside knowledge on the inner workings of NIST.
No
I can see that they made misleading statements in the preliminary report.
There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires or reason to believe they existed in the area of the initiating event.
There were no fires reported on floor 5.
There is no smoke coming from the louvers in the north east generator room. [floor 5]
Pipes would fracture in the SW generator room where the debris damage was, not in the NE generator room at the opposite end of the building.

Given that the Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents, i would need independent review and verification of the data to believe it.
It would require that you can show that the science was manipulated IN THIS CASE. It would require qualified independent persons to verify or refute the data.

The debris and fire damage are they only facts in evidence that point to a cause.IYO

Yes, in fact columns do fail. This is another case of a definitive sentence of yours that is simply incorrect. Buildings have collapsed due to fire and in those cases the vertical columns failed. To satisfy this bit of sophistry, i use the term 'high rise building' instead of 'steel framed building'.

What makes you think NIST will find some data that contradicts the data in the Tr-049 report, the Lessons Learned report, and the Cardington tests?
Contradict? Neither of those state that columns are immune to fire damage failure.Large columns in high rise buildings are not immune to fire but in tests and real world events, they do not fail.

I asked you how much longer the columns of WTC 7 would take to heat up than for instance, those of the Meridian Plaza. Let's assume equal heat input which only requires that one compartment be on fire in each case.I can only say that the heavier the column, the longer it will take to heat it up.

I have not yet found any data on how hot and how long office fires burn or how long it takes structural steel to heat up at those temperatures.
Do you know of any data on that?

[Dave Rogers]

There will be a couple of other factors to consider, mainly the conservation of momentum from the fact that the falling mass had to accelerate the lower floors up to its falling speed. However, for WTC7 this is a much smaller term than the twin towers, because the main collapse started low down and hence the mass of the upper block was a much greater proportion of the whole. Overall, 6.5 seconds or so looks like a very sensible time for a gravity-driven collapse.

While I suspect I may be talking to myself here because respublicus found the trauma of actually getting an answer a little too much to cope with:

I put conservation of momentum into the spreadsheet by assuming a constant mass per floor, collapse initiation at the 7th floor, and two alternative scenarios - crush down / crush up, and alternate crush up/down until the falling mass impacts the ground. I assumed for the first scenario that the velocity of the falling mass was reduced by a factor 40/41 at the first impact, 41/42 at the second, and so on; for the second I assumed that the reduction in velocity occurred every second floor by the same amount.

The two scenarios gave me 6.43 and 6.45 seconds respectively, both of which are in excellent agreement with the observed 6.5 second collapse time. I can run through the calculations in more detail if anyone's interested.

Dave

[jaydeehess]

No
First of all, that sentence doesn't make sense.
I believe you meant "the evidence for DD/F is less compelling ....."
Remember this all goes back to your big/little dog statements.
I was paraphrasing what seems to be your position, and yes, it makes no sense. The evidence that debris and fire damage caused the collapse is more compelling than the evidence that explosives were used to collapse the building. Yet it seems that you claim that because of this we should believe that CD was used.

I have stated that the lack of evidence for DD/F does not prove CD [or vise versa].

I must have missed that sorry.


No
I can see that they made misleading statements in the preliminary report.
There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires or reason to believe they existed in the area of the initiating event.
There were no fires reported on floor 5.
There is no smoke coming from the louvers in the north east generator room. [floor 5]
Pipes would fracture in the SW generator room where the debris damage was, not in the NE generator room at the opposite end of the building.

They listed possibilities. It is to be determined in the final report what probability should be attached to each. At the strident urging of the CT community they also are including the possibility of blast events in the final report, a matter that likely has had something to do with the delay in its completion.


It would require qualified independent persons to verify or refute the data.

Then by all means quote it.

IYO

I've seen nothing otherwise that is compelling in the least.

To satisfy this bit of sophistry, i use the term 'high rise building' instead of 'steel framed building'.

So? 9/11 was the first time that any high rise was hit by an aircraft or by large dense and fast debris.


Large columns in high rise buildings are not immune to fire but in tests and real world events, they do not fail.

See my last sentence.

I can only say that the heavier the column, the longer it will take to heat it up.
I have not yet found any data on how hot and how long office fires burn or how long it takes structural steel to heat up at those temperatures.
Do you know of any data on that?

I agree but you have stated that this column could not have heated up enough to cause a problem. Therefore I thought you had some quantification of that contention you could share.

[/QUOTE]

[Christopher7]

I can see that they made misleading statements in the preliminary report.
There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires or reason to believe they existed in the area of the initiating event.
There were no fires reported on floor 5.
There is no smoke coming from the louvers in the north east generator room. [floor 5]
Pipes would fracture in the SW generator room where the debris damage was, not in the NE generator room at the opposite end of the building.

They listed possibilities. It is to be determined in the final report what probability should be attached to each. There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires or reason to believe they existed in the area of the initiating event.

Including diesel fuel fire as a possibility has mislead many people into thinking it was a factor in the collapse.

Then by all means quote it.If the final report presents data to explain how DD/F brought down WTC 7, i will review it and the independent assessment.

In the mean time, the list of qualified persons refuting the NIST report and calling for an independent investigation is long and growing.

I can only say that the heavier the column, the longer it will take to heat it up.
I agree but you have stated that this column could not have heated up enough to cause a problem. Therefore I thought you had some quantification of that contention you could share.There were fires on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13 in the area where the implosion began.

There were similar fires in the Meridian plaza on 8 contiguous floors.
Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

The columns in WTC 7 were heavier and would take longer to heat up.

[Miragememories]

I see life in the sandbox has changed little.

There is a very effective way to prove that a 47-story concrete and steel building could perform a total, high speed, symmetrical (after the penthouse falls) near footprint collapse due to natural causes, because of a bit of debris damage (the infamous gouge and corner) and and a few waste cans on fire (ya ya the firefighters said it was fully involved..I saw all the smoke..ya guess they were right.)

One of the clever people here just has to make an animation illustrating how the building was fired up like a forge from hell, showing WTC 1 had all but ripped the sucker to shreds from debris fall at 10:28 a.m. and that the only unusual aspect to the collapse was that it didn't happen at an odder time like say 5:15 p.m on Dec 3rd, 2078.

I mean what's with these natural collapses happening at scheduled-like times. 09:58 a.m., 10:28 a.m. and then 5:20 p.m...damn coincidences.

You've got to admire the engineering that went into WTC 7. It's not easy to design a building with known vulnerabilties and still have it collapse like that.

Yeah they built it over a electrical substation. What fools they were. Any idiot knows no amount of engineering is going to stop a total, high speed, symmetrical collapse once those horizontal trusses fail from all the ignited butane lighters folks dropped while abandoning the building. Yeah I know, there was lots and lots of diesel fuel, enough no doubt to power the whole U.S. of A. for a couple of weeks. Too bad we have no proof that it actually burned.

What I want to see in this animation..or is cartoon a better description? Simpsons comes to mind..whatever, is all the firefighters pointing at those, what was it 8 maybe 9 windows with billowing flames and concluding "that building is coming down!". "Hear that creaking?..That building is coming down!..What was that? The chief said "that building is coming down!"

Well that building did come down by jove.

Don't get me wrong, I have the deepest respect for the NYFD 'rank 'n file' members. Their management people?..well don't get me going.

I am hoping this JREF animation will show how all the supporting columns gave way at the same time? Gravy would be a good guy to direct this. He could convince anyone that a naked lady was dressed to the nines.

I'm really curious about how all those columns so slickly failed in agreement, cuz geez that sucker was level when she dropped. You woulda thought some of the columns away from the inferno might have held on for a few seconds longer. Enough to maybe make the building fall a bit more messy-like..don't ya think? Heck I watch all these WWII documentaries where they bomb the be jezus out of whole cities and the damn buildings just don't want to come down all at once. That WTC7 I tell ya was mighty cooperative. Looked nice and neat on TV. I'll bet the demolition companies are worried, maybe have to lower their rates now that folks know how easy their job really is.

Yup, I look forward to seeing those animations, drawings, whatever that you good JREF skeptics will provide that once and for all will put the nail in the coffin for this thread.

You's good people keeping the dream alive the way ya do.

MM

[Disbelief]

bla bla bla


MM

And we'll be waiting for you to actually present evidence.

Please do not alter other people's words. If you use the quote function, keep the wording the poster used.

[GT/CS]

I see life in the sandbox has changed little.

There is a very effective way to prove that a 47-story concrete and steel building could perform a total, high speed, symmetrical (after the penthouse falls) near footprint collapse due to natural causes, because of a bit of debris damage (the infamous gouge and corner) and and a few waste cans on fire (ya ya the firefighters said it was fully involved..I saw all the smoke..ya guess they were right.)

One of the clever people here just has to make an animation illustrating how the building was fired up like a forge from hell, showing WTC 1 had all but ripped the sucker to shreds from debris fall at 10:28 a.m. and that the only unusual aspect to the collapse was that it didn't happen at an odder time like say 5:15 p.m on Dec 3rd, 2078.

I mean what's with these natural collapses happening at scheduled-like times. 09:58 a.m., 10:28 a.m. and then 5:20 p.m...damn coincidences.

You've got to admire the engineering that went into WTC 7. It's not easy to design a building with known vulnerabilties and still have it collapse like that.

Yeah they built it over a electrical substation. What fools they were. Any idiot knows no amount of engineering is going to stop a total, high speed, symmetrical collapse once those horizontal trusses fail from all the ignited butane lighters folks dropped while abandoning the building. Yeah I know, there was lots and lots of diesel fuel, enough no doubt to power the whole U.S. of A. for a couple of weeks. Too bad we have no proof that it actually burned.

What I want to see in this animation..or is cartoon a better description? Simpsons comes to mind..whatever, is all the firefighters pointing at those, what was it 8 maybe 9 windows with billowing flames and concluding "that building is coming down!". "Hear that creaking?..That building is coming down!..What was that? The chief said "that building is coming down!"

Well that building did come down by jove.

Don't get me wrong, I have the deepest respect for the NYFD 'rank 'n file' members. Their management people?..well don't get me going.

I am hoping this JREF animation will show how all the supporting columns gave way at the same time? Gravy would be a good guy to direct this. He could convince anyone that a naked lady was dressed to the nines.

I'm really curious about how all those columns so slickly failed in agreement, cuz geez that sucker was level when she dropped. You woulda thought some of the columns away from the inferno might have held on for a few seconds longer. Enough to maybe make the building fall a bit more messy-like..don't ya think? Heck I watch all these WWII documentaries where they bomb the be jezus out of whole cities and the damn buildings just don't want to come down all at once. That WTC7 I tell ya was mighty cooperative. Looked nice and neat on TV. I'll bet the demolition companies are worried, maybe have to lower their rates now that folks know how easy their job really is.

Yup, I look forward to seeing those animations, drawings, whatever that you good JREF skeptics will provide that once and for all will put the nail in the coffin for this thread.

You's good people keeping the dream alive the way ya do.

MM

Well, that was certainly a coherent post. Friday night happy hour?

[Dave Rogers]

I mean what's with these natural collapses happening at scheduled-like times. 09:58 a.m., 10:28 a.m. and then 5:20 p.m...damn coincidences.

Stundied.

Dave

[twinstead]

Stundied.

Dave

What's up with your post occurring exactly at 11:12 am in my time zone?

Coincidence? I think not.

I'll be anywhere in the world it would still end in '12'!

Another coincidence? I think not.

[Miragememories]

What's up with your post occurring exactly at 11:12 am in my time zone?

Coincidence? I think not.

I'll be anywhere in the world it would still end in '12'!

Another coincidence? I think not.

I confess. I pushed all 3 plungers!

There. Ya got your confession and we got our proof of an inside job!

MM

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Miragememories
I mean what's with these natural collapses happening at scheduled-like times. 09:58 a.m., 10:28 a.m. and then 5:20 p.m...damn coincidences.

Reminds me of the time I was told that the Imperial measurement system made much more sense since, for instance, the speed of light is 186000 miles per second whereas in metric it is 299 792 458 m / s and that is such an odd number.

So the first two nominally occured 30 minutes apart and the collapse of WTC 7 occured 6 hours and 52 minutes (if my quick calc is right) later. What makes these schedule-like times especially given the odd amount of time between impacts and collapses of the towers? I thought it was supposed to be suspect that WTC 2 collapsed first?

You make this up as you go along don't you MM? Dosen't really matter if what you state makes any sense at all, right?

[twinstead]

Jaydeehess are you suggesting that MM makes things up as he goes along?

NOOOOOO! Say it isn't so!!!

[jaydeehess]

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires or reason to believe they existed in the area of the initiating event.

Including diesel fuel fire as a possibility has mislead many people into thinking it was a factor in the collapse.

The diesel fuel existed and represented a large possible fuel load. To ignore it would be derilict and taking it into account would require investigating some method by which it would get employed in the fire. To not do so would be derilict.
Seems to me that NIST says that the probability of the senario they came up being true, is low. What more did you want them to do. Print in bold red letters that the probability was , at the time of the initial reports, low?

If the final report presents data to explain how DD/F brought down WTC 7, i will review it and the independent assessment.

Who do you have in mind? I trust its not Judy Woods.

In the mean time, the list of qualified persons refuting the NIST report and calling for an independent investigation is long and growing.

Are you speaking specifically of the WTC 7 interim report?
There are persons who have points of contention with aspects of various NIST reports concerning the destruction on 9/11/01 AND who do not believe in CD in any building nor believe that anything other than hijacked aircraft commandeered by Islamic extremists caused the destruction.

There were fires on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13 in the area where the implosion began.

Yeah, I got that.

There were similar fires in the Meridian plaza on 8 contiguous floors.
Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

A building that was more conventional in design and which had suffered not other physical damage prior to the fire.

Although you repeatedly quote that idea that heating uniformly would require big fires and high temps in order to cause a collapse of a column and although I gave you a chance to mention that temp gradients could have an effect you refuse to acknowledge it.
From the WTC 7 interim report:

I4.5 Temperature Gradients: Fire effects may have caused the failure of columns and other components through the forces induced by temperature gradients through their cross section. Bending and shear forces may be induced that are sufficient to
yield either the column splice or reinforcing plate welds. Analysis of a one-story segment of interior column 79 indicates that the cover plate weld would begin to yield at a mean temperature of 490 °C with a 200 °C gradient across the section, as shown in Fig. L–38. Other mean temperature and gradient combinations may also cause this type of failure

[jaydeehess]

Jaydeehess are you suggesting that MM makes things up as he goes along?


No, I am actually asking MM if its true not suggesting it!!111eleventy

[twinstead]

No, I am actually asking MM if its true not suggesting it!!111eleventy

Well, we all know he is, but I have to respect your asking him instead of declaring it...;)

[Christopher7]

The diesel fuel existed and represented a large possible fuel load. To ignore it would be derilict and taking it into account would require investigating some method by which it would get employed in the fire. To not do so would be derilict.There was no reason to think there were diesel fuel fires in or near the NE generator room.
Pipes would have broken where the damage was, not the other end of the building.
FEMA Figure 5-19 shows there is no smoke coming from the NE generator room.

Seems to me that NIST says that the probability of the senario they came up being true, is low. What more did you want them to do. Print in bold red letters that the probability was , at the time of the initial reports, low?FEMA 5-29
The following is, therefore, a hypothesis based on potential rather than demonstrated fact.

FEMA 5-31
"Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

In addition to that, NIST knew there were no fires in that area.

NIST L-22
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas

NIST L-26 [sometime after 3]
• The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face.
[no fire on floor 5 reported]

Yet they list it in their summary.

NIST L-51
2. Fires were observed after the collapse of WTC 1. Fires were observed after 2 pm on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows. The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5.


The possibility of diesel fuel fires in or near the NE generator room had been investigated and there is no evidence to support this hypothesis.

The evidence points the other way.

There was NO probability of diesel fuel fires in that area.

Common sense tells us that the pipes would have fractured in or near the SW generator room where the damage was, not at the other end of the building.

[Christopher7]

A building that was more conventional in designSo what?
WTC 7 had fewer columns carrying a greater load and they were sized accordingly, much stronger and heavier.
The greater the mass, the longer it takes to heat it up.

and which had suffered not other physical damage prior to the fire.Forsooth, the area of the initiating event suffered not other physical damage prior to the pyre.

[GT/CS]

So what?
WTC 7 had fewer columns carrying a greater load and they were sized accordingly, much stronger and heavier.
The greater the mass, the longer it takes to heat it up.

Forsooth, the area of the initiating event suffered not other physical damage prior to the pyre.

Chris, sorry if you've already answered the following question but after nearly 4000 posts I tend to lose track of such details. Do you have any experience or training in structural engineering? If so, what is the extent of that experience or training?

[Miragememories]

Chris, sorry if you've already answered the following question but after nearly 4000 posts I tend to lose track of such details. Do you have any experience or training in structural engineering? If so, what is the extent of that experience or training?

I move to strike that question as it is irrelevant and immaterial.

The Rules of the JREF Forums require that you challenge content and not the person presenting the content.

If you can find errors in Chris's factual presentation I such that is what you focus on.

MM

[Christopher7]

… you repeatedly quote that idea that heating uniformly would require big fires and high temps in order to cause a collapse of a column …...

