10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

C7, this is what the slide in the update says. Or are you disagreeing this is in the update on page 6?

Your later quote is in relation to this current working hypothesis. It means that the fires that they think caused the initiating event were not fueled by diesel. This does not mean debris damage are no longer being thought of as a possible event cause. Your quote is not the overall current working hypothesis it is a clarification of the fuel for the fires that are part of the overall hypothesis.

Your use of this quote is wrong.You are right.
I skimmed the working hype because i've read it so many times
My bad. Thank you for the correction. :blush:
They have ruled out diesel fuel fires but not debris damage.

[Christopher7]

So it needed to be investigated but not mentioned in the report or at the very least not mentioned at all in the summary. I said it should no be included in the summary as a possibility.

You readily admit, it seems, that there was a possibility of such a fire and that it required investigation and at the same time you are stating that it should not have been in the prelim report's summary as a "possibility".Correct. They knew the only possibility of DFF in the AIE was the NE generator room or mechanical room.
They had investigated the time line of the fires and determined that there was NO evidence of fire in the NE generator or mechanical rooms.
It was clear at that point that there was NO evidence to support the "possibility" of DFF in the AIE.

[funk de fino]

You are right.
I skimmed the working hype because i've read it so many times
My bad. Thank you for the correction. :blush:
They have ruled out diesel fuel fires but not debris damage.

At least you can admit when you have made a mistake, as I would also if the tables were turned, unlike the majority of the CT side. Will you be retracting these claims that were also made elsewhere?

[jaydeehess]

Correct. They knew the only possibility of DFF in the AIE was the NE generator room or mechanical room.
They had investigated the time line of the fires and determined that there was NO evidence of fire in the NE generator or mechanical rooms.
It was clear at that point that there was NO evidence to support the "possibility" of DFF in the AIE.

Incorrect. The lack of witnesses to any fire in that area and the lack of direct evidence of a fire in that area reduces the probability of a fire in the location but given that there is still the missing diesel fuel the probability of a DFF in the AIE does not reduce to zero and it grates when you make these incorrect, definitive proclamations.

The low probability of DFF in the location of concern is what makes NIST disregard it in the working hypothesis.

It is agreed that NIST has decieded that the probability of such a fire is too low to be included. The probability of a DFF in the AIE has always been reported as low. However in the prelim report just how low had not been determined and therefore it warrented inclusion as a possibility in the summary. To not have included it would have been a mistake. Had they not included it in the summary and then later discovered some evidence that the area had been subject to a liquid hydrocarbon fuel fire and then upped the probability that such a fire contributed to the IE YOU would be screaming that they made it up, that they had not said much about such a thing in the prelim report but now needed a diesel fuel fire to make their hypothesis work. In fact in these pages you, or some other 'truth mover' has stated that NIST needed a diesel fuel fire. (I recall it being said and one could search for it but wanna bet how many hits you get for "diesel fuel fire" in this thread!) Now that NIST is disregarding this possibility suddenly such talk goes away.

[Norseman]

In fact in these pages you, or some other 'truth mover' has stated that NIST needed a diesel fuel fire. (I recall it being said and one could search for it but wanna bet how many hits you get for "diesel fuel fire" in this thread!) Now that NIST is disregarding this possibility suddenly such talk goes away.

And so he did indeed:
Actually, debris damage and fire is essential to the NIST hypothesis.

Without the debris damage to the core columns and the diesel fuel fires, the hypothesis falls apart.

[Christopher7]

At least you can admit when you have made a mistake, as I would also if the tables were turned, unlike the majority of the CT side. The majority of people here will NEVER give an inch.

Will you be retracting these claims that were also made elsewhere?I edited my posts at LC and 911 Blogger.

Richard Gage noted that debunkers help the Truth Movement by pointing out any mistakes or flaws in our arguments.

Thru discussion and feedback, he has decided to drop the ''squibs" from future presentations.

I thank maccy for getting me to look at the "squibs" frame by frame and i again thank you for correcting my error.

This is why i like debating here, It's very challenging and educational.