From the WTC 7 interim report:
I4.5 Temperature Gradients: Fire effects may have caused the failure of columns and other components through the forces induced by temperature gradients through their cross section. Bending and shear forces may be induced that are sufficient to
yield either the column splice or reinforcing plate welds. Analysis of a one-story segment of interior column 79 indicates that the cover plate weld would begin to yield at a mean temperature of 490 °C with a 200 °C gradient across the section, as shown in Fig. L–38. Other mean temperature and gradient combinations may also cause this type of failure
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire07/PDF/f07021.pdf

page 45-46 (actual page #)
As illustrated in Figure 17, non-uniform heating can be full height, but incomplete fire exposure of entire column section contour or a partial height exposure of some or all the section contour. Loaded column tests with non-uniform heating are expected to show asymmetric structural response and failure mechanisms that are not obviated from the currently unloaded, uniformly-critical E 119 temperature tests with their idealized conditions.
<<snip>>
Provision for investigating loaded column and wall response under non-uniform fire exposure should be studied, as this may be a more severe condition than uniform heating.

It is reasonable to expect an asymmetrical response to asymmetrical fires.
The question remains:

How much would that be in a column of the size and shape of columns 79, 80 and 81?
How much bend could occur in 12 feet?

[Christopher7]

Fig L-22b seems to show quite well the ragged edge and missing parts of the building which would seem to me leads us to the conclusion that the Zafar photo is the one with seeming anomolies?

This could be due to the different view angle as has already been mentioned

either that or Nist have faked another photo?

What is your take on Fig L-22b C7?
I don't think the different angle could explain the difference in damage.

L-22a nd L-22b appear to agree with each other.


http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/2865/l22al22bzafarvv0.png

However

There are the fires on floors 22 and 30

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/6546/74830165qh3.png
4th window from corner on floor 30 is intact

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9739/2cropvd7.png
4th window from corner on floor 30 still intact
1/2 of first window on floor 22 is broken and smoke is coming out

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/8340/55446298pw4.jpg
4th window from corner on floor has 30 burned out
First 2 windows on floor 22 have burned out

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6474/69703016yj4.jpg
Floor 22 is on fire again on the west face

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/1430/63908760hz6.jpg
Floor 22 is still on fire on the west face

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/9773/timegraphicmj1.jpg

[Belz...]

I see life in the sandbox has changed little.

There is a very effective way to prove that a 47-story concrete and steel building could perform a total, high speed, symmetrical (after the penthouse falls) near footprint collapse due to natural causes, because of a bit of debris damage (the infamous gouge and corner) and and a few waste cans on fire (ya ya the firefighters said it was fully involved..I saw all the smoke..ya guess they were right.)

One of the clever people here just has to make an animation illustrating how the building was fired up like a forge from hell, showing WTC 1 had all but ripped the sucker to shreds from debris fall at 10:28 a.m. and that the only unusual aspect to the collapse was that it didn't happen at an odder time like say 5:15 p.m on Dec 3rd, 2078.

I mean what's with these natural collapses happening at scheduled-like times. 09:58 a.m., 10:28 a.m. and then 5:20 p.m...damn coincidences.

You've got to admire the engineering that went into WTC 7. It's not easy to design a building with known vulnerabilties and still have it collapse like that.

Yeah they built it over a electrical substation. What fools they were. Any idiot knows no amount of engineering is going to stop a total, high speed, symmetrical collapse once those horizontal trusses fail from all the ignited butane lighters folks dropped while abandoning the building. Yeah I know, there was lots and lots of diesel fuel, enough no doubt to power the whole U.S. of A. for a couple of weeks. Too bad we have no proof that it actually burned.

What I want to see in this animation..or is cartoon a better description? Simpsons comes to mind..whatever, is all the firefighters pointing at those, what was it 8 maybe 9 windows with billowing flames and concluding "that building is coming down!". "Hear that creaking?..That building is coming down!..What was that? The chief said "that building is coming down!"

Well that building did come down by jove.

Don't get me wrong, I have the deepest respect for the NYFD 'rank 'n file' members. Their management people?..well don't get me going.

I am hoping this JREF animation will show how all the supporting columns gave way at the same time? Gravy would be a good guy to direct this. He could convince anyone that a naked lady was dressed to the nines.

I'm really curious about how all those columns so slickly failed in agreement, cuz geez that sucker was level when she dropped. You woulda thought some of the columns away from the inferno might have held on for a few seconds longer. Enough to maybe make the building fall a bit more messy-like..don't ya think? Heck I watch all these WWII documentaries where they bomb the be jezus out of whole cities and the damn buildings just don't want to come down all at once. That WTC7 I tell ya was mighty cooperative. Looked nice and neat on TV. I'll bet the demolition companies are worried, maybe have to lower their rates now that folks know how easy their job really is.

Yup, I look forward to seeing those animations, drawings, whatever that you good JREF skeptics will provide that once and for all will put the nail in the coffin for this thread.

You's good people keeping the dream alive the way ya do.

MM

OH! Miragememories. You're a sight for sore eyes.

And you're back with stundie-worthy posts, too!

I move to strike that question as it is irrelevant and immaterial.

The Rules of the JREF Forums require that you challenge content and not the person presenting the content.

If you can find errors in Chris's factual presentation I such that is what you focus on.

MM

Oh, look. He's trying to sound like a lawyer. How cute.

[jaydeehess]

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire07/PDF/f07021.pdf

page 45-46 (actual page #)
As illustrated in Figure 17, non-uniform heating can be full height, but incomplete fire exposure of entire column section contour or a partial height exposure of some or all the section contour. Loaded column tests with non-uniform heating are expected to show asymmetric structural response and failure mechanisms that are not obviated from the currently unloaded, uniformly-critical E 119 temperature tests with their idealized conditions.
<<snip>>
Provision for investigating loaded column and wall response under non-uniform fire exposure should be studied, as this may be a more severe condition than uniform heating.

It is reasonable to expect an asymmetrical response to asymmetrical fires.
The question remains:

How much would that be in a column of the size and shape of columns 79, 80 and 81?
How much bend could occur in 12 feet?

I don't know Chris, I just know that it will cause a bending stress and loss of function in the column. How's about that time it would take to heat up the column, got that yet?

If you read up on this you will see that he first thing to go in such a column would be the welds which would reduce the stability of the column. You know, that part you <snip> in your post.
Analysis of a one-story segment of interior column 79 indicates that the cover plate weld would begin to yield at a mean temperature of 490 °C with a 200 °C gradient across the section,

There was no reason to think there were diesel fuel fires in or near the NE generator room.
Pipes would have broken where the damage was, not the other end of the building.
FEMA Figure 5-19 shows there is no smoke coming from the NE generator room.

They listed possibilities. It is to be determined in the final report what probability should be attached to each. At the strident urging of the CT community they also are including the possibility of blast events in the final report, a matter that likely has had something to do with the delay in its completion.


The diesel fuel existed and represented a large possible fuel load. To ignore it would be derilict and taking it into account would require investigating some method by which it would get employed in the fire. To not do so would be derilict.


Seems that all you think NIST should have investigated is the possibility that explosives wee used.:boggled:

[The Doc]

Jesus, this thread is still here!

[JimBenArm]

Jesus, this thread is still here!
Incredible, isn't it?

[jaydeehess]

As I said:
Quote:
They listed possibilities. It is to be determined in the final report what probability should be attached to each. At the strident urging of the CT community they also are including the possibility of blast events in the final report, a matter that likely has had something to do with the delay in its completion.
Quote:
The diesel fuel existed and represented a large possible fuel load. To ignore it would be derilict and taking it into account would require investigating some method by which it would get employed in the fire. To not do so would be derilict.

Part of a fire investigation is getting a handle on fuel loads. The fuel load in office space is well known within a certain range.

There was another fuel source in the building. NIST would have to, as a proper matter of course in a fire inestigation, look into the deisel fuel as a source of fuel in the building's fires. To do this they would not, should not simply say that there was deisel in the building and therefore it was on fire and contributing to the heat. In FACT they did not do that. They did what was proper and prudent and determined what would have to occur in order for that deisel fuel to be involved. Only then can one determine how likely it was that the deisel fuel was indeed involved in the fires. Some evidence suggests that it may have been(missing fuel) while others suggest it was not involved.
How likely did NIST say it was that the deisel was involved?

Well in the interim report all they say is
2. Fires were observed after the collapse of WTC 1. Fires were observed after 2 pm on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows. The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5.

Certainly not a rousing indication of support for the idea.

What did FEMA say?
Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive poitential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurance.

Tell me again that this is misleading and how so?

[BenBurch]

Well, the fuel DID go somewhere. The storage tank was found to be empty during site clearing, and the earth around the tank was not saturated with fuel.

[jaydeehess]

Well, the fuel DID go somewhere. The storage tank was found to be empty during site clearing, and the earth around the tank was not saturated with fuel.

Yes, and that is one piece of evidence to suggest that there was a diesel fuel fire. The reason a diesel fuel fire is put at a low probability is that several things had to occur that were seen as having a low probability of happening in order to have a diesel fuel fire. The missing fuel is a bit of empirical evidence that a diesel fuel fire of some manner did occur. It is not known where the fuel burned or if there was another manner by which it was not in the tank.

This is a wild goose strawman chase for Chris though. He uses it to try and throw suspicion of obfuscation at NIST/FEMA. He says that they state or imply or mislead people to believe that a diesel fuel fire was occuring near the initial failure point when in fact they do not say that and are very clear that they do not consider it, at the time of the writing of those reports, to be of a high probability, which is exactly what Chris is saying about a diesel fuel fire. Chris7 apparently is one of those people who has difficulty in taking 'yes' for an answer without looking under the bed for an ulterior motive.

[BenBurch]

Logically, the tank wasn't going to empty itself, and so the fuel would have had to be pumped out by the pumps that react to a pressure drop and refill the day tanks. And this does mean the fuel reached the fifth floor.

But yes we cannot PROVE that there was a fuel fire.

[Christopher7]

I don't know Chris, I just know that it will cause a bending stress and loss of function in the column.You don't know that.
No one knows that because it has never happened.
It's just a theory that hasn't been tested yet.

How's about that time it would take to heat up the column, got that yet?Not yet.

If you read up on this you will see that he first thing to go in such a column would be the welds which would reduce the stability of the column. You know, that part you <snip> in your post.
NIST L-40
Welds reach yield strength at 600 deg C

uniform steel temperatures of approximately 570 ºC would result in column failure.

[jaydeehess]

You don't know that.
No one knows that because it has never happened.
It's just a theory that hasn't been tested yet.
I know there will be a bending stress on the column, basic physics says there would be. I know that if a column is bent then the load will no longer be directed through the column properly and therfore it will no longer function as designed.



NIST L-40
Welds reach yield strength at 600 deg C

uniform steel temperatures of approximately 570 ºC would result in column failure.

NIST, from the part you wish to ignore:
Quote:
Analysis of a one-story segment of interior column 79 indicates that the cover plate weld would begin to yield at a mean temperature of 490 °C with a 200 °C gradient across the section,

The reason the welds fail before 600o is that there is a lateral stress accompanying the loss of strength due to heating. The reason the column would fail at a lower temp than in uniform heating is that in uniform heating there would be no accompanying lateral stress due to bending that would occur during a non-uniform heating.

If the weld fails then more heat can attack the inner portion of the column thus increasing the heat transfer to the central "I" of the column.

You are correct that fire tests , under load , of a non-uniform heating of columns such as the one that made up column 79 of WTC 7 have not been conducted. However, NIST would have used basic physical laws in their computer analysis. If you wish to doubt their analysis then post a rebuttal of it. I know you will say you are not qualified to do so but surely, given that this is included in the WTC 7 interim report, someone has done so in the CT world. After all, you get so bent out of shape (pun not intended until I realised I had made one) about the inclusion of the possibility of diesel fires, and that is roundly pooh-poohed by the CT community, so I am sure someone has noticed this comment about temp gradients and the effect on columns.

[Christopher7]

As I said:
Part of a fire investigation is getting a handle on fuel loads. The fuel load in office space is well known within a certain range.
There was another fuel source in the building. NIST would have to, as a proper matter of course in a fire inestigation, look into the deisel fuel as a source of fuel in the building's fires. To do this they would not, should not simply say that there was deisel in the building and therefore it was on fire and contributing to the heat. In FACT they did not do that. They did what was proper and prudent and determined what would have to occur in order for that deisel fuel to be involved. Only then can one determine how likely it was that the deisel fuel was indeed involved in the fires. Some evidence suggests that it may have been(missing fuel) while others suggest it was not involved.You are getting the reports mixed up.

FEMA investigated the possibility of diesel fuel fires in the NE generator room, on the 5th floor, and concluded:
Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.

Tell me again that this is misleading and how so?The FEMA statement is not misleading.

The NIST statement is misleading.

NIST knew from the FEMA report that there was a low probability of diesel fuel fires in the NE generator room.

The fire time line in NIST L established the absence of fire on floor 5.

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas


Despite the fact that there was a low probability, and no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the NE generator room.

The reason for including:
"The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5."

in the summary is:
"Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows."

The NE generator room had vent louvers which would be open if the generators were running.

How likely did NIST say it was that the deisel was involved?
Well in the interim report all they say is

2. Fires were observed after the collapse of WTC 1. Fires were observed after 2 pm on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows. The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5.

Certainly not a rousing indication of support for the idea.Then it should not have been included in the summary.

This has led many people to think that diesel fuel fires contributed to the implosion of WTC 7.

[jaydeehess]

You are getting the reports mixed up.
Apparently so. My slip.



The NIST statement is misleading.

NIST knew from the FEMA report that there was a low probability of diesel fuel fires in the NE generator room.

The fire time line in NIST L established the absence of fire on floor 5.

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas


Despite the fact that there was a low probability, and no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the NE generator room.

The reason for including:
"The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5."

in the summary is:
"Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows."

The NE generator room had vent louvers which would be open if the generators were running.

Then it should not have been included in the summary.

This has led many people to think that diesel fuel fires contributed to the implosion of WTC 7

You are telling me that two sentences, in a 50 page report, in which NIST mentions the existance of diesel fuel and the possibility that maybe it was on fire but unseen is your evidence that NIST was being deliberativly deceptive and out to convince people that there was a very real possibility of a diesel fule fire. That about sum it up Chris7?

[BenBurch]

The generators did not have to be running for the make-up system to detect a pressure drop and start pumping. That part of the system was independent and had a battery system.

[jaydeehess]

The generators did not have to be running for the make-up system to detect a pressure drop and start pumping. That part of the system was independent and had a battery system.

Which introduces another interesting senario.
The pumps detect a loss of pressure and start pumping which then creates a pool of fuel at the area of the crack in the pipe, possibly in the generator room. That fuel remains there, the door is closed and no one smells diesel fuel especially in the smoky, dusty enviroment surrounding the WTC complex. Several hours later and after continuing mass shifts in the building due to the fires and debris damage, a crack occurs in the walls of the generator room and the fumes find an ignition source, it explodes and further damages the coulmns next to the generator room. This is the last straw for these columns and they collapse starting at the 12th floor where they are already weakened by the fires, the vibration and shift at the generator level causing the column to give out at the 12th floor.

Now Chris is going to shout "impossible" and piss and moan about this, but of course saying it is "impossible" would simply be hyperbole from Mr.7 Unlikely perhaps, improbable maybe, but within the realm of possibility. What separates it from the possibility of CD is that we know for a fact that diesel fuel existed in the building. That is something we do not know in regards to explosives.

We know also that some fuel cannot be accounted for. It is possible that the fuel line cracked further west either at the impact of the debris or later due to shifting loads as a result of the fires and continuing pieces of WTC 7 structure that was falling off. This in turn causing a fire there right away, or pooling and igniting later, in either case it would lead to a further weakening of the structure and a pull to the west on the core.

Chris7 just wants to write off the diesel fuel as not in any way being involved. Of course he does though, he has to ignore any and all senarios in which the building could have collapsed without explosives.

[Christopher7]

I know there will be a bending stress on the column, basic physics says there would be. I know that if a column is bent then the load will no longer be directed through the column properly and therfore it will no longer function as designed. Bent how much?

This is a theory that has not been tested.

There will be some distortion with uneven heating .

You have no idea how much that would be or what effect it would have.

NIST, from the part you wish to ignore:Analysis of a one-story segment of interior column 79 indicates that the cover plate weld would begin to yield at a mean temperature of 490 °C with a 200 °C gradient across the section, as shown in Fig. L–38.

The 200ºC gradient goes from 400ºC to 600ºC.
The cover plate weld on the 600ºC side will begin to fail.

The reason the welds fail before 600o is that there is a lateral stress accompanying the loss of strength due to heating. The reason the column would fail at a lower temp than in uniform heating is that in uniform heating there would be no accompanying lateral stress due to bending that would occur during a non-uniform heating. Good point

You are correct that fire tests , under load , of a non-uniform heating of columns such as the one that made up column 79 of WTC 7 have not been conducted. However, NIST would have used basic physical laws in their computer analysis.And they concluded that the splice welds would fail at approximately 600ºC.

[Belz...]

Bent how much?

This is a theory that has not been tested.

What's a theory ? That bent columns do not perform as designed ?

[Christopher7]

What's a theory ? That bent columns do not perform as designed ?http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire07/PDF/f07021.pdf

page 45 [57 on pg counter]
As illustrated in Figure 17, non-uniform heating can be full height, but incomplete fire exposure of entire column section contour or a partial height exposure of some or all the section contour. Loaded column tests with non-uniform heating are expected to show asymmetric structural response and failure mechanisms that are not obviated from the currently unloaded, uniformly-critical E 119 temperature tests with their idealized conditions.
page 46
Provision for investigating loaded column and wall response under non-uniform fire exposure should be studied, as this may be a more severe condition than uniform heating.

[firecoins]

This thread blows!

[LashL]

OH! Miragememories. You're a sight for sore eyes.

Oh, look. He's trying to sound like a lawyer. How cute.