[Christopher7]

Incorrect. The lack of witnesses to any fire in that area and the lack of direct evidence of a fire in that area reduces the probability of a fire in the location but given that there is still the missing diesel fuel the probability of a DFF in the AIE does not reduce to zero and it grates when you make these incorrect, definitive proclamations. Please

NIST has given up the ghost on DFF, why can't you?

The low probability of DFF in the location of concern is what makes NIST disregard it in the working hypothesis.
There ain't NO freakin 'probability'
Only because it is impossible to prove a negative can you even say there is a [remote] 'possibility'.

It is agreed that NIST has decieded that the probability of such a fire is too low to be included. The probability of a DFF in the AIE has always been reported as low. However in the prelim report just how low had not been determined and therefore it warrented inclusion as a possibility in the summary.NIST new there was no sign of fire in the NE generator or mechanical rooms.
There was NO reason to think there were fires there.
It could have been mentioned that there was no evidence to support the DFF hypothesis but to suggest that DFF might be a factor, when the evidence pointed the other way, was misleading.
I am gratified that they have decided to come clean on this issue.

In fact in these pages you, or some other 'truth mover' has stated that NIST needed a diesel fuel fire. (I recall it being said and one could search for it but wanna bet how many hits you get for "diesel fuel fire" in this thread!) Now that NIST is disregarding this possibility suddenly such talk goes away.Without DFF they will not be able to justify their hypothesis that fires were able to heat a column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, to 1,000°F over 4 contiguous floors. IMnsHO.

[jaydeehess]

Please

NIST has given up the ghost on DFF, why can't you?

I do not believe that there is any significant probability that there was a DFF in the AIE Chris. Why do you seem to be saying that I do?

You do not understand the position it seems. How about an analogy;
I do not believe that there is a significant possibility of a human virgin birth having occured 2000+ years ago. However, there is a written record of such an event so I will NOT put the probability at zero. By your logic since there was not even a description of the birthing, only after the fact descriptions, (you have to take the word of people reporting, supposedly, on the claim of two people, named Mary and Joseph, that no copulation took place) you would state that there is zero probability of such an occurance. All you have is second hand testimony and a baby.



Without DFF they will not be able to justify their hypothesis that fires were able to heat a column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, to 1,000°F over 4 contiguous floors. IMnsHO.

Perhaps we should all include a "ns" in that line when we use it.

Shall we introduce differential heating effects? Nope, its been done.
Shear loads? Nope, its been done.
Core damage suggested by the ejected elevators? Nope, its been done.
The fact that in order to remove floor spaces and thus increase the height of a space that this would be done slowly and in a set order and pattern whereas damage to the building would not follow any such safe pattern.

[Christopher7]

I do not believe that there is any significant probability that there was a DFF in the AIE Chris. Why do you seem to be saying that I do?You say there is a low probability, i say there is no probability, only a remote possibility.

Perhaps we should all include a "ns" in that line when we use it.;)

Shall we introduce differential heating effects? Nope, its been done.
Shear loads? Nope, its been done.
Core damage suggested by the ejected elevators? Nope, its been done.
The fact that in order to remove floor spaces and thus increase the height of a space that this would be done slowly and in a set order and pattern whereas damage to the building would not follow any such safe pattern.None of that explains how office fires, burning at different times on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13, could have heated a column weighing over 4 ton per floor to 1,000°F on 1 floor, much less over 4 contiguous floors.

[Christopher7]

NIST L-11
The 7th Floor slab consisted of 5 in. of 3,500 psi normal weight concrete on top of 3 in., 18 gage
composite metal deck, for a total thickness of 8 in. The slab was reinforced with #5 rebars at 6 in. oncenter
in both directions. Regions of the slab on the south side of the building had 8 in. of formed
concrete without any metal deck. In these regions two layers of steel reinforcing were provided (see
Fig. L–13).

NIST L-50
• H2.7 Collapse Progresses: The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of
columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east. The general absence of the Floor 7 slab and
braced frames around the center core column line, due to the presence of elevators shafts,
creates a more likely scenario for the simultaneous lateral displacement of the center core
columns without similarly displacing other core columns. The possible result is a failure of
all the columns at their splices, as shown in Fig. L–49.