And he's doing a very, very poor job of it. It appears that he spends too much of his time watching crappy courtroom drama television shows. He's Canadian, and no real trial lawyer in Canada would ever in a thousand years say, "I move to strike that question..."

Pfft.

But then what more can one expect from a guy who can't tell the difference between a 6 storey building and an 18 storey building, and who thinks that both the 6 storey building and the 18 storey building are actually 22 storey buildings?

[apathoid]

Jesus, this thread is still here!


You took the words right outta my......keyboard. Can we please let this one slide on down? It's the humane thing to do.

[Christopher7]

This thread blowsthe DD/F Hypothesis using the data and statements in the FEMA, NIST reports.

[Christopher7]

You are telling me that two sentences, in a 50 page report, in which NIST mentions the existance of diesel fuel and the possibility that maybe it was on fire but unseen is your evidence that NIST was being deliberativly deceptive and out to convince people that there was a very real possibility of a diesel fule fire. That about sum it up Chris7?To list it as the second item in the summary is to suggest diesel fuel fires had something to do with the initiating event.

FEMA said there was a low probability and there is no evidence of fire on floor 5 at any time.

[Belz...]

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire07/PDF/f07021.pdf

page 45 [57 on pg counter]
As illustrated in Figure 17, non-uniform heating can be full height, but incomplete fire exposure of entire column section contour or a partial height exposure of some or all the section contour. Loaded column tests with non-uniform heating are expected to show asymmetric structural response and failure mechanisms that are not obviated from the currently unloaded, uniformly-critical E 119 temperature tests with their idealized conditions.
page 46
Provision for investigating loaded column and wall response under non-uniform fire exposure should be studied, as this may be a more severe condition than uniform heating.

I noticed you didn't answer my question, Chris...

[Christopher7]

The generators did not have to be running for the make-up system to detect a pressure drop and start pumping. That part of the system was independent and had a battery system.You are right.*

FEMA 5-15
The pump then operated in response to the pressure difference between the supply and return, and the pump would circulate oil as long as such a difference existed.

However, this system would have to fail.
5-13
The volume between the inner and outer pipes was designed to contain a leak from the inner pressurized pipe and direct that fuel oil to a containment vessel. Upon detection of fuel oil in the containment vessel, the fuel oil pumps automatically de-energized.

*I have made the necessary correction to my summary. Thank you.

[BenBurch]

The containment vessel was in all probability not large enough to contain the whole volume of fuel. Such containment systems do not expect a severed pipe but a leak or crack as might form when the building moves over a period of years due to diurnal heating and wind load.

[Christopher7]

The containment vessel was in all probability not large enough to contain the whole volume of fuel.So what?
As soon as fuel was detected in the container, the pumps would be shut down.

[BenBurch]

So what?
As soon as fuel was detected in the container, the pumps would be shut down.

Assuming the vessel was not itself breeched.

EDIT: Also, was the sensor detect active or non-detect active? Makes a real difference in a situation where wiring might be compromised!

[respublicus]

A few witnesses state that they heard explosions during the collapse. One could expect loud banging and booming noises from any collapse.
The countdown story is unconfirmed at best and frankly , laughable.

Detonations were heard over an extended period of time before the collapse. Some of the witnesses were still in the building when they heard the explosions.

Please watch this 10-minute video and explain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzUNvEfYDEQ

It has about two dozen witnesses relating the explosions they heard. You can also hear several explosions yourself, for instance at 4:30-4:45. There is also a witness telling how he overheard the WTC 7 countdown over a radio, at the 6:26 mark. At 6:10 a witness tells how an explosion "blew us back onto the 8th floor." See also a group of firemen describing the detonations at the 4 minute mark. There is also network news footage of people on the scene, reporters, fire department spokesmen, talking about secondary explosions.

[funk de fino]

Detonations were heard over an extended period of time before the collapse. Some of the witnesses were still in the building when they heard the explosions.

Please watch this 10-minute video and explain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzUNvEfYDEQ

It has about two dozen witnesses relating the explosions they heard. You can also hear several explosions yourself, for instance at 4:30-4:45. There is also a witness telling how he overheard the WTC 7 countdown over a radio, at the 6:26 mark. At 6:10 a witness tells how an explosion "blew us back onto the 8th floor." See also a group of firemen describing the detonations at the 4 minute mark. There is also network news footage of people on the scene, reporters, fire department spokesmen, talking about secondary explosions.

Stop embarrassing yourself

[Dave Rogers]

Detonations were heard over an extended period of time before the collapse. Some of the witnesses were still in the building when they heard the explosions.

Hi again, respublicus. Did you read my answer (post 3802) to your question:

We truthers are open minded. Please tell us, while keeping your dogma of the 911 big lie intact, how the buildings could come down at the speed of a fall through air?

Never mind all this other verbiage. It doesn't cut one piece of steel. Just answer this one killer question. While keeping the rules of physics intact too, of course.

And was it a reasonable explanation? After all, if you're as open minded as you say, you'll either accept it or point out the errors I made, won't you?

And incidentally, what's so surprising about explosions over an extended period of time in the course of what was described as a fireman at the scene as the biggest office fire in the history of New York, and possibly the world? And if they were what caused the collapse, how did the people in the building who heard them get out to tell the story? If you truthers are open minded, you might like to consider that explosions up to seven hours before a building collapses might not actually be the direct cause of collapse.

Dave

[Christopher7]

Assuming the vessel was not itself breeched.

EDIT: Also, was the sensor detect active or non-detect active? Makes a real difference in a situation where wiring might be compromised!The pumps were located near the SW corner the ground floor.
The horizontal pipes were double wall and the riser was single wall.
The riser was in a masonry shaft near the SW corner and ran from the ground floor to the 5th floor.
The containment vessel would probably be at the end of the double wall pipe or in the pump room.
There was no reported damage to this area.

There is no reason to suspect that this safety system was disabled by debris.

There is no reason to suspect that the double wall pipe would break at the other end of the building and the single wall pipe near the debris impact would not.

[Christopher7]

respublicus, Dave and funk

This thread is about WTC 7

Please discuss the Trade Towers on the appropriate thread

Thank you

Chris

[Dave Rogers]

respublicus, Dave and funk

This thread is about WTC 7

Please discuss the Trade Towers on the appropriate thread


Chris, we are talking about WTC7.

Dave

[BenBurch]

Chris,

Then explain the missing fuel? It had to have gone somewhere. We have established that it wasn't in the soil around the tank.

The only explanation is that it was pumped somewhere.

-Ben

[funk de fino]

respublicus, Dave and funk

This thread is about WTC 7

Please discuss the Trade Towers on the appropriate thread

Thank you

Chris


reading comprehension again C7?

apology please, especially because you bolded it, the embarrassing truther post mentions WTC7 and does not mention the Trade Towers

sheeesh

[funk de fino]

Chris,

Then explain the missing fuel? It had to have gone somewhere. We have established that it wasn't in the soil around the tank.

The only explanation is that it was pumped somewhere.

-Ben

Prediction of a reply with large and bolded words which mention the "initiating event" and "column # XX" and "fires gone out" and a handwave at the diesel dissappearance conundrum

[Christopher7]

reading comprehension again C7?

apology please, especially because you bolded it, the embarrassing truther post mentions WTC7 and does not mention the Trade Towers

sheeeshMy bad, sorry about that.

[Christopher7]

Chris,

Then explain the missing fuel? It had to have gone somewhere. We have established that it wasn't in the soil around the tank.

The only explanation is that it was pumped somewhere.

-BenThere was a fire reported on floor 6 on the SW side.
There is a two story mechanical room there so that was actually floor 5 where the SW SSB generator room was.
If there was a fuel leak and fire, it would have been there, not the other end of the building.

[ZENSMACK89]

When did any photos of the gash in WTC7 first surface?

[BenBurch]

When did any photos of the gash in WTC7 first surface?

I saw one the week it happened.

[Christopher7]

I saw one the week it happened.
The gash had nothing to do with the diesel fuel fires.
The possible diesel fuel fire in the SW mechanical room had nothing to do with the initiating event.

[ZENSMACK89]

I saw one the week it happened.
Which photo was it?

[GT/CS]

The gash had nothing to do with the diesel fuel fires.
The possible diesel fuel fire in the SW mechanical room had nothing to do with the initiating event.

The gash most likely broke fuel lines on many floors. You can't just look at the tanks, you need to look at where the lines ran. One or more open lines probably would not have registered as a leak and the pumps would have kept running. If you really need it I'll attach a link, but I think you know where to find the diagrams.

[Christopher7]

Which photo was it?These:

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/6950/copyofupperfloorsdamageww3.jpg

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/5808/sfacegraphic3xn6.jpg

[GT/CS]

Nope. These.

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

[Christopher7]

The gash most likely broke fuel lines on many floors. You can't just look at the tanks, you need to look at where the lines ran. One or more open lines probably would not have registered as a leak and the pumps would have kept running. If you really need it I'll attach a link, but I think you know where to find the diagrams.The SSB system was on the 5th floor and the riser from the ground floor to floor 5.
It was separate from the other systems
The gash can only be seen down to the 8th floor but Chief Fellini reported steel ripped out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors across the face.
It's more than likely that this included the 5th/6th floor mechanical room at the SW corner.
There is a possibility that the riser or horizontal piping [SSB system] was damaged.
[i'm going to retract my earlier statement. It's hard to imagine that there was no damage to this area]
If it was damaged in such a way as to have the containment pipe spill the fuel before it could reach the containment vessel, the pumps would keep running.

[ZENSMACK89]

Why didn't FEMA put as much emphasis on structural damage from falling debris as NIST now apparently is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

NIST has released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.

[BenBurch]

Why didn't FEMA put as much emphasis on structural damage from falling debris as NIST now apparently is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

NIST has released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.

As you study a problem you learn.

[Christopher7]

Why didn't FEMA put as much emphasis on structural damage from falling debris as NIST now apparently is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

NIST has released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.
That photo is part of the composite i posted.
It was well above the 5th floor and had nothing to do with the diesel fuel fire.

[Christopher7]

Nope. These.

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htmI hope you realize that graphic is not to scale.
Not to mention, the gash between columns 5 and 6 is the one in the video and was well above the floors where the diesel fuel pipes were.
[SSB, ground to 5th floor - others, ground to 9th floor]
The pumps were all on the ground floor.

[ZENSMACK89]

As you study a problem you learn.
What did NIST have access to that Fema didn't?

[BenBurch]

What did NIST have access to that Fema didn't?

time.

[Unfit4Command]

What did NIST have access to that Fema didn't?

It's not that FEMA didn't have access to it, more information just came out with time. What are you trying to suggest by asking these questions?

All of the data wasn't collected during FEMA's brief investigation, this is even said in their report.
"Additional data should be collected to confirm the extent of the damage to the south face of the building caused by falling debris."
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

[BenBurch]

It's not that FEMA didn't have access to it, more information just came out with time. What are you trying to suggest by asking these questions?

All of the data wasn't collected during FEMA's brief investigation, this is even said in their report.
"Additional data should be collected to confirm the extent of the damage to the south face of the building caused by falling debris."
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf


Its clear what he is trying to suggest, but as usual he has no facts to back up anything at all.

[Dave Rogers]

As you study a problem you learn.

You might want to explain that in more detail, considering your audience.

Dave

[Christopher7]

It's not that FEMA didn't have access to it, more information just came out with time. What are you trying to suggest by asking these questions?

All of the data wasn't collected during FEMA's brief investigation, this is even said in their report.
"Additional data should be collected to confirm the extent of the damage to the south face of the building caused by falling debris."
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
FEMA researched the diesel fuel fire possibility and determined that there was a low probability of that happening.
NIST had photos, videos and firefighter accounts to WTC 7 to determine when and where the fires occurred.
There was NO fire reported in or near the NE generator room.
Recently released photos have shown more damage to the south west part of WTC 7.

It's possible that debris damage caused a diesel fuel fire in the SSB south west generator room.

There is no reason to think that a double wall pipe fractured in or near the north east generator room at the opposite corner of the building.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
I know there will be a bending stress on the column, basic physics says there would be. I know that if a column is bent then the load will no longer be directed through the column properly and therfore it will no longer function as designed.

Originally Posted by Christopher7
Bent how much?
This is a theory that has not been tested.

What's a theory ? That bent columns do not perform as designed ?

Originally Posted by Christopher7
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire07/PDF/f07021.pdf

page 45 [57 on pg counter]
As illustrated in Figure 17, non-uniform heating can be full height, but incomplete fire exposure of entire column section contour or a partial height exposure of some or all the section contour. Loaded column tests with non-uniform heating are expected to show asymmetric structural response and failure mechanisms that are not obviated from the currently unloaded, uniformly-critical E 119 temperature tests with their idealized conditions.
page 46
Provision for investigating loaded column and wall response under non-uniform fire exposure should be studied, as this may be a more severe condition than uniform heating.

I noticed you didn't answer my question, Chris...I did.
The theory that uneven heating could cause the failure of core column has not been studied.

This did not happen in the Meridian Plaza and other major fires in high rise buildings.

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on pg counter]
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.

The columns in the Meridian Plaza continued to "function as designed".

There is no reason to suspect that the columns in WTC 7 behaved differently.

[Belz...]

There is no reason to suspect that the columns in WTC 7 behaved differently.

It's interesting how much speculation you'll engage in when it suits you, while otherwise you chastise other people for doing so.

[jaydeehess]

Back from a weeks vacation. Did I miss you all. naaahhhh, but now that I am back home.........

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
I know there will be a bending stress on the column, basic physics says there would be. I know that if a column is bent then the load will no longer be directed through the column properly and therfore it will no longer function as designed.

Originally Posted by Christopher7
Bent how much?
This is a theory that has not been tested.

Shall we list the theories that were not tested before they were accepted?
Tell me Chris7, do you believe that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, a theory much more ethereal than bending steel by differential heating, is on the right track? Why? Many aspects have never been tested but some that have illustrate that he was indeed correct when he first postulated it.



Originally Posted by Christopher7
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire07/PDF/f07021.pdf

page 45 [57 on pg counter]
As illustrated in Figure 17, non-uniform heating can be full height, but incomplete fire exposure of entire column section contour or a partial height exposure of some or all the section contour. Loaded column tests with non-uniform heating are expected to show asymmetric structural response and failure mechanisms that are not obviated from the currently unloaded, uniformly-critical E 119 temperature tests with their idealized conditions.
page 46
Provision for investigating loaded column and wall response under non-uniform fire exposure should be studied, as this may be a more severe condition than uniform heating.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know Chris. seems to me that I read this somewhere before(again and again and again)
That deals with strict uniform heating strength loss.



This did not happen in the Meridian Plaza and other major fires in high rise buildings.

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on pg counter]
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.

The columns in the Meridian Plaza continued to "function as designed".

There is no reason to suspect that the columns in WTC 7 behaved differently.

So given that it did not cause a collapse in the Meridian Plaza you assume that it could not cause a collapse in a structure that had undergone significant structural damage prior to the fires attacking it for several hours. Your reasoning, that differential heating structural loss of heavy columns under load has not been tested.

From there you will automatically assume explosives were used.

[cloudshipsrule]

The columns in the Meridian Plaza continued to "function as designed".

There is no reason to suspect that the columns in WTC 7 behaved differently.

EXCEPT for the fact that TONS of debris rained down on WTC7 prior to the fires.

Could that have made a difference? Hmmm? Perhaps?? Maybe?? Whatcha' think? Tons of debris! Not, just a couple of pounds. TONS. That's over 2000 pounds per ton. WOW WEE, that's a lot of STUFF.

Geeze o' Petes a lot of STUFF hit WTC7. Think that might have made a difference?

Did the Meridian Plaza get hit by TONS (Not just ounces.) of debris BEFORE the fires started?

Think that could have made a difference? Maybe?

(How was that for annoying?)

[jaydeehess]

That photo is part of the composite i posted.
It was well above the 5th floor and had nothing to do with the diesel fuel fire.

As you are so fond of mentioning at times Chris7, this thread started as a discussion about the debris damage to the building. That your particular concern , at this time, is the possible diesel fire, is irrellevent to Zens brining up the gash itself.

not that I don't understand that Zens is about to claim that the gash never happened, that any image in which it appears is fake and perhaps that WTC 7 actually jumped out of the way of any heavy debris that came at it only to be brought down later in the day by explosives/thermobaric bombs/thermite/mini-nukes/space beams.

[jaydeehess]

Detonations were heard over an extended period of time before the collapse. Some of the witnesses were still in the building when they heard the explosions.

Please watch this 10-minute video and explain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzUNvEfYDEQ

It has about two dozen witnesses relating the explosions they heard. You can also hear several explosions yourself, for instance at 4:30-4:45. There is also a witness telling how he overheard the WTC 7 countdown over a radio, at the 6:26 mark. At 6:10 a witness tells how an explosion "blew us back onto the 8th floor." See also a group of firemen describing the detonations at the 4 minute mark. There is also network news footage of people on the scene, reporters, fire department spokesmen, talking about secondary explosions.

"Secondary" to what? a "primary" explosion?
A loud banging sound or a serries of luad banging sounds while the interior of the building collapsed, while the witness can not see the interior nor the other side of the building. Yeah, quite convincing of explosive use:rolleyes:

In ANY office or home fire one is also going to hear "explosions". Some will be actual explosions. They can be anything from aerosol cans to televisions or CRT computer displays cooking off. Some are simply going to be structural failures or sudden shifts of the building's load.

The only witnesses in the building who report an explosion are the two who were in the stairwell AT THE TIME that the towers fell. Gee, one wonders what that would sound and feel like.

[jaydeehess]

To list it as the second item in the summary is to suggest diesel fuel fires had something to do with the initiating event.

FEMA said there was a low probability and there is no evidence of fire on floor 5 at any time.

Horse pucks!

The diesel fuel represented a large possible fuel load. It simply had to be addressed and deserved consideration. NIST did not, in its prelim report, do an in depth investigation of any possible contributing factor in the collapse. That's why its called a prelim report. The diesel fuel warrented mention so all you have to go on is the fact that it figured prominently, in your opinion, in the report summary. Item 2 in the summary addresses the fires. The fires most certainly warrant being listed prominently and the possiblity of the diesel fuel being involved would HAVE TO go with the item that deals with the fires.
Item 1 - a summary of debris damage
Item 2 - a summary of fires
Item 3 - probable initiating event
Item 4 - initial vertical collapse
Item 5 - probable conditions that led to the interior horizontal collapse
Item 6 - perimeter and global collapse

In this list then Chris, where would you have put the possibility of involvement of the diesel fuel? It certainly does not belong in any item after #2 and is of no relevence to Item #1 either. The other alternatives would be to not mention it at all, or to list it at the end as another less probable contributing factor. Not mentioning it would be rather derilict as it represents a very large possible fire effect. Adding it on as an afterthought at the end of the summary is a torured way of including it.
Seems its right where it belongs.

[BenBurch]

...not that I don't understand that Zens is about to claim ...

Sadly, Zens has been sent packing...

[jaydeehess]

Sadly, Zens has been sent packing...

ahh yes, so I see.
Il m'a semblé que j'ai pleuré pendant des heures.

[Christopher7]

Shall we list the theories that were not tested before they were accepted?Let's not and say we did.

Tell me Chris7, do you believe that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, a theory much more ethereal than bending steel by differential heating, is on the right track? Why? Many aspects have never been tested but some that have illustrate that he was indeed correct when he first postulated it.
The theory that uneven heating might cause a column to fail cannot be compared to Einstein's theory.

***********************************
Originally Posted by Christopher7
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire07/PDF/f07021.pdf

page 45 [57 on pg counter]
As illustrated in Figure 17, non-uniform heating can be full height, but incomplete fire exposure of entire column section contour or a partial height exposure of some or all the section contour. Loaded column tests with non-uniform heating are expected to show asymmetric structural response and failure mechanisms that are not obviated from the currently unloaded, uniformly-critical E 119 temperature tests with their idealized conditions.
page 46
Provision for investigating loaded column and wall response under non-uniform fire exposure should be studied, as this may be a more severe condition than uniform heating.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know Chris. seems to me that I read this somewhere before(again and again and again)
That deals with strict uniform heating strength loss. *********************************
So given that it did not cause a collapse in the Meridian Plaza you assume that it could not cause a collapse in a structure that had undergone significant structural damage prior to the fires attacking it for several hours.There was no structural damage to or near the area where the collapse began.

Your reasoning, that differential heating structural loss of heavy columns under load has not been tested. No, my reasoning is:
There were fires on many contiguous floors that burned much longer in the Meridian Plaza and the investigation found that
despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

From there you will automatically assume explosives were used.Wrong
From there i can state that columns in longer lasting and more extensive fires have not failed.

The columns in WTC 7 were larger and would take longer to heat up.

[Christopher7]

EXCEPT for the fact that TONS of debris rained down on WTC7 prior to the fires.
Could that have made a difference? Hmmm? Perhaps?? Maybe?? Whatcha' think? Tons of debris! Not, just a couple of pounds. TONS. That's over 2000 pounds per ton. WOW WEE, that's a lot of STUFF.
Geeze o' Petes a lot of STUFF hit WTC7. Think that might have made a difference? Gee golly wizz buckeroo, all that stuff hit the south west part of that building and the collapse started in the east central part.
The lower floors of a 47 story building must have a great deal of shear strength. This shear strength would have taken up any lateral stress.

Did the Meridian Plaza get hit by TONS (Not just ounces.) of debris BEFORE the fires started?

Think that could have made a difference? Maybe?

(How was that for annoying?)Exceptional!

[Christopher7]

The diesel fuel represented a large possible fuel load. It simply had to be addressed and deserved consideration. NIST did not, in its prelim report, do an in depth investigation of any possible contributing factor in the collapse.FEMA did a in depth study and determined that there was a low probability of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
NIST did an in depth study of the fire time line an location of the fires.
There was no sign of fire in the NE generator room at any time.

That's why its called a prelim report. The diesel fuel warrented mention so all you have to go on is the fact that it figured prominently,Thank you for making my point.

There is no reason to think it figured prominently.

Yet, because of this erroneous entry, you and others think it did.

in your opinion, in the report summary. Item 2 in the summary addresses the fires. The fires most certainly warrant being listed prominently and the possiblity of the diesel fuel being involved would HAVE TO go with the item that deals with the fires.Not if the evidence points the other way.

Item 1 - a summary of debris damage
Item 2 - a summary of fires
Item 3 - probable initiating event
Item 4 - initial vertical collapse
Item 5 - probable conditions that led to the interior horizontal collapse
Item 6 - perimeter and global collapse

In this list then Chris, where would you have put the possibility of involvement of the diesel fuel?It should not have been included.

It certainly does not belong in any item after #2 and is of no relevence to Item #1 either. The other alternatives would be to not mention it at all, or to list it at the end as another less probable contributing factor. Not mentioning it would be rather derilict as it represents a very large possible fire effect.deritlic?
It was misleading to include possible diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event as a possible cause when there is NO evidence to support that hypothesis.

There was no smoke coming from the east generator room.

If the louvers were open, smoke would be pouring out.

If the louvers were closed, a fire would have no air supply and could not have burned hot enough to be a factor.

[jaydeehess]

FEMA did a in depth study and determined that there was a low probability of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
NIST did an in depth study of the fire time line an location of the fires.

yes, one was FEMA, the other NIST. You conflating them?

There was no sign of fire in the NE generator room at any time.

Which does not completely exclude a diesel fire.

Thank you for making my point.

There is no reason to think it figured prominently.

It only does so when you truncate my sentence.

Yet, because of this erroneous entry, you and others think it did.

No, I believe that the probability of it having occured is fairly low yet I cannot dismiss it out of hand as you do.

Not if the evidence points the other way.

Beside the point. The point is that it was a possible very significant fire/heat source.

It should not have been included.
It was misleading to include possible diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event as a possible cause when there is NO evidence to support that hypothesis.

Yes it should be included because it represents an extraordinary fuel source within the building.

deritlic?

My bad
derelict:failing in what duty requires; "derelict (or delinquent) in his duty"

[Christopher7]

yes, one was FEMA, the other NIST. You conflating them?
You were saying the diesel fuel had to be addressed and deserved consideration.
It was addressed, researched and considered.

FEMA determined that there was a low probability of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event based on what they knew about the location of the tanks, pumps, generators and supply pipes.
NIST determined the location and progression of the fires and there was no fire reported in or near the NE generator room at any time.


With a low probability of occurrence, and no sign of fire in or near the NE generator room, there was no reason to believe that there were fires there and no reason to include it in the summary as a possible contributing factor in the collapse.


Which does not completely exclude a diesel fire.There was no smoke coming from the east generator room at any time.

If there was a fire and the louvers were open, smoke would be pouring out.

If the louvers were closed, a fire would have no air supply and could not have burned hot enough to be a factor.

The same is true for the area west of the NE generator room.


That eliminates diesel fuel fire as a contributing factor in the collapse.

[Christopher7]

It only does so when you truncate my sentence.My bad.
You were trying to say that diesel fuel fires did not figure "prominently".
Item 2 is prominent.
The diesel fuel warrented mention so all you have to go on is the fact that it figured prominently, in your opinion, in the report summary. Item 2 in the summary addresses the fires. The fires most certainly warrant being listed prominently and the possiblity of the diesel fuel being involved would HAVE TO go with the item that deals with the fires.The fires warrant being listed prominently because they existed.
That does not mean diesel fuel fires should be mentioned when there is NO evidence of their existence.

Not if the evidence points the other way.
Beside the point. The point is that it was a possible very significant fire/heat source.
So you ignore the evidence and say it's "beside the point".

It should not have been included.
It was misleading to include possible diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event as a possible cause when there is NO evidence to support that hypothesis.
Yes it should be included because it represents an extraordinary fuel source within the building.So what?
There was no reason to suspect diesel fuel fires in the opposite end of the building from where the damage was.
They were just searching for ways to explain how fires caused the implosion of WTC 7.
They found NO EVIDENCE to support this hypothesis.
On the contrary, the evidence points the other way.

It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that there was NO FIRE in the NE generator room! [louvers]

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7392/copyofe5asn4.png

Suggesting that there was is misleading.

In fact, the entire statement is misleading double talk.

NIST L-51
2. Fires were observed after the collapse of WTC 1. Fires were observed after 2 pm on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows. The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5.

This indicates fires may have been present in the south west generator room, not the north east generator room.
The next statement starts with:
3. The initiating event .................

[beachnut]

Is this standard "chris" stuff to run a thread for thousands of post with no real point?

Major damage, no fire fighting; building falls. No RDX, no thermite, no CD. What is the point. Experienced firemen knew the building could fail; what is your point? What is the meaning of bsing for thousands of posts if you have no goal? What is your goal with your OP and posting off topic? Who cares if you are wrong about 9/11? But what is your potion and how does it relate to 9/11 and your OP?

I forgot your position on the OP. You failed to take a position in the OP. What a waste.

[beachnut]

There was no smoke coming from the east generator room at any time.

If there was a fire and the louvers were open, smoke would be pouring out.
NO, no, no, no. It does not mean there was no fire, and the smoke does not have to come out the louvers! The louvers on my fire place rarely emit smoke! Sorry, you failed to make a point and even get close to relating it to the OP.
Some of your posts are research and knowledge deficient. Beside so far from the OP as to disregard reality.
The thread with no goal. Is going strong. Carry on.

[Christopher7]

Is this standard "chris" stuff to run a thread for thousands of post with no real point? I have made several points using the data from the various govt. reports that people here have so graciously provided as evidence for DD/F.

The"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground" [NIST L-18]
was a misinterpretation of other damage further west.

There were no diesel fuel fires in the east half of WTC 7.

The fires in the area of the initiating event were not sufficient to cause a column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, to fail.

Major damage,To the other end of the building

no fire fighting;Fires in the Meridian plaza and the Caracas Tower burned out of control and lasted much longer.

Experienced firemen knew the building could fail; The only experience those firefighters had with high rise collapses was the 2 buildings that had just collapsed.
They did not consult a structural engineer as was done at the Meridian Plaza fire.

Chief Norman did not think WTC 7 would collapse.
Battalion Chief John Norman
I looked at 7 World Trade Center. There was smoke showing, but not a lot and I’m saying that isn’t going to fall.

I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did, 7.

I forgot your position on the OP. You failed to take a position in the OP. How could you forget something you never heard because i didn't say it yet?
OP?

[jaydeehess]

You were saying the diesel fuel had to be addressed and deserved consideration.
It was addressed, researched and considered.

FEMA determined that there was a low probability of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event based on what they knew about the location of the tanks, pumps, generators and supply pipes.

That was the FEMA report not the NIST report.

NIST determined the location and progression of the fires and there was no fire reported in or near the NE generator room at any time.

That was the NIST report, which did not go into an analysis of the probability of the diesel fire. That is the report in question. Why bring up what was contained in the FEMA report when we are speaking to what was in the NIST report?


With a low probability of occurrence, and no sign of fire in or near the NE generator room, there was no reason to believe that there were fires there and no reason to include it in the summary as a possible contributing factor in the collapse.

NIST did NOT state that they "believed" there was a diesel fire. They only include the possibility of one. If it is simply not listed at all in the prelim report it could not be in a final report later. It represents a large fuel load and therefore should be included.


There was no smoke coming from the east generator room at any time.

If there was a fire and the louvers were open, smoke would be pouring out.

If the louvers were closed, a fire would have no air supply and could not have burned hot enough to be a factor.

The same is true for the area west of the NE generator room.


That eliminates diesel fuel fire as a contributing factor in the collapse.

Thank you Mr. Sunder

[beachnut]

Fires in the Meridian plaza and the Caracas Tower burned out of control and lasted much longer.

They did not consult a structural engineer as was done at the Meridian Plaza fire.
Meridian Plaza fire was fought, until the firemen feared failure! Then the 30 floor fire system put the fire out. The systems in the WTC did not work, and WTC7 systems also failed; they were destroyed at impact! Meridian Plaza was too weak to keep, it is totaled by fire, as was the WTC complex! Fire destroys steel structures. Fact. WTC7 was on fire all day long, it failed in due to fire and damage from the WTC complex. Facts.

The other fires you speak of were fought! End of story. WTC7 was not, nor was WTC1 and 2. Some of the WTC structures were fought and total collapse was averted.

Seems like building failure is inversely proportional to the amount of firefighting and fire systems working. But people who are unable to understand reality can not understand this.

Oh good; you have no position on your own OP; just asking questions. What a waste. No facts, no understanding, cherry picked statements, and ignoring the out of control NOT fought fires of WTC7; comparing the un-fought fires of WTC7 to the fought fires of the other buildings! And ignoring the Madrid building and Meridian buildings no longer standing because they were destroyed by fire; just like WTC complex. Destroyed by fire but too challenged to even take a position on your own OP; is this the definition of trolling?

Does this mean you have no idea what happen on 9/11 like the entire 9/11 truth movement?

[jaydeehess]

My bad.
You were trying to say that diesel fuel fires did not figure "prominently".
Item 2 is prominent.

No, I was illustrating that it was included right where it should be, with the item refering to the fires and that it fit no where else in the summary.

The fires warrant being listed prominently because they existed.
That does not mean diesel fuel fires should be mentioned when there is NO evidence of their existence.

They are quite clear that it is only a possibility, whereas the other fires are stated as fact. What part of this do you have trouble comprehending?


So you ignore the evidence and say it's "beside the point".

It is beside the point in terms of a PRELIMINARY report! The possibility of a diesel fuel fire simply MUSt be included.


So what?
There was no reason to suspect diesel fuel fires in the opposite end of the building from where the damage was.
They were just searching for ways to explain how fires caused the implosion of WTC 7.They found NO EVIDENCE to support this hypothesis.

They state that it is only a possibility that diesel fuel was on fire and that diesel fuel lines were present in the area of collapse initiation. At no place do I read that disel fuel fires caused the implosion of WTC 7.


On the contrary, the evidence points the other way.

It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that there was NO FIRE in the NE generator room! [louvers]

Actually I'd say it is extremly suggestive that there was no fire in the NE generator room, as far as the evidence listed in the preliminary report goes.

Suggesting that there was is misleading.

In fact, the entire statement is misleading double talk.

No, its just you casting about for ghosts.

NIST L-51
2. Fires were observed after the collapse of WTC 1. Fires were observed after 2 pm on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows. The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5.

Nary a mention of the NE generator room in that statement Chris7.

This indicates fires may have been present in the south west generator room, not the north east generator room.

They said nothing about the NE generator room Chris. That's you going on about the NE generator room isn't it?

The next statement starts with:
3. The initiating event .................

Yes, new paragraph, new subject.
Looking for ghosts again Chris7, looking for ghosts.

[jaydeehess]

Is this standard "chris" stuff to run a thread for thousands of post with no real point?

I can't tell.
I can state that he simply goes round and round, his paranoia causing him to read nefarious intent wording in reports, and making definitive statements based on his own interpretation of what "must be".


I forgot your position on the OP. You failed to take a position in the OP. What a waste.

Chris7, Beachnut is being sarcastic with the first sentence and making a statement with the second.
Does that help your comprehension?

[Christopher7]

That was the NIST report, which did not go into an analysis of the probability of the diesel fire. That is the report in question. Why bring up what was contained in the FEMA report when we are speaking to what was in the NIST report? FEMA had already done an analysis of the probability of a diesel fuel fire in the the NE part of WTC 7 and determined there was a low probability.
There was no need for NIST to do that part again.
NIST investigated debris damage, fire locations and progression.
There were no signs of fire in or near the NE generator room at any time and there is no reason to think there were fires in that area.

NIST did NOT state that they "believed" there was a diesel fire. They only include the possibility of one.It falls into the "any thing's possible" group.
There is nothing to support the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

If it is simply not listed at all in the prelim report it could not be in a final report later.If they found anything to support the diesel fuel fire in the NE generator room hypothesis, they could include it.

It represents a large fuel load and therefore should be included.The fuel was at the other end of the building.

Pipes would have broken in the SW generator room, where the damage was, not the NE generator room.

Saying there was a low probability was an overstatement.

There is no demonstrable probability of a fuel leak or a fire in or near the NE generator room.

Including it in the summary as possibly contributing to the collapse is misleading.

[Christopher7]

There was no smoke coming from the east generator room at any time.

If there was a fire and the louvers were open, smoke would be pouring out.

If the louvers were closed, a fire would have no air supply and could not have burned hot enough to be a factor.

The same is true for the area west of the NE generator room.


That eliminates diesel fuel fire as a contributing factor in the collapse.


Thank you Mr. SunderYou're quite welcome Mr. Bush

[jaydeehess]

FEMA had already done an analysis of the probability of a diesel fuel fire in the the NE part of WTC 7 and determined there was a low probability.
There was no need for NIST to do that part again.
NIST investigated debris damage, fire locations and progression.

Two SEPARATE reports Chris. IF NIST decided to examine the diesel fuel possibility itself that's their perogative, or do you consider FEMA the last word on such things?
There were no signs of fire in or near the NE generator room at any time and there is no reason to think there were fires in that area.