The horizontal collapse is based on this FALSE statement.
The slab on floor 7 was thicker and stronger than on any other floor.

[funk de fino]

NIST L-11
The 7th Floor slab consisted of 5 in. of 3,500 psi normal weight concrete on top of 3 in., 18 gage
composite metal deck, for a total thickness of 8 in. The slab was reinforced with #5 rebars at 6 in. oncenter
in both directions. Regions of the slab on the south side of the building had 8 in. of formed
concrete without any metal deck. In these regions two layers of steel reinforcing were provided (see
Fig. L–13).

NIST L-50
• H2.7 Collapse Progresses: The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of
columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east. The general absence of the Floor 7 slab and
braced frames around the center core column line, due to the presence of elevators shafts,
creates a more likely scenario for the simultaneous lateral displacement of the center core
columns without similarly displacing other core columns. The possible result is a failure of
all the columns at their splices, as shown in Fig. L–49.

The horizontal collapse is based on this FALSE statement.

The slab on floor 7 was thicker and stronger than on any other floor.



Where does it claim it was not?

[Christopher7]

Where does it claim it was not?You missed the point.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Floor 7 plan is on pg L-11
Floor plan of 8 to 45. [Same as floor 7]
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8526/wtc7fl8edit4pp2.png

NIST L-50
The text lists columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 but Figure L-49 does not include column 62 which is surrounded by a 8” slab with 2 layers of rebar.
The scenario ignores the girders connecting the center core columns to the north and south core columns, and the vertical framing necessary for the elevators.
Columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 would have to rip away from all this framing or bring it along.

NIST acknowledges that:
H2.6 Collapse Does Not Progress: The Floor 7 slab may fail at adjacent columns prior to imposing lateral displacements sufficient to fail the columns or their splices.

Finally,
H2.7 Collapse Progresses: The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east. The general absence of the Floor 7 slab and braced frames around the center core column line, due to the presence of elevators shafts, creates a more likely scenario for the simultaneous lateral displacement of the center core columns
***without similarly displacing other core columns.***

Even if the center row of core columns were to fail in this manner, the building would not collapse.
They offer NO explanation as to how the rest of the core columns failed.

[jaydeehess]

That is a description of the events after the IE.

Are you acknowledging that there would be lateral stresses on the floor slabs which would put lateral stresses on the columns?

If so then the temp of the columns need not get to 1000 deg before failure. That figure is the temp at which the columns would fail under normal loading (ie. all vertical, on long axis centerline) which would have been the situation in, for instance, the Cardington tests.

The structure of the WTC 7 had been compromised prior to the fires taking hold. Fire on one floor twists a column or sags a floor span altering yet more the placement of loads on columns, then fire spreads to the same region on an adjacent or nearby floor and does the same there, then it happens again. The columns are already hot due to the conduction of heat from the first floors involved and would take less time to reach high temps. Add to this a lateral stress (that had to this point NOT resulted in any lateral displacement) and you have a recipe for failure.

It is quite obvious that no single thing caused the initial fialure but rather a combination of insults to the structure each of which altered the cohesive structural system of the building and at some point there was not enough left to prevent that initial column failure.
THEN the penthouse and all the machinery fell through the building causing more damage along the way and impacting the 7th floor slab possibly causing damage to the nearby columns under the cantilever trusses. If one cantilever truss fails then the next would have to take the load, if it cannot then it too fails and so on in quick succession and the central core of the building falls in leaving the original Con-ed building with the weight of 40 stories on it. It crushes from the south to north(the perimeter columns are still intact) the perimeter columns attached to the north side of the cantilever trusses are being twisted(trusses forced down at the core) and of the perimeter columns they fail first causing the pereimeter to drop 7 stories with little resistence. A 7 storey drop gives the perimeter enough velocity to have more than enough momentum to continue collapse especially given that it has all been pulled slightly to the south (for the most part, where the cantilever section was - western portion) and is not falling straight down.