Why just in the generator room Chris?

It falls into the "any thing's possible" group.
There is nothing to support the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

NIST has not done any investigation into diesel fuel fire, so they include it as a possibility in THEIR prelim report.

If they found anything to support the diesel fuel fire in the NE generator room hypothesis, they could include it.

You are the one harping on about the NE enerato room Chris. Does NIST even mention it?

The fuel was at the other end of the building.

For the most part, yes.

Pipes would have broken in the SW generator room, where the damage was, not the NE generator room.

In your humble opinion, that is the only place they could have broken.

Saying there was a low probability was an overstatement.

FEMA said that. NIST didn't. NIST did not assign probability.


Including it in the summary as possibly contributing to the collapse is misleading.

In your humble opinion

[BenBurch]

And he still cannot account for 40,000+ gallons of fuel.

[Christopher7]

Two SEPARATE reports Chris. IF NIST decided to examine the diesel fuel possibility itself that's their perogative, or do you consider FEMA the last word on such things?What's to examine?
FEMA researched the location of the fuel tanks, pumps, pipes and generators. That is the last word on that.
They said there was a low probability of diesel fuel fires in or near the NE generator room.

NIST did examine the evidence.
They researched the location of the debris damage and the fires.
There was no sign of fire in that area.
There is no reason to think there were fires in that area.

They found nothing to support the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.
In fact, the evidence points the other way.

NIST has not done any investigation into diesel fuel fire, so they include it as a possibility in THEIR prelim report.
They did investigate the location of the fires.
They knew about the presence of diesel fuel from the FEMA investigation.
They knew FEMA had said there was a low probability of diesel fuel fires in or near the NE generator room.


You are the one harping on about the NE enerato room Chris. Does NIST even mention it?The NE generator room and the area next to it is the only place where there could have been a diesel fuel fire in the area where the implosion began.

In your humble opinion, that is the only place they could have broken.
It is not possible for the pipes to fracture at the other end of the building and remain intact where the debris damage was. IMHO


FEMA said that. NIST didn't. NIST did not assign probability.Are you saying NIST should ignore the FEMA report?

In your humble opinionIncluding diesel fires as a possible contributing factor in the collapse when the evidence points the other way, is misleading.

[jaydeehess]

What's to examine?
FEMA researched the location of the fuel tanks, pumps, pipes and generators. That is the last word on that.
NIST is a separate organization tasked with a job. In their preliminary report they did not get into details about any of the fires and therefore in THEIR report they do not assign probability to any fire aspects.

They said there was a low probability of diesel fuel fires in or near the NE generator room.

Again, FEMA did go into this in detail, NIST did not. In the preliminary report it would be odd to go into detail on ONE aspect of the fires.

NIST did examine the evidence.
They researched the location of the debris damage and the fires.

Yes, a preliminary investigation into the debris damage and the fires. The full report should go into the fuel oads in the area of the fires , the temp and heat output of those fires and how that would affect the steel. Gee, looky there, more work to do, and you thought NIST was finished by publishing appendix L.

There was no sign of fire in that area.
There is no reason to think there were fires in that area.

A thorough investigation has not been published yet and yet you make sich definitive statements.

They found nothing to support the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.
In fact, the evidence points the other way.

NIST did not go into it at all. That is different than saying they found nothing.

They did investigate the location of the fires.

In a preliminary fashion, yes. they did not go into detail about the fires.

They knew about the presence of diesel fuel from the FEMA investigation.
They knew FEMA had said there was a low probability of diesel fuel fires in or near the NE generator room.

Again, DEMA did say that but that was FEMA's report, not NIST's. NIST would have to examine FEMA's report before actually accepting it verbatim. That was not within the pervue of a preliminary report.


The NE generator room and the area next to it is the only place where there could have been a diesel fuel fire in the area where the implosion began.

Whether or not the diesel fuel was burning near the initiating event NIST would want to investigate the possibility of it burning anywhere in the building regardless of wheteher or not it would directly affect the initial failure.

It is not possible for the pipes to fracture at the other end of the building and remain intact where the debris damage was. IMHO

Well, well, Chris throws in an "IMHO".


Are you saying NIST should ignore the FEMA report?
Answered above

[Christopher7]

NIST is a separate organization tasked with a job. In their preliminary report they did not get into details about any of the fires and therefore in THEIR report they do not assign probability to any fire aspects.Double talk.
A low probability of diesel fuel fires in that area had already been assigned by FEMA based on the location of the tanks, pipes and generator rooms.

Again, FEMA did go into this in detail, NIST did not. In the preliminary report it would be odd to go into detail on ONE aspect of the fires. NIST did not need to go into that part of it because FEMA already had.
NIST investigated the extent of the debris damage and fires.

Yes, a preliminary investigation into the debris damage and the fires. The full report should go into the fuel oads in the area of the fires , the temp and heat output of those fires and how that would affect the steel. Yes, fuel loads in the area, that does not include diesel fuel.

There was no sign of fire in that area.
There is no reason to think there were fires in that area.
A thorough investigation has not been published yet and yet you make sich definitive statements.
A through investigation of where the fires were has been done and published.

A through investigation of where the diesel fuel tanks, pipes and generators were, has been done and published.

Based on those published reports it can be said, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there were no diesel fuel fires in or near the area where the implosion began.

They found nothing to support the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.
In fact, the evidence points the other way.
NIST did not go into it at all. That is different than saying they found nothing. NIST did go into it.
They researched the debris damage and fires.
They found that there was NO debris damage or fires in or near the NE generator room.
i.e. they found nothing to support the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

So what's left to investigate on this hypothesis, ..... nothing.

[funk de fino]

Just tell us where the diesel went then C7?

[jaydeehess]

Of course there is the theory that the fires on 11 and 12 alone could have initiated the collapse.
Chris has said (over and over again) that the building was designed such that if a tenant wanted it, some floors could be removed. The columns could take the added unbraced length.

Of course in order to do that they would first brace the underside and support the floor span to be removed, THEN cut it away and take it out. This would mean that at no time would there be any lateral forces on the columns.

Chris also points out that the columns are very large and would take a long time to fail simply due to loss of strength by heating. However that also assumes that the lateral forces of a sagging floor span be the same as for a short span floor as in other examples such as the Cardington tests. WTC 7 used relativly long spans.

Here (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf) Arthur Scheuerman describes how fire alone could have doomed WTC 7.

Of interest as far as Chis' latest bugaboo is this quote
The 5th floors to
7th floors were transition floors. There was speculation about the fire’s being on
these floors and fed from oil-fired generators supplied from tanks on the lower
floors, but I have seen no hard evidence of fire from this source.

You will note that he does not state, as Chris does, that it is simply impossible for there to have been an oil fire on those floors. All he says is that he has not seen any hard evidence of such fires.

Funk de Fino points out that there is circumstantial evidence, that of the missing fuel, that there was a diesel fuel fire somewhere in the bldg.
Scheuerman, is stating that he is NOT considering a diesel fuel fire in his theory. Not because he believes it is impossible, but because he has not enough evidence to believe there was. It is this type of nuance that completely escapes people like Chris 7

Chris will undoubtably read into what I say as my backing the notion that a fuel oil fire definatly contributed to the initial collapse. It ain't so Chris. Too bad you cannot fathom that.

[jaydeehess]

Double talk.
A low probability of diesel fuel fires in that area had already been assigned by FEMA based on the location of the tanks, pipes and generator rooms.

NIST did not need to go into that part of it because FEMA already had.

In fact NIST would decide what NIST would do as far as the fuel sources of the fires in the building and investigate the possibility of fires in areas with no windows. THAT WAS NOT DONE IN THE PRELIM REPORT. It would be the pervue of a more in depth report.

NIST investigated the extent of the debris damage and fires.

NIST listed the obvious areas that had been damaged and the obvious fire locations. That is all they did in the preliminary report.

Yes, fuel loads in the area, that does not include diesel fuel.

NIST would also be concerned whether or not there was a diesel fire anywhere in the bldg. Just review what the letters in NIST stand for to understand why.



A through investigation of where the fires were has been done and published.

Really? You know where I can find a detailed description of fuel loads, fire progression, fire temps etc? It isn't in the FEMA report or NIST WTC appendix L.

A through investigation of where the diesel fuel tanks, pipes and generators were, has been done and published.

Based on those published reports it can be said, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there were no diesel fuel fires in or near the area where the implosion began.

Which may well be used in the final report.


NIST did go into it.
They researched the debris damage and fires.
They found that there was NO debris damage or fires in or near the NE generator room.
i.e. they found nothing to support the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

So what's left to investigate on this hypothesis, ..... nothing.

yeah, and everything that can be invented has been. Might as well close the patent office down.
It is quite obvious that there is much more to be investigated. Too bad you can't see that. then again given your low burden of investigation to show that CD was the cause of the collapse, I am not surprised.

[Christopher7]

Just tell us where the diesel went then C7?It is not known where the diesel fuel went but there's a high probability that there was a diesel fuel fire in the SW corner where the debris damage was.

[Christopher7]

NIST listed the obvious areas that had been damaged and the obvious fire locations. That is all they did in the preliminary report.NIST did a through investigation of the fire locations and progression.

They interviewed over 100 witnesses and studied all the photos and videos.

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas

After that there was no one in the building.

You use the word 'obvious' as if there is some faint hope NIST will somehow find out about more fires six years after the event.
From who?

A through investigation of where the fires were has been done and published.
Really? You know where I can find a detailed description of fuel loads, fire progression, fire temps etc? It isn't in the FEMA report or NIST WTC appendix L.
You can find a detailed description of the location and progression of the fires on pages L-22 thru L-26.
FEMA listed the location and fuel loads of the diesel tanks on page 5-14.

Other fuel loads and potential temperatures will be discussed in the final report.

A through investigation of where the diesel fuel tanks, pipes and generators were, has been done and published.

Based on those published reports it can be said, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there were no diesel fuel fires in or near the area where the implosion began.
Which may well be used in the final report.Indeed

NIST did go into it.
They researched the debris damage and fires.
They found that there was NO debris damage or fires in or near the NE generator room.
i.e. they found nothing to support the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

So what's left to investigate on this hypothesis, ..... nothing.

yeah, and everything that can be invented has been.
It is quite obvious that there is much more to be investigated. Too bad you can't see that.The possibility of diesel fuel fires in the area where the implosion began has been throughly investigated.
To bad you can't see that.
Again, what's left to investigate concerning diesel fuel fires in that area?

[jaydeehess]

It is not known where the diesel fuel went but there's a high probability that there was a diesel fuel fire in the SW corner where the debris damage was.

Thank you, and do you not believe that NIST would be interested in the details of how such a fire would have developed, progressed and affected the building during the day.

Please note that I am NOT saying that such a diesel fire would have been THE cause of the collapse nor that it has a high probability of having greatly affected the area of columns 79,80,81 on that floor. It certainly could have some affect in increasing the lateral forces on the floor slab as a whole.

You say that the mention of the diesel is item #2 of the prelim report summary makes it prominent. Have you noticed that the items in the summary are basically in chronilogical order; debris damage, fire, collapse initiating event, interior vertical collapse, interior horizontal collapse, perimeter and global collapse?

Now if the diesel is included in this list it belongs only in the section dealing with the fires which would make it a part of the second item. No nefarious deliberate act choosing to put it in the second item. So does it belong at all in the summary. I say yes. The diesel fuel represents an extrodinary possible fuel load so it deserves to be there. If/when it is addressed in the final eport I expect taht they will quote the FEMA work and possibly add some investigation of their own and conclude that there is a low probability that a diesel fuel fire initiated collapse by weakening the columns proximate to the generator.

They may find that fuel piping systems in high rise buildings should be built more robust and with more failsafe shut offs if they conclude that there were diesel fuel fires anywhere in wTC 7.

[jaydeehess]

FEMA listed the location and fuel loads of the diesel tanks on page 5-14.
Again with conflating the two reports by two separate agencies.

Other fuel loads and potential temperatures will be discussed in the final report.

Yes, they will and I expect a report with similar detail as in the report on the fires in the towers. That is not what we find in the preliminary report.


The possibility of diesel fuel fires in the area where the implosion began has been throughly investigated.
To bad you can't see that.
Again, what's left to investigate concerning diesel fuel fires in that area?

It was investigated by FEMA. NIST has to create its final report and they will have to address the liquid fuel as well. They were unwilling to simply write if off and include a statement that the investigators at FEMA do so and that's all there is to say about it.

Christ Chris, you guys complain bitterly that explosives were not included but now you complain that the diesel fuel was. Biased much?

[Christopher7]

It is not known where the diesel fuel went but there's a high probability that there was a diesel fuel fire in the SW corner where the debris damage was.

Thank you, and do you not believe that NIST would be interested in the details of how such a fire would have developed, progressed and affected the building during the day.NIST would be so interested but that's not what we are talking about.
NIST mentioned the diesel fuel fires as a possible contributing factor in the initiating event.

Please note that I am NOT saying that such a diesel fire would have been THE cause of the collapse nor that it has a high probability of having greatly affected the area of columns 79,80,81 on that floor. It certainly could have some affect in increasing the lateral forces on the floor slab as a whole.Source?

"The floor slab"?
There were 46 floor slabs.

You say that the mention of the diesel is item #2 of the prelim report summary makes it prominent. Have you noticed that the items in the summary are basically in chronilogical order; debris damage, fire, collapse initiating event, interior vertical collapse, interior horizontal collapse, perimeter and global collapse?You can argue the definition of prominent if you like but the fact remains, it is just a hypothesis without basis or evidence to support it.
Diesel fuel fires should not have been included in the summary as a possible contributing factor in the initiating event.

F-28
The following is, therefore, a hypothesis based on potential rather than demonstrated fact.
Assume that the distribution piping system was severed and discharged up to 75 gpm onto
the 5th floor in the vicinity of Truss 1."

F-29
Although there is no physical evidence available, this hypothesis assumes that it is possible that both the inner and outer pipes were severed

[funk de fino]

Christ Chris, you guys complain bitterly that explosives were not included but now you complain that the diesel fuel was. Biased much?

Just about sums this whole thing up, its quite pathetic to watch actually especially when C7 then states this

You can argue the definition of prominent if you like but the fact remains, it is just a hypothesis without basis or evidence to support it.

I am stunned

[twinstead]

You can argue the definition of prominent if you like but the fact remains, it is just a hypothesis without basis or evidence to support it.


The irony. It burns.

[jaydeehess]

NIST would be so interested but that's not what we are talking about.
We were speaking about whether or not it should be included in the report.

"The floor slab"?
There were 46 floor slabs.

The floor where this fire might occur. That much was pretty obvious wasn't it?

You can argue the definition of prominent if you like but the fact remains, it is just a hypothesis without basis or evidence to support it.
Diesel fuel fires should not have been included in the summary as a possible contributing factor in the initiating event.

You were the one to state it was "prominent". I take exception to the inference that NIS was deliberaly attempting to sway people into believeing that diesel fuel fires caused the collapse. If you wish to drop the "prominent" bit, I'm all for it.

F-28
The following is, therefore, a hypothesis based on potential rather than demonstrated fact.
Assume that the distribution piping system was severed and discharged up to 75 gpm onto
the 5th floor in the vicinity of Truss 1."

F-29
Although there is no physical evidence available, this hypothesis assumes that it is possible that both the inner and outer pipes were severed




On what page of appendix L do these appear?

It amazes me how you can claim bad intent on the part of NIST by quoting FEMA. especialy given that I believe that I can safely assume you hold no more love of FEMA than you do for NIST.

[Christopher7]

It amazes me how you can claim bad intent on the part of NIST by quoting FEMA. especialy given that I believe that I can safely assume you hold no more love of FEMA than you do for NIST.
FEMA established the facts about the location of the diesel fuel tanks, and pipes.
They concluded that there was a low probability of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

You think that it's OK for NIST quote some facts in the FEMA report while ignoring other facts and the conclusion.

Any scientific investigation builds on the established body of knowledge.

NIST also ignored the evidence it had established about the location of the fires by saying:
"Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows."

This is ridiculous because there would either be smoke pouring out of the louvers or a fire would not have sufficient airflow to burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

FEMA 5-29
Although there is no physical evidence available, this hypothesis assumes that it is possible that both the inner and outer pipes were severed

The air required for combustion of 75-gpm (160 MW potential) diesel fuel is approximately 100,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm).
If less air is available for combustion, the burning rate will decrease proportionally . As the engine generator sets come on line, automatic louvers open and 80,000 cfm are provided for each of the nine SSB engines.
Given open louvers and other sources for entry of air *, it is, therefore, probable that
a fuel oil spill fire would have found sufficient air for combustion.

*The generator room would have to be relatively air tight because of the potential for fire.
Otherwise, when the fans came on they would create elevated air pressure and blow fumes from the engines or a potential fire into adjoining rooms.

[GT/CS]

NIST also ignored the evidence it had established about the location of the fires by saying:
"Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows."

This is ridiculous because there would either be smoke pouring out of the louvers or a fire would not have sufficient airflow to burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

.

Chris are you sure that the louvers could be the only source of oxygen for the fires? If the doors to the mechanical room were open would there not be a floor-full (or more) of oxygen for the fires to use?

[Christopher7]

Chris are you sure that the louvers could be the only source of oxygen for the fires? If the doors to the mechanical room were open would there not be a floor-full (or more) of oxygen for the fires to use?Due to the presence of diesel fuel and the inherent possibility of fire, the doors to the generator room would be kept shut.
This would be especially necessary when the generators were running because the fans would be blowing 320,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) of air into the generator room.

There is no reason to think the doors were open.

[Belz...]

Due to the presence of diesel fuel and the inherent possibility of fire, the doors to the generator room would be kept shut.

Isn't that an assumption ? A big no-no, in your book ?

[GT/CS]

Due to the presence of diesel fuel and the inherent possibility of fire, the doors to the generator room would be kept shut.
This would be especially necessary when the generators were running because the fans would be blowing 320,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) of air into the generator room.

There is no reason to think the doors were open.

Chris you have no idea whether the doors were open or shut. You can claim that it may be possible that they were supposed to be shut but you cannot say that they were so please stop stating assumptions as facts.

[jaydeehess]

FEMA established the facts about the location of the diesel fuel tanks, and pipes.
They concluded that there was a low probability of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

You think that it's OK for NIST quote some facts in the FEMA report while ignoring other facts and the conclusion.

Just what did NIST quote FEMA as having investigated in the WTC appendix L report? I am not concerned with simple building specs or photographs. I am asking what NIST used in the way of conclusions that FEMA had already made.

You see Chris if an agency is to do a report then the people who commissioned that report expect that the agency will actually do their own report or if the do borrow the conclusions of another agency , that they show that they have actually investigated that agency's work and come to the same conclusion. That is what they paid to do.


Any scientific investigation builds on the established body of knowledge.

Yes, but in the case of something as unigue as the collapse of a building each investigation will first have to satisfy itself that the previous work is valid and determine if they would add or modify the other group's conclusions based on the same or additional evidence. THAT would not be done in a preliminary report. THAT would be the scope of a more in depth, final report.

NIST also ignored the evidence it had established about the location of the fires by saying:
"Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows."

What part of that ignores the evidence Chris? It simply states that there is a possibility that there were fires that could not be seen from the outside and which had not been observed when the FF's went through early on in the day.


This is ridiculous because there would either be smoke pouring out of the louvers or a fire would not have sufficient airflow to burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

The air required for combustion of 75-gpm (160 MW potential) diesel fuel is approximately 100,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm).

If less air is available for combustion, the burning rate will decrease proportionally

As the engine generator sets come on line, automatic louvers open and 80,000 cfm are provided for each of the nine SSB engines.

Given open louvers and other sources for entry of air, it is, therefore, probable that a fuel oil spill fire would have found sufficient air for combustion.

This is something that the investigators at NIST would have to look at. Do they agree 100% with the FEMA investigators or would they, for instance, change "Given open louvers and" to "Given open louvers or?


*The generator room would have to be relatively air tight because of the potential for fire.
Otherwise, when the fans came on they would create elevated air pressure and blow fumes from the engines or a potential fire into adjoining rooms.


So they would blow fumes into adjoining rooms if the door was open but smoke would have to exit via the louvers and the generator has to be running. Hmmm.

The door would normally be shut. Quite correct. But this building had just been hot by a large amount of debris, it had been shaken by the seismic activity of two 110 storey buildings collapsing next door so it is quite possible that the normally closed door was sprung open, it is also somewhat possible that the door was left open. In your world the fact that these are only possibilities and less probable than the door being shut means that it simply and certainly did not happen.

Could air enter via the louvers and smoke go out the door?

Does the generator have to be running when the (alleged) pool of fuel is on fire? Could it have been running early on but stopped before the fuel ignited?

[Christopher7]

Chris you have no idea whether the doors were open or shut. You can claim that it may be possible that they were supposed to be shut but you cannot say that they were so please stop stating assumptions as facts.A room with diesel engines would have fire doors and they would be kept closed.

That's a no brainer, not an assumption.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that they were open.

FEMA 5-30
Evaluation of fires on the 3rd to 6th floors is complicated by the fact that these floors were windowless with louvers, generally in a plenum space separating any direct line of sight between the open floor space and the louvers

A fire would have the air in the 2 story mechanical room.

Smoke would be pouring out the ventilation louvers in the mechanical room.

The hypothesis assumes the louvers in the generator room were open and the fans were on because it would take a great deal of air flow to sustain a fire hot enough to cause the failure of Truss 1 which was in the mechanical room.

Given open louvers and other sources for entry of air, it is, therefore, probable that a fuel oil spill fire would have found sufficient air for combustion.

[Norseman]

I can not see that this testimony by Shyam Sunder (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf) from NIST has been brought up so far in the discussion regarding the fuel system in WTC 7. The testimony was given before New York City Council Joint Meeting, Committees on Lower Manhattan Redevelopment; Fire & Criminal Justice Services on september 8th 2006.

The testimony contains as appendix 1 NCSTAR 1-1, Chapter 12, “WTC 7 Fuel System” where NIST elaborates on the fuel system and the possible role it could have played in initiating the collapse of WTC 7.

This what NIST says about the layout of the SSB emergency generator system:
The system also included cooling fan units (each consisting of four fans) with three units (rated
30,000 cfm per fan, 12 fans) installed in the northeast corner of the 5th floor near generators 1 through 4,
six units (rated 38,000 cfm per fan, 24 fans) in the northwest corner near generators 8 and 9, and exhaust
louvers in the southwest corner near generators 5 through 7. The fans were powered from the generators
and ran whenever the generators were running. They brought outside air into the building and across the
generators.

My understanding, after reading what both NIST and FEMA writes about the system, is that the SSB generators on floor 5 where located within the same room on that floor. The room was compartmentalized from the rest of floor 5 by a masonry concrete wall running east - west on the north side of the floor. The cooling fan units would generate a flow of air that would go from the northeast corner and the northwest corner towards the southwest corner, where it would leave the building through the exhaust louvers. Consequently any smoke within the generator room on floor 5 would be blown out of the southwest corner exhaust louvers, while the fans where working.

Regarding the fuel system NIST is focusing on column 79 in Chapter 12, not Truss 1 or 2 as FEMA did:
At the end of the pipe run, where the fuel supply pipe
ended and the fuel return pipe began, there was a valve box containing a backpressure regulator, gauges,
and a by-pass line. This liquid tight valve box was mounted to the underside of the floor slab for the
6th floor near generator #1.
A working hypothesis is that the impact sustained by WTC 7 from the collapse of WTC 1 resulted in
fractures in the fuel piping system (both the fuel pipe and the containment pipe) especially at the point
where the pipes entered the valve box, which was rigidly mounted to the underside of the floor slab. With
the base system and all of the modifications thereto, such a fracture would result in a small leak of
residual fuel in the pipes at the point of the fracture. A fracture of the pipe at the valve box would release
fuel under pressure that, if ignited, could produce a spray fire and/or a pool fire very near column 79.

This could have sustained a limited fire within the generator room, heating up column 79, but not visible since smoke were blown out the southwest corner exhaust louvers on the south side of the building.

But there is a lot of unknown details here since we do not have detailed drawings of the floors, etc. That is something Christopher 7 should keep in mind when he attempts to rule out the possibility that the fuel system could have played a significant role in the collapse.

[Christopher7]

Just what did NIST quote FEMA as having investigated in the WTC appendix L report? I am not concerned with simple building specs or photographs. I am asking what NIST used in the way of conclusions that FEMA had already made.The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5.

You see Chris if an agency is to do a report then the people who commissioned that report expect that the agency will actually do their own report or if the do borrow the conclusions of another agency , that they show that they have actually investigated that agency's work and come to the same conclusion. That is what they paid to do.
You are saying one government agency should ignore the findings of another government agency investigating the same event and re-investigate their findings.

That is not what NIST is paid to do, nor is that what they did.

FEMA researched and established the location of the tanks, pipes and generator rooms.
What's left to investigate?

Any scientific investigation builds on the established body of knowledge.
Yes, but in the case of something as unigue as the collapse of a building each investigation will first have to satisfy itself that the previous work is valid and determine if they would add or modify the other group's conclusions based on the same or additional evidence. THAT would not be done in a preliminary report. THAT would be the scope of a more in depth, final report.
IYO

To include the possibility of diesel fuel fires as a possible contributing factor to the initiating event in the summary without investigating that possibility, is wrong and misleading.

NIST also ignored the evidence it had established about the location of the fires by saying:
"Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows."
What part of that ignores the evidence Chris? It simply states that there is a possibility that there were fires that could not be seen from the outside and which had not been observed when the FF's went through early on in the day.The 5th and 6th floors had ventilation louvers.
If there was a fire on these floors, smoke would be pouring out of the louvers.

There was no debris damage to this area and no reason to believe there was a fire in this area.

This is something that the investigators at NIST would have to look at. Do they agree 100% with the FEMA investigators or would they, for instance, change "Given open louvers and" to "Given open louvers or?
You are speculating on what NIST 'might say' if they investigated.

The facts are:
FEMA said there was a low probability of diesel fuel fires in or near the NE generator room.

NIST did not re-investigate that possibility.

There was no sign of fire in or near the NE generator room.

There is no reason to think there was a fire in that area.

There was no reason to include it in the summary.

So they would blow fumes into adjoining rooms if the door was open but smoke would have to exit via the louvers and the generator has to be running. Hmmm.The fans would blow fumes or smoke out every opening.

The door would normally be shut. Quite correct. But this building had just been hot by a large amount of debris, it had been shaken by the seismic activity of two 110 storey buildings collapsing next door so it is quite possible that the normally closed door was sprung open,Quite possible?

Try remotely possible and extremely unlikely.

You are really grasping at straws with that one.

it is also somewhat possible that the door was left open.You are dwelling in the infinite world of unlikely possibilities.

In your world the fact that these are only possibilities and less probable than the door being shut means that it simply and certainly did not happen.
Wrong
In the real world, there is no reason to think the door was open.

Could air enter via the louvers and smoke go out the door?
No
The louvers opened when the fans came on.
The fans forced 320,000 cfm of air into the generator room.
That would force air out thru every opening.

Does the generator have to be running when the (alleged) pool of fuel is on fire?No
The pumps were governed by a pressure switch.
The pumps would come on if there were a break or fracture in the supply pipe and the pressure dropped.

However, the supply pipe would have to be completely severed somewhere to stop the oil in the containment pipe from reaching the containment vessel and shut off the pumps.

If the pipe was severed, there would be little or no pressure in the line.

Have you ever had a broken water pipe?
If so, how much water came out when you turned a faucet on?

There were the same pipes and connections in the SW and NW generator rooms.

For the hypothesis to work, the double wall pipe would have to break completely in the NE generator room and remain intact in the generator rooms closer to the debris damage.

[Norseman]

FEMA researched and established the location of the tanks, pipes and generator rooms.
What's left to investigate?


A lot of things according to FEMA:

5.8 Recomendations
Certain issues should be explored before final conclusions are reached and additional studies of the performance of WTC 7, and related building performance issues should be conducted. These include the following:

Determination of the specific fuel loads, espcially at the lower levels, is important identify possible fuel suplied to sustain fire the fires for substantial duration. Areas of intrest include storage rooms, file rooms, spaces with high-density combustible matrials, and location of fuel lines. The control and operation of the emergency power system, including generators and storage tanks, needs to be throughly understood. Specifically, the ability of the disel fuel pumps to continue to operate and send fuel to upper floors after a fuel line is severed should be confirmed.


Source: FEMA WTC 7 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf). My bolding.


FEMA said there was a low probability of diesel fuel fires in or near the NE generator room.

NIST did not re-investigate that possibility.



The first claim is correct, but FEMA also said as a part of that statement in its WTC 7 report:
Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue



The last claim is wrong, NIST is reinvestigating the role of the fuel system:
In summary, NIST has presented a working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 and
fully documented the fuel systems present in the building on September 11, 2001.
NIST’s investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 is continuing with a focus on identifying
the factors that contributed to the collapse of the building. NIST has not reached a final
determination on the role of the diesel fuel in sustaining the fires that burned in WTC 7
and is continuing to study its role in contributing to the collapse of the building.
Source: Testimony of Dr. S. Shyam Sunder (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf). My bolding.

It is way too early to close the book on the role of the fuel system in the initiating event.

[Christopher7]

A lot of things according to FEMA:
Certain issues should be explored before final conclusions are reached ....... These include the following:
location of fuel lines. The control and operation of the emergency power system, including generators and storage tanks, needs to be throughly understood. Specifically, the ability of the disel fuel pumps to continue to operate and send fuel to upper floors after a fuel line is severed should be confirmed.The location of the fuel lines in the NE part of WTC 7 is known.

FEMA 5-14
The pipe traversed most of the length of the 5th floor immediately north of a concrete masonry wall running most of the length of the floor in an east-west direction. At the east end of the 5th floor and to the south of the wall was a 1- to 2-story mechanical equipment room. Transfer Trusses 1 and 2 were located in this room.


The control and operation of the emergency power system is known insofar as the NE generator room is concerned.

FEMA 5-15
The pump then operated in response to the pressure difference between the supply and return, and the pump would circulate oil as long as such a difference existed. Upon sensing a power interruption, the system would automatically switch to emergency mode.


All the storage tanks are in the west half of the building.
See the chart on FEMA 5-14

The last claim is wrong, NIST is reinvestigating the role of the fuel system:

"In summary, NIST has presented a working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 and fully documented the fuel systems present in the building on September 11, 2001.
NIST’s investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 is continuing with a focus on identifying the factors that contributed to the collapse of the building. NIST has not reached a final determination on the role of the diesel fuel in sustaining the fires that burned in WTC 7 and is continuing to study its role in contributing to the collapse of the building."
Source: Testimony of Dr. S. Shyam Sunder (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf). My bolding.
Your claim that my claim is wrong, is wrong.

Seriously, Shyam Sunder testified in Sept 2006
NCSTAR 1-1, Chapter 12 and NCSTAR1-1J were published in September 2005

NIST had not re investigated the possibility of diesel fires in June 2004 when they included it in the summary.

It is way too early to close the book on the role of the fuel system in the initiating event.1)
FEMA 5-29
"Although there is no physical evidence available, this hypothesis assumes that it is possible that both the inner and outer pipes were severed"

The double and single wall pipes would have to remain intact in the SW corner, where the debris damage was, and a double wall pipe would have to break off completely near the opposite corner of the building.

This is extremely unlikely. To say the least.

2)
FEMA 5-29
"The temperature of the fire gases would be governed to a large extent by the availability of air for combustion."

"If less air is available for combustion, the burning rate will decrease proportionally."

"Given open louvers and other sources for entry of air, it is, therefore, probable that a fuel oil spill fire would have found sufficient air for combustion."

The hypothesis assumes the louvers in the generator room were open and the fans were on because it would take a great deal of air flow to sustain a fire hot enough to cause the failure of Truss 1

If the louvers were open, the fans would be blowing the smoke out thru them.

This did not happen.

FEMA 5-29
3) "The hot gases generated would be blocked from impacting Trusses 1 and 2 by the masonry wall separating the generation area from the mechanical equipment room"

"If the door was of superior construction (as with a fire door), it is unlikely that the fire would have reached the trusses in the mechanical equipment room until such time that the door failed."

It is also unlikely that someone left the door open.

It is time to close the book on this fairy tale.

[Christopher7]

I can not see that this testimony by Shyam Sunder (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf) from NIST has been brought up so far in the discussion regarding the fuel system in WTC 7. The testimony was given before New York City Council Joint Meeting, Committees on Lower Manhattan Redevelopment; Fire & Criminal Justice Services on september 8th 2006.

The testimony contains as appendix 1 NCSTAR 1-1, Chapter 12, “WTC 7 Fuel System” where NIST elaborates on the fuel system and the possible role it could have played in initiating the collapse of WTC 7.

This what NIST says about the layout of the SSB emergency generator system:
[see paragraph below photo of NE corner]
My understanding, after reading what both NIST and FEMA writes about the system, is that the SSB generators on floor 5 where located within the same room on that floor. The room was compartmentalized from the rest of floor 5 by a masonry concrete wall running east - west on the north side of the floor. The cooling fan units would generate a flow of air that would go from the northeast corner and the northwest corner towards the southwest corner, where it would leave the building through the exhaust louvers. Consequently any smoke within the generator room on floor 5 would be blown out of the southwest corner exhaust louvers, while the fans where working.That's what i thought at first after reading that.

This is another very misleading statement.

Fire codes would never allow such a design.

On pg 3 of that same report is this:
The 5th floor base system generator room appears to have been constructed of 8 inch thick concrete block. The other generator room enclosures were constructed using gypsum board.

It's easy to miss because it's buried in a paragraph about sprinklers.

The intake fans were in the north end of the east wall.
The exhaust louvers were on the north wall.

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7392/copyofe5asn4.png

These two paragraphs are separated by two paragraphs about pumps.

The system utilized nine generators on the 5th floor with a combined capacity of 1,750 kW. Seven cooling fan sets (four fans per set) were installed to provide cooling and combustion air to the generators.
Three fan setswere installed on the north end of the east wall and four fan sets on the north end of the west wall. There were exhaust louvers on the south end of the west wall. These fans were arranged to come on when the generators were running.

The system also included cooling fan units (each consisting of four fans) with three units (rated 30,000 cfm per fan, 12 fans) installed in the northeast corner of the 5th floor near generators 1 through 4, six units (rated 38,000 cfm per fan, 24 fans) in the northwest corner near generators 8 and 9, and exhaust louvers in the southwest corner near generators 5 through 7. The fans were powered from the generators and ran whenever the generators were running. They brought outside air into the building and across the generators.

This is blatant obfuscation.

[Norseman]

That's what i thought at first after reading that.

This is another very misleading statement.

Fire codes would never allow such a design.

On pg 3 of that same report is this:
The 5th floor base system generator room appears to have been constructed of 8 inch thick concrete block. The other generator room enclosures were constructed using gypsum board.