[Christopher7]

That is a description of the events after the IE.
Are you acknowledging that there would be lateral stresses on the floor slabs which would put lateral stresses on the columns?There would be vertical stress on the floor slabs. [gravity]
This would put lateral stress on all the surrounding columns until the floor gave way.
If columns 79, 80 and/or 81 failed, and a vertical collapse ensued, and the debris piled up on floor 7, the stress would be to the exterior columns as well as the core columns.
The 5 core columns in question were attached to other core columns with girders in in all 4 directions.
Also note that the core columns have splices every 2 floors.
That means the N and S girders would have to break loose from all 5 columns on 3 floors while the E-W girders held. [except the W side of column 62 which was surrounded by a slab]
15 column splices would also have to fail and the vertical framing necessary for the elevators would have to bend.

The floor beams would rip loose from the girders long before all that happened.

[jaydeehess]

There would be vertical stress on the floor slabs. [gravity]

ahh, once again you deny that the missing SW corner and some perimeter columns would have any effect whatsoever on the core. that having floor spans hanging in cantilever fashion would pull at the core columns in the slightest.
Tell ya what Chris, take a 2 X 4 by 8 ft long and hold it horizontal in front of you, and tell me if you have to brace yourself from tipping forward. That's a lateral force Chris.

Then there is the possibility of core damage as evidenced by the ejected elevators which would result in another change in forces on other columns, then there is fire damage to floor spans causing sagging and pulling on columns, then there is fire damage to columns on fire floors which would be cumulative as adjacent floors are also involved.

IE happens and results in damage to the east end of the core braced frame which just happens to support loads above the Con-Ed building

[Christopher7]

ahh, once again you deny that the missing SW corner and some perimeter columns would have any effect whatsoever on the core. that having floor spans hanging in cantilever fashion would pull at the core columns in the slightest.No, I said that the debris damage had no significant effect on the area of the initiating event.
There would be lateral pull to the south and east on the core columns.

Then there is the possibility of core damage as evidenced by the ejected elevators which would result in another change in forces on other columns,True

then there is fire damage to floor spans causing sagging and pulling on columns, then there is fire damage to columns on fire floors which would be cumulative as adjacent floors are also involved.There was nothing much to burn in the core area. The only Floor area was between the elevator banks and around column 62.

IE happens and results in damage to the east end of the core braced frame which just happens to support loads above the Con-Ed buildingTrue

The current discussion is about the floor beams ripping loose from the core girders, rather than pulling 5 columns sideways.

There is an additional problem with the hypothesis:
NIST does not attempt to explain how the failure of the central core columns led to the failure of the rest of the core columns.

[Norseman]

There is an additional problem with the hypothesis:
NIST does not attempt to explain how the failure of the central core columns led to the failure of the rest of the core columns.

Do I need to point out that NIST has not yet published their final report, the only thing they have published is an interim report describing their working hypnotizes. You have no reason to complain yet.

[Christopher7]

Do I need to point out that NIST has not yet published their final report, the only thing they have published is an interim report describing their working hypnotizes. You have no reason to complain yet.People here should stop saying that WTC7 collapsed due to DD/F until the final report comes out.

The working hypothesis does not include a possible explanation for how all the core columns collapsed.

[LashL]

People here should stop saying that WTC7 collapsed due to DD/F until the final report comes out.

The working hypothesis does not include a possible explanation for how all the core columns collapsed.

If that's the criteria that you wish to utilize, then tinhatters (such as yourself) should likewise stop saying that WTC7 collapsed due to controlled demolition until the final report comes out.

The working hypothesis, the previously published interim report, and reality all make it clear that there is no evidence whatsoever to support your demolition fantasy.

[Gravy]

Chris Sarns, AKA Chrstopher7, on not making hasty judgments:

I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see.

You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
And i don't need a engineer to tell me what i can see with my own eyes.

An investigation ENDS with a hypothesis, NIST STARTED with one

We don't need a paper trail. There's enough video and documentry evidence to convict Cheney et al of high treason!

Yes, the photographic evidence is enough for me, and any reasonible person.