It's easy to miss because it's buried in a paragraph about sprinklers.

The intake fans were in the north end of the east wall.
The exhaust louvers were on the north wall.



There are other indications that my understanding of the 5th floor generator layout could be right. The FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf) contains the following quote on page 5-29 regarding the possible consequences of fuel leak on floor 5:

Depending on ventilation sources for air, this is sufficient to flashover the space along the north wall on this floor.
............
The hot gases generated would be blocked from impacting Trusses 1 and 2 by the masonry wall separating the generation area from the mechanical equipment room, assuming that this wall was still intact after the collapse of the tower and there were no other significant penetration of walls.

My bolding

The second paragraph on page 5-30 could also indicate a continues generator room on floor 5 along the north and the west wall.

On page 5-14 and 5-15 about the fuel pipe for the SSB generators:

The pipe traversed most of the length of the 5th floor immediately north of a concrete masonry wall running most of the length of the floor in an east-west direction



It looks as an established fact that all the generators on the 5th floor were contained behind a concrete masonry wall separating them from the rest of the floor. The SSB generator system was added in 1990 before the other modifications to the original base system. That masonry wall could very well be a original part of the building. If I remember correctly, WTC 7 was built to be easily modified according to the needs of future tenants. Therefore it would be plausible that additional generator space was originally allocated on floor 5, to accommodate future generators in addition to the two original base system generators on that floor. It is also likely that the SSB system used up all the available generator space allocated for future needs on floor 5. As a consequence of this the later generators added to the base system had to be located in areas not originally intended for generators elsewhere in the building, these rooms were constructed using gypsum boards as stated by NIST. Therefore I can not see anything misleading in the NIST statement you quoted Christopher7.

As I have said earlier there are a lot of unknowns here. We do not have all the information available to NIST. We are both making a lot assumptions based on limited information from an ongoing investigation. Based on the available information we can not rule out the possibility of a diesel fire on floor 5 playing a significant role in the initiating event.

[Norseman]

FEMA 5-30
Evaluation of fires on the 3rd to 6th floors is complicated by the fact that these floors were windowless with louvers, generally in a plenum space separating any direct line of sight between the open floor space and the louvers


According to the FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf) (page 5-22) there were air plenums on floor 5 and 6 along the east and west walls and partially along the north wall.

To get an indication of how wide that plenum space were we can take a look at the figure below from NIST (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf):

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_18141472b8ab642a4c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9045)
The figure shows the openings in the slab of floor 6 to make space for the two-story mechanical spaces including plenum space. In the opening for the east mechanical room there is a dashed line possible indicating a wall.

My understanding of the quote you made from the FEMA report, Christopher7, is that behind the louvers there were a new wall separating the air plenum space from the floor space behind. That wall would contain openings for things like ventilation systems, cooling fans and exhaust. The louvers keep snow and rain away from the openings, while they at the same time hides all the openings in an architectural aesthetic manner.

Therefore I can very well understand the statements by FEMA and NIST saying that it is difficult to evaluate the presence of fire on floor 5 and 6.

During the afternoon the fires on the south side of WTC 7 had made their way to some of the floors on the north side. An interesting photo is Figure L-24b in the NIST report (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf), that shows fires on floor 7 and 12 on the north face of WTC 7. Notice that even though fires are clearly visible on floor 7 very little smoke is coming out of the windows. A possible fire on floor 5 would in addition be hidden behind the louvers and the next wall behind the louvers. Wether or not smoke would come out on the north side on floor 5, depends on the nature of the openings in the wall behind the louvers, and in which direction the smoke would ventilate. I can envision scenarios where fresh air is sucked in by the fire through openings on the north side and the smoke goes out on the south side.

But yet again we have very limited information about the layout of floor 5 and 6 and the systems present on those floors.

[Norseman]

Christopher7, as I have pointed out in my last posts we are making a lot of assumptions based on limited information about the detailed layout and construction of rooms and systems on floor 5 and 6 in the WTC 7. In addition to this you are continuously accusing NIST of being misleading or dishonest based on those assumptions. Actually this is symptomatic for the whole thread.

Neither the FEMA report or the various reports issued by NIST so far regarding WTC 7 can be viewed as the final word on the collapse of WTC 7. FEMA stated clearly that further studies were needed to understand the collapse of WTC 7. The NIST reports must be regarded as progress reports outlining the status of the research and the working hypothesis. This is what NIST said about the content of the final report (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/FinalMeetingMinutes_NCSTACdec2006.pdf) in december last year:


Dr. Sunder noted that the end product of the WTC 7 investigation will be three reports. One will be a companion to the original summary report for the towers (NCSTAR 1). It will be written in a narrative format so that it is accessible to a large audience. The second will be a detailed technical report, written by NIST staff, along the lines of the previous technical reports, with all of the details and assumptions used in the analysis. The report will cover all aspects of the investigation of WTC 7. Appendices will include the seismic analysis and the review of the Consolidated Edison Substation, preliminary structural response analysis, and the hypothetical blast scenarios. The third report will be written by ARA on the modeling work they and their subcontractors have performed in support of the investigation.


We have to expect that even the reports regarding WTC 7 issued as final reports together with the WTC 1 and WTC 2 reports could be issued in revised form. And instead of an interim report of 56 pages we can expect thousands of pages of detailed information. I am therefore certain that we eventually can continue this discussion based upon far better information, in a new thread, if you still are unhappy with the conclusions in the final report Christopher7. And based upon your views in this thread and the information provided so far by NIST I am very certain that you will be unhappy.

Why you are unhappy with NIST's continued investigation of the role of diesel fuel is beyond me. Especially when NIST have felt it necessary to include hypothetical blast scenarios and thermite as a part of the study. While the diesel fuel scenario is plausible, the CD scenarios are completely unlikely lacking both logic and evidence. But certainly included in a vain attempt by NIST to make a final rebuttal of all the CD myths floating around regarding the collapse of the WTC buildings. Hopefully the hypothetical blast scenarios could be helpful in designing more blast proof buildings.

We could continue this thread endlessly discussing various fire scenarios on floor 5 based upon assumptions made on incomplete and limited information from preliminary reports. But at this stage diesel fuel can not be ruled out or in as a significant factor in the initiating event. And regardless of that, the role of diesel fuel in sustaining and spreading the fires should be a part of the study with the aim of designing more fire safe fuel systems. Thats a fact wether you agree or not Christopher7.

With this I am going to leave this thread permanently, while I notice that I can make claim to the dubious honor of advancing this thread to page 100.:o And I am going to restrain myself from the dubious temptation of making post number 4000.:D

[Christopher7]

There are other indications that my understanding of the 5th floor generator layout could be right. The FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf) contains the following quote on page 5-29 regarding the possible consequences of fuel leak on floor 5:
On page 5-14 and 5-15 about the fuel pipe for the SSB generators:
The second paragraph on page 5-30 could also indicate a continues generator room on floor 5 along the north and the west wall.
First of all, i appreciate your debating this issue using data and giving your take on that data in a straightforward respectful manner.

5-29
"Depending on ventilation sources for air, this is sufficient to flashover the space along the north wall of this floor."

"... the masonry wall separating the generation area from the mechanical equipment room, .... "
These statements suggest an open 'generator area'.

5-14
"...... concrete masonry wall running most of the length of the floor in an east-west direction"
This one, not so much.

5-30
"such a fire would have more severely exposed Truss 3."
This 'indicates' there may have been an open area between the SW corner and Truss 3.


This statement clearly says there were generator rooms as would be expected.

The 5th floor base system generator room appears to have been constructed of 8 inch thick concrete block. The other generator room enclosures were constructed using gypsum board.

It looks as an established fact that all the generators on the 5th floor were contained behind a concrete masonry wall separating them from the rest of the floor.No
Only the NE generator room.
The wall, ran most of the length, east to west.
Since it went all the way to the east end to separate the east mechanical room from the NE generator room, it did not go all the way to the west end.
The wall probably stopped at the end of the core.
There is no mention of a masonry wall running south to north in the west end.

As a consequence of this the later generators added to the base system had to be located in areas not originally intended for generators elsewhere in the building, these rooms were constructed using gypsum boards as stated by NIST. Therefore I can not see anything misleading in the NIST statement you quoted Christopher7.You previously said:
"There are other indications that my understanding of the 5th floor generator layout could be right."

Based on NIST Chapter 12 and supported by the FEMA report, you thought the generators were not in rooms but in an open area and the fans blew the smoke from the NE generator room out thru the louvers at the SW corner.

As you now seem to realize, such is not the case.

You were mislead into thinking the generators were not in enclosed rooms and that explained the lack of smoke from the exhaust louvers on the north side of the NE generator room.

As I have said earlier there are a lot of unknowns here. We do not have all the information available to NIST. We are both making a lot assumptions based on limited information from an ongoing investigation.Speak for yourself.

Based on the available information we can not rule out the possibility of a diesel fire on floor 5 playing a significant role in the initiating event.On the contrary, the information in the FEMA and NIST reports is sufficient to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that diesel fuel fires did NOT play a significant role in the initiating event.

[OneShotKi11]

HA! Off-topic, but I've just been suspended for a month at the LC forum. Does that earn me a badge, or do I need to be banned?

Be a pro like me and get banned on 6 different accounts!

[OneShotKi11]

I do have question that probably was answered but i am to lazy to search/read about right now....

Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?
That just doesnt quite add up to me and would a truthers best argument in my eyes.

[beachnut]

I do have question that probably was answered but i am to lazy to search/read about right now....

Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?
That just doesnt quite add up to me and would a truthers best argument in my eyes.
Lazy will not hack it.

Fire destroys steel, it fails. Learn about steel and fire.

[jaydeehess]

I do have question that probably was answered but i am to lazy to search/read about right now....

Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?
That just doesnt quite add up to me and would a truthers best argument in my eyes.

Because one or more of three columns (79,80.81) under the penthouse mechanical room failed first pulling the penthouse in as well as the heavy equipment located in the penthouse. The senario is that this(these) columns failed somewhere lower down in the building, the 12th floor being a prime level for this to have occured. There is also an outside possibility that it failed at th 5th floor due to heating by a diesel fuel fire, which is the subject of this debate at the moment. Chris7 argues that it is not a possibility, others argue that, with the info available, one cannot completely dismiss it out of hand.

I do not understand just how the fact that the penthouse went first could be a truther's best arguement. Perhaps you'd like to expand on that just a bit.

[OneShotKi11]

Lazy will not hack it.

Fire destroys steel, it fails. Learn about steel and fire.

I have removed your insult. Please remember remain both civil and polite, and remember to attack argument not other members
I guess the LC forums werent the only place for stupid people, they are everywhere and in abundance!
I have researched fire melting steel and know the whole scenario on 9/11. I asked about why the Penthouse went first not how steel was melted that day. I figured you guys would have a reasonable explanation for my question and didnt want to have to read through 51 pages of crap post from people like you to find one intellectual among the group who made a post with the answer to my question in it!
Its funny you say learn about steel and fire for i am an NYC Ironworker and thats what i deal with all day everyday. To bad thats not what i was asking.

To jaydeehess
Thank you for answering my post and understanding that reading through all of this topic wasnt going to be done at 6 in the morning while a little drunk...lolz
To respond to you all i have until i can find the topics it was discussed in is that i have heard truthers make some good points about why the penthouse falling first was some sort of evidence for a CD. I cant exactly post it because i wouldnt want to screw up the details of there argument until i know exactly what they were stating, but i will say that there explanantion has holes and the one you posted above is much more plausible!
Thank You

[beachnut]

I have removed your insult. Please remember remain both civil and polite, and remember to attack argument not other members
I guess the LC forums werent the only place for stupid people, ...
Was I suppose to say, lazy does hack it, and do not learn about steel and fire.

I think I will stick to the "lazy does not hack it", and learn about things. I use it everyday with my grandkids and they, in turn, use it with me. But as you see some people have the answer ready to go; I have to look them up.

This thread could go on for a long time. People in the truth movement ignore physical reality and make up stories about 9/11. If you do not understand how fire does make steel fail, you should research it. jaydeehess did a great job answering your question and summarizing the thread. Saving you and I over 700 posts of reading.

[OneShotKi11]

No you were supposed to not respond if you had no clue as to what i was asking or could not answer it yourself. Again i will state that i wasnt asking about how fire affects steel!!!

Why do you keep making that the point of your argument with me?

Clearly i asked why was it the penthouse fell first in the collapse sequence of WTC7.
It is hard to not personally insult those who are making blatant attacks on me just to try and push me over the forum edge.

Lazy? Not the case, i just see no point in reinventing the wheel when i know the answer is more then willing to be spewed out by any decent forum member at any given moment!
Again read what i posted, and understand what my original question was....

Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?
Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?
Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?
Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?
Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?

And your answer was....
Research what fire does to steel.
Great POST and topic to research now how does that answer "Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?"

Now i realize it might not have worded correct due to how late it was when i posted it, but im pretty sure any intelligent member of the forum was able to decipher my hieroglyphics. If needed by anyone else i will correct it now....

It should read "Why was it the pent house that collapsed DID SO a few seconds before the rest of the building?"

Again your answer to me was research what fire does to steel. Thank for your help and await for the next time your help will be required.

[beachnut]

No you were supposed to not respond if you had no clue as to what i was asking or could not answer it yourself. Again i will state that i wasnt asking about how fire affects steel!!!

Why do you keep making that the point of your argument with me?

Clearly i asked why was it the penthouse fell first in the collapse sequence of WTC7.
It is hard to not personally insult those who are making blatant attacks on me just to try and push me over the forum edge.

Lazy? Not the case, i just see no point in reinventing the wheel when i know the answer is more then willing to be spewed out by any decent forum member at any given moment!
Again read what i posted, and understand what my original question was....

Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?
Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?
Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?
Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?
Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?

And your answer was....
Research what fire does to steel.
Great POST and topic to research now how does that answer "Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?"

Now i realize it might not have worded correct due to how late it was when i posted it, but im pretty sure any intelligent member of the forum was able to decipher my hieroglyphics. If needed by anyone else i will correct it now....

It should read "Why was it the pent house that collapsed DID SO a few seconds before the rest of the building?"

Again your answer to me was research what fire does to steel. Thank for your help and await for the next time your help will be required.
Glad to give you great advice. Have fun studying. Thanks for the veiled "calling me stupid" again.

jaydeehess answer was good!

[Christopher7]

My understanding of the quote you made from the FEMA report, Christopher7, is that behind the louvers there were a new wall separating the air plenum space from the floor space behind. That wall would contain openings for things like ventilation systems, cooling fans and exhaust. The louvers keep snow and rain away from the openings, while they at the same time hides all the openings in an architectural aesthetic manner.

Therefore I can very well understand the statements by FEMA and NIST saying that it is difficult to evaluate the presence of fire on floor 5 and 6. Diesel fuel fires create a lot of heavy black smoke.

The expanding gases from a large diesel fuel fire would expel large amounts of smoke out thru the ventilation louvers.

But yet again we have very limited information about the layout of floor 5 and 6 and the systems present on those floors.On the contrary.

From the FEMA and NIST reports:

We have the information on where the tanks, pumps, pipes and generator rooms were.

All the tanks, pumps, risers were in the west half of WTC 7.

The fans come on and the louvers open when the generators come on.

The fans force 320,000 cfm of air into and thru the NE generator room.

The hypothesis requires the fans to be on.
"Given open louvers and other sources for entry of air, it is, therefore, probable that a fuel oil spill fire would have found sufficient air for combustion."

There was no smoke coming from the air exhaust louvers in the NE Generator room at any time.

Based on this information it is clear that:

If there was a fire in the NE generator room, the louvers were closed and it would not have sufficient air for sustained high temperature combustion.

[funk de fino]

C7, do you concur that most of the diesel fuel must have burned regardless of the location of the fire? It dissappeared so it must have burned?

[Christopher7]

C7, do you concur that most of the diesel fuel must have burned regardless of the location of the fire? It dissappeared so it must have burned?That would be a reasonable assumption.

Given the damage to the SW corner, it is reasonable to assume that it burned there.

There in no indication that any of it burned in the NE part of WTC 7.

[LashL]

Deleted - my post was in error.

[Dave Rogers]

Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?

This has been discussed in a lot of detail here, and probably will be again. It's covered in the interim NIST report on WTC7. The clear implication of the prior collapse of the penthouse is that core columns 79, 80 and/or 81 failed in advance of the remainder of the structure and were unable to support the weight of the penthouse. The penthouse therefore fell into the building, doing damage to the remaining structure as it did so, and this damage together with the existing debris and fire damage resulted in the collapse of the remainder of the building. The details of why these specific columns failed are as yet uncertain, and speculation about the cause of this collapse in advance of NIST's presentation of the evidence is the subject of this thread at the moment.

One of the commonly articulated arguments of the truth movement is that WTC7 collapsed perfectly symmetrically, and that this could not possibly have occurred unless all the support columns failed simultaneously. This is taken to imply that the columns were severed by explosive charges. The collapse of the penthouse, however, is undeniable physical evidence that three of the core columns failed about 6 seconds before the remainder of the structure. The observable characteristics of the collapse of WTC7 therefore conclusively disprove the assertion that the collapse required simultaneous failure of the columns; in fact, the collapse observed absolutely requires a sequence of column failures separated by several seconds. The prior collapse of the penthouse is therefore a clear refutation of one of the major pro-CD arguments.

Dave

[funk de fino]

That would be a reasonable assumption.

Given the damage to the SW corner, it is reasonable to assume that it burned there.

There in no indication that any of it burned in the NE part of WTC 7.

Is it correct then that if this diesel burned, regardless of where it burned, then it should have been or should be mentioned somewhere in the NIST report?

Why are you allowed to "assume" but people that are against your position are not?

[Belz...]

On the contrary, the information in the FEMA and NIST reports is sufficient to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that diesel fuel fires did NOT play a significant role in the initiating event.

What ? That old canard, again ? I thought we had been through this!!

I guess it serves to show that some people, yourself included, are incapable od changing their minds based on evidence.

[Belz...]

Again read what i posted, and understand what my original question was....

Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?

A possible explanation is that whatever caused the collapsed occured right below the penthouse and pulled it down, and the rest of the building with it.

Now, wasn't that easy ?

[Christopher7]

Is it correct then that if this diesel burned, regardless of where it burned, then it should have been or should be mentioned somewhere in the NIST report?Mentioned perhaps, but not in the summary as a possible contributing factor to the initiating event.

The evidence shows that diesel fuel fires were not a factor in the initiating event.

The fans come on and the louvers open when the generators come on. FEMA 5-29

The fans blow 320,000 cfm of air into the generator room. FEMA 5-29

The hypothesis requires the fans to be on.
"Given open louvers and other sources for entry of air, it is, therefore, probable that
a fuel oil spill fire would have found sufficient air for combustion." FEMA 5-29

There was no smoke coming from the air exhaust louvers in the NE Generator room at any time.

There is no reason to think there was a fire in the NE generator room.

Even if there was a fire in the NE generator room, the louvers would have to be closed and the fire would not have sufficient air for sustained high temperature combustion.

[funk de fino]

Mentioned perhaps, but not in the summary as a possible contributing factor to the initiating event.

The evidence shows that diesel fuel fires were not a factor in the initiating event.

The fans come on and the louvers open when the generators come on. FEMA 5-29

The fans blow 320,000 cfm of air into the generator room. FEMA 5-29

The hypothesis requires the fans to be on.
"Given open louvers and other sources for entry of air, it is, therefore, probable that
a fuel oil spill fire would have found sufficient air for combustion." FEMA 5-29

There was no smoke coming from the air exhaust louvers in the NE Generator room at any time.

There is no reason to think there was a fire in the NE generator room.

Even if there was a fire in the NE generator room, the louvers would have to be closed and the fire would not have sufficient air for sustained high temperature combustion.

Listen mate, stop quoting FEMA at me, I am talking about NIST. Do you think they should not investigate anything FEMA has done already or should they carry out their own investigations? It is the NIST report they are putting their names to not the FEMA one.

Where should NIST have mentioned the diesel fuel and possible fires that consumed it?

[jaydeehess]

:deadhorseWhere should NIST have mentioned the diesel fuel and possible fires that consumed it?

oh, oh , I know this one. NIST, in its interim report summary, should have listed this in the section that dealt with the fires in the building.

deja vu , I could swear that I have already stated that somewhere.,,,,,

[Christopher7]

Listen mate, stop quoting FEMA at me, I am talking about NIST. Do you think they should not investigate anything FEMA has done already or should they carry out their own investigations?It was not necessary to re-investigate where the tanks, pumps, pipes and generator rooms were, nor should this data be ignored as you seem to suggest.

FEMA also established that the louvers opened and the fans came on when the generators were running.
Do you think NIST should re-investigate or ignore that too?

NIST continued the investigation and determined where the fires were and the time line of those fires.

It is the NIST report they are putting their names to not the FEMA one.
There are no names listed in the NIST Apx. L report.
Those who contributed endorse their contribution but not necessarily the report.
Do you know who actually 'signed off' on the NIST Apx. L report?

Where should NIST have mentioned the diesel fuel and possible fires that consumed it?The evidence shows that diesel fuel fires did not contribute to the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC 7

Since the NIST investigation is to determine what caused the collapse of WTC 7, diesel fuel fires should not have been included anywhere.


NIST determined that there was no sign of fire in or near the NE generator room at any time.

If the louvers were open and the fans on, smoke from a fire would be pouring out of the louvers.

If the louvers were closed, a fire would not have sufficient air to burn hot enough to be a factor in the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC 7.

NIST knew these facts.

Do you dispute any of these facts?
If so, which one and why?

[jaydeehess]

The evidence shows that diesel fuel fires did not contribute to the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC 7

Since the NIST investigation is to determine what caused the collapse of WTC 7, diesel fuel fires should not have been included anywhere.


NIST also made mention of fires and debris damage that occured no where near the initiating event. There is even a picture of the damage to the roof parapet. Should they have ignored that as well Chris? Why mention the damage to the SW corner Chris? After all , according to you the only thing NIST was supposed to do is investiagte the collapse and nothing else.

They also mentioned that FF's had been in the building including in areas no where near the initiating event and we all know that no one was in the building at the time of the collapse so why bother mentioning that either?

[Christopher7]

NIST also made mention of fires and debris damage that occured no where near the initiating event. There is even a picture of the damage to the roof parapet. Should they have ignored that as well Chris? Why mention the damage to the SW corner Chris? After all , according to you the only thing NIST was supposed to do is investiagte the collapse and nothing else.
There was photographic evidence and firefighter statements to verify the debris damage and fires.

These should have been, and were included.

There was NO evidence to support the diesel fuel hypothesis.

There was no reason to think there were diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Therefore, diesel fuel fires should not have been included as a possible contributing factor in the initiating event.

They also mentioned that FF's had been in the building including in areas no where near the initiating event and we all know that no one was in the building at the time of the collapse so why bother mentioning that either?They mentioned the damage and fires that the firefighters reported.

There was NO reports of fires in the NE part of floor 5, and NO reason to think there was a fire there.

[GT/CS]

When the final verion is published can we just recycle all these posts or do we need to go through the mind-numbing task of generating 4000 new posts?

[Christopher7]

When the final verion is published can we just recycle all these posts or do we need to go through the mind-numbing task of generating 4000 new posts?It's time to stop hiding behind the words 'preliminary' or 'interim' as if the known facts are going to change in the 'final' report.

The location of the NE generator room and the supply pipe running to it are not going to change.

There is virtually no chance the supply pipe severed completely at the other end of the building while remaining completely intact in the area where the damage was.

The location and progression of the fires is not going to change.

The fact that there was no sign of fire in the NE generator room at any time is not going to change.

Even if there was a fire there, with the louvers closed it would not have sufficient air flow to burn hot enough to be a factor in the initiating event.

These are known facts from the data in the reports OTers put fourth as their reason for believing that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F.

[jaydeehess]

When the final verion is published can we just recycle all these posts or do we need to go through the mind-numbing task of generating 4000 new posts?


Cristopher 7 writes;
It's time to stop hiding behind the words 'preliminary' or 'interim' as if the known facts are going to change in the 'final' report....

....These are known facts from the data in the reports OTers put fourth as their reason for believing that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F.

Seems that Chris feels that the final report isn't even required. Everything that needs to be known is already known.

I predict that once the final report does come out that there will indeed be another 4000 or more posts in which Chris will continue to post the same old tired story again and again in an attempt to make NIST's report look like it has some small holes in it. These small holes he believes are/will be, big enough to drive a truck full of explosives and thermate(ite) through.

[funk de fino]

It was not necessary to re-investigate where the tanks, pumps, pipes and generator rooms were, nor should this data be ignored as you seem to suggest.

FEMA also established that the louvers opened and the fans came on when the generators were running.
Do you think NIST should re-investigate or ignore that too?

They should not ignore anything but they have a duty to investigate things they put their name against.

Look at it like a police investigation, do they never go back and look at leads or evidence thay have previously looked at before. If a new OIC comes onboard do you think he never goes back and looks at the work carried out by other officers to see if there is anything they have missed and needs to be looked at again?

In you world evreything is done correctly first time and never needs looked at again? If that is the case then after the full report is realeased you will have to put up and shut up cause it has been done and dusted.


NIST continued the investigation and determined where the fires were and the time line of those fires.

There are no names listed in the NIST Apx. L report.
Those who contributed endorse their contribution but not necessarily the report.
Do you know who actually 'signed off' on the NIST Apx. L report?

Anyone involved in the investigation is putting their name to the report.

The evidence shows that diesel fuel fires did not contribute to the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC 7

Since the NIST investigation is to determine what caused the collapse of WTC 7, diesel fuel fires should not have been included anywhere.

Then they should not have mentioned any fires or damage that were nowhere near the initiating event at all either?

NIST determined that there was no sign of fire in or near the NE generator room at any time.

If the louvers were open and the fans on, smoke from a fire would be pouring out of the louvers.

If the louvers were closed, a fire would not have sufficient air to burn hot enough to be a factor in the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC 7.

NIST knew these facts.

So they had to mention them, if there was stash of High Explosives in the building, not near the initiating event and they did not mention them or investigate them, the truthers would be up in arms and all over it.

Do you dispute any of these facts?
If so, which one and why?

No, I dispute your whole position. There is more evidence of diesel fuel fire in the building than there is of explosives so if they should not look at or mention diesel fuel then they should not mention or look at explosives.

Your witness statements are suspect, you have no video or sound of explosives, you avoid the silent explosive questions, you expect NIST to ignore things while you think they should investigate things there is not a shred of evidence for, you expect them to take FEMA word for everything they investigated even though in the case of the twin towers they went against the FEMA theory, your shadow analysis was suspect and flawed, your accusations of photo fakery were false and without evidence, you make wild assumptions yet berate anyone else who does the same, you use FEMA when people are discussing NIST.

Your arguments are flawed, contradictory and hypocritical.

[bje]

Single Point of Failure

How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

[Christopher7]

Seems that Chris feels that the final report isn't even required. Wrong

Everything that needs to be known is already known. Everything that needs to be known about the location of the NE generator room, the supply pipe, the fans, the louvers and the location and progression of the fires, is already known.

[GT/CS]

Wrong

Everything that needs to be known about the location of the NE generator room, the supply pipe, the fans, the louvers and the location and progression of the fires, is already known.

How can you justify making an arrogant statement like that if you are not part of the NIST team?

How do you know that everything is known? And since you know everything that is known about the diesel fires please tell us exactly where in the building the fuel burned.

Go ahead and tell us so we can end this thread and investigate invisible bigfoots.

[fezzic]

I do have question that probably was answered but i am to lazy to search/read about right now....

Why was it the pent house that collapsed a few seconds before the rest of the building?
That just doesnt quite add up to me and would a truthers best argument in my eyes.

According to what I understand, it appears that one of the key columns (#79?) on the East side of the building, one of several that supported "large floor areas" had given way. Ignore for now the cause of this "initiating event". It supported one end of the East equipment penthouse.

With the column failed, the resulting structural failure progressed upward to the top of the structure, it would not be unreasonable to expect that the now unsupported end of the East equipment penthouse would also fail and would collapse down into the building. Since the progression involved internal failures, the exterior probably showed less obvious signs of the structural failure than might have been expected.

The issue of what caused the column to fail is what has been contentious. On the one hand there is the controlled demo idea. On the other hand there is the raging, possibly diesel fed fires, idea. Another theory could be that the office fires on relatively low levels, inadequate or non-existent fire protection, and lack of fire fighting caused floors to buckle or deform which might pull the column out of alignment and maybe induce a buckling situation and failure.

[GT/CS]

According to what I understand, it appears that one of the key columns (#79?) on the East side of the building, one of several that supported "large floor areas" had given way. Ignore for now the cause of this "initiating event". It supported one end of the East equipment penthouse.

With the column failed, the resulting structural failure progressed upward to the top of the structure, it would not be unreasonable to expect that the now unsupported end of the East equipment penthouse would also fail and would collapse down into the building. Since the progression involved internal failures, the exterior probably showed less obvious signs of the structural failure than might have been expected.

The issue of what caused the column to fail is what has been contentious. On the one hand there is the controlled demo idea. On the other hand there is the raging, possibly diesel fed fires, idea. Another theory could be that the office fires on relatively low levels, inadequate or non-existent fire protection, and lack of fire fighting caused floors to buckle or deform which might pull the column out of alignment and maybe induce a buckling situation and failure.

It might also have been an inadequate design to begin with.

[Christopher7]

They should not ignore anything but they have a duty to investigate things they put their name against. Excellent point.
They did not investigate the possibility of diesel fuel fires in or near the NE generator room, they just included it in the summary saying:
"The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5."

This is misleading.

The debris impact to the south face indicates the possibility of fires to the SW part of WTC 7,
NOT THE NORTH EAST GENERATOR ROOM!

The next statement starts with:
"The initiating event may have included a number of structural components"

This is misleading.

There are no names listed in the NIST Apx. L report.
Those who contributed endorse their contribution but not necessarily the report.
Do you know who actually 'signed off' on the NIST Apx. L report?
Anyone involved in the investigation is putting their name to the report.
So you don't know who 'signed off' on Apx. L.
'Putting their names to the report' by contributing is NOT endorsing the report.

Since the NIST investigation is to determine what caused the collapse of WTC 7, diesel fuel fires should not have been included anywhere.
Then they should not have mentioned any fires or damage that were nowhere near the initiating event at all either?
MY bad.
The possible diesel fuel fires near the SW corner could be mentioned somewhere in the report but not in the summary as a possible contributing factor in the collapse.

They correctly mentioned the fires and damage that was reported.
There was NO fire reported in or near the NE generator room, NO reason to think there was a fire there and NO reason to imply that there was a fire there in the summary.

NIST determined that there was no sign of fire in or near the NE generator room at any time.

If the louvers were open and the fans on, smoke from a fire would be pouring out of the louvers.

If the louvers were closed, a fire would not have sufficient air to burn hot enough to be a factor in the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC 7.

NIST knew these facts.
So they had to mention themNIST detailed the location and progression of the fires.

They did NOT mention the the fact that if the louvers were closed, a fire would not have sufficient air to burn hot enough to be a factor in the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC 7.

Do you dispute any of these facts?
If so, which one and why?
NoThank you.


Subject shift.
I dispute your whole position. There is more evidence of diesel fuel fire in the building than there is of explosives so if they should not look at or mention diesel fuel then they should not mention or look at explosives.

[BenBurch]

The fires absolutely were fuel-fed. 40,000 gallons of it that had been in an UNDAMAGED underground tank was gone when that tank was pumped out. The clay around the tank was not saturated with fuel, hence the only thing that could have happened to it is that the battery-backed up pumps ran to attempt to fill a Day Tank system that was clearly just spilling it on the floor. There is no third option.

Since the fuel could not leave the tank without the pumps, it HAD to have been spilled somewhere after the pumps.

[Christopher7]

The fires absolutely were fuel-fed. 40,000 gallons of it that had been in an UNDAMAGED underground tank was gone when that tank was pumped out. The clay around the tank was not saturated with fuel, hence the only thing that could have happened to it is that the battery-backed up pumps ran to attempt to fill a Day Tank system that was clearly just spilling it on the floor. There is no third option.

Since the fuel could not leave the tank without the pumps, it HAD to have been spilled somewhere after the pumps.FEMA 5-14
The SSB system had two 6,000 gal. tanks.
[The Silverstein system had two 12,000 gal. tanks: OEM one 6,000 gal tank]

Falling debris may have severed pipes in the SW corner of WTC 7, where the SSB, OEM and Silverstein generator rooms were.

There is no reason to think the double wall supply pipe severed completely at the other end of the building while remaining intact where the damage was.

[funk de fino]

Excellent point.
They did not investigate the possibility of diesel fuel fires in or near the NE generator room, they just included it in the summary saying:
"The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5."

This is misleading.

The debris impact to the south face indicates the possibility of fires to the SW part of WTC 7,
NOT THE NORTH EAST GENERATOR ROOM!

The next statement starts with:
"The initiating event may have included a number of structural components"

This is misleading.


So you don't know who 'signed off' on Apx. L.
'Putting their names to the report' by contributing is NOT endorsing the report.


MY bad.
The possible diesel fuel fires near the SW corner could be mentioned somewhere in the report but not in the summary as a possible contributing factor in the collapse.

They correctly mentioned the fires and damage that was reported.
There was NO fire reported in or near the NE generator room, NO reason to think there was a fire there and NO reason to imply that there was a fire there in the summary.


NIST detailed the location and progression of the fires.

They did NOT mention the the fact that if the louvers were closed, a fire would not have sufficient air to burn hot enough to be a factor in the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC 7.

Thank you.


Subject shift.

Reported for quote mining my post, sad that you cannot even quote the whole post and reply, as usual with truthers it is cherry picked. Conveniently leaving out the explosives again C7? Why is that?

If someone who was involved in the NIST investigation was not happy with the report they can remove their name from it. I dont see anyone who has, so why is this? If your name goes against the report you are saying you are happy with its conclusions and everything contained in it.

A statement about the diesel cannot be misleading if it does not state categorically but says there was a possibility, again you are reading with bias. And why does the next statement make it misleading?

You make great assumnptions make bold claims yet castigate NIST or any other poster here for the same

You are a hypocrite and are not even man enough to confront the lack of evidence you have for your theory while dancing around the NIST and FEMA report

Falling debris may have severed pipes in the SW corner of WTC 7, where the SSB, OEM and Silverstein generator rooms were

Why can you make assumptions like this C7 surely you can see this is misleading by your own standards?

WTC7 was the thing that brought me to 911 truth because some truthers on a music board were getting the smack down with there wild claims and falsehoods about planes, thermite, hijacker being alive etc etc, you know the usual crap bunk. They then showed me the WTC7 video with no sound and no penthouse collapse and I was taken aback and had to go look for myself and research. Well guess what, I went to trutrher boards and debunker boards and then came here. Outcome - this was just as much bunk as the rest.

You have nothing and never will, what a waste of an obviously reasonable intelligence C7.

[Belz...]

4000 posts. Can we end this, now ?