This case will be tired in the court of public opinion and the positive social effect will be a major house cleaning in Washington. (God willing)

That JERK in the White house OFFed 3000 people.

This issue will be decided right here on the web, the only place where the truth can be spread.

We don't need another investigation. A little common sense will do.

The MOLTEN METAL could have ONLY be caused by THERMATE.

The fires were NOT near hot enough to melt steel.
Thermate is made to melt steel and is therefore a possibility.
There are NO other possibilities.
End of story!

there were NO FIRES anywhere in the building EXCEPT WHERE THE PLANES HIT.

What doesn't make sence is putting fireproofing on steel box beams that are 2 ft. by 4 1/2 ft. and 4 in. thick. Why fireproof something that is fireproof ?

Only a controlled demolition could cause all 57 exterior support beams to fail at the same time. There simply is no other explanation.

WTC 7 collapsed at free fall speed


The proof that they LIHOP is in the video of WTC 7
The only thing that can make a 47 story building disinigrate into a pile of rubble in freefall is a CD.

We agree that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed

WTC 7 disinigrated into a pile of rubble in free fall

Can anyone site another cause for a global collapse in freefall and mostly into the original footprint ?
So, you cannot site another possible cause.
Thats because there is NO other possible cause.

The 5 sec. video of wtc7 falling straight down is the SMOKING GUN that woke me (and Prof. Jones) from our slumber. Everything else only expands on what i could see and deduce from that short but gutwrenching video.
***

WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

No way could a fire burn so perfectly as to bring straight down a 47 story bldg. in 6.5 sec. (freefall 6 sec.) and land (mostly) in it's own footprint.

Look at this 4 min. video and make up your own mind.
***
My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense

***

Since the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed , this honest expert analysis of the best surviving evidence [the videos] is the best possible evidence of a controlled demolition at this point.
Dexter, Eugene: Have you looked at these videos? What do you think?

**
If you still don't believe that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, look at this 4 min. video.
**
Here's a 4 min. video about wtc7: for those of you who don't have a lot of time.
**
The 4 min video i mentioned has several pictures of a section of wtc7's framework leaning up aginst the building next door. The steel i beams have been cut midspan, this is consistant with a CD.

**
see this 1 min. 46 sec. video of WTC7 side by side with a CD

it should be considered as an alternate hypothesis.
**
About a year ago I saw the video of wtc7 falling straight down (in 6.5 seconds) for the first time. Having seen the special about the Loisoux(sp) family and how they perfected the fine art of building 'implosion', I understand what it takes to 'implode' a building (getting it to fall straight down, thus minimizing damage to surrounding buildings).

I reconized right away that it was an 'implosion' (controlled demolition).
This is not rocket sience. Why do you continue to deny the obvious explanation in favor of the 'official' story that even the govt. admits is not likely.
Just the fact that most Americans have still not seen this video speaks volumes.
Look at this 4 min. video
**
Can you still clame that it DOESN'T look like a controlled demolition?
If not then why didn't any govt. inquiry even MENTION this possibility?

Please view this video and respond. Thank you
**
MarkyX: Did you look at the 4 min. video?
**
Obviously you didn't look at the video because it shows WTC7 and another CD just like it side by side.

Please ...... take a couple min.....look at it with an open mind, then tell me what you think.

**
My conclusions are bassed on the evadence, not on what someone told me.
I have compiled a 4 min video of evadence about wtc7. Please take a few munites and view it.

**
Look at this 4 min video. Can you honestly say this DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?
**
Please, look at this video an respond. Thank you.
**
Gravy: You didn't mention the 4 min. video.
Did you look at it?
If so, what is your responce?
**
I've yet to find anyone who can sucessfully spin this video.
WTC7 looks like and therefore could be a controlled cemolition.
There is NO mention of this POSSIBILITY in ANY govt. report!
**
THE EVIDENCE WAS DESTRIOED
The NIST report is bassed on PICTURES AND VIDEOS
If you are willing to accept their hypothesis bassed on videos, why won't you accept my videos as evadence of a CD

***
Have you seen this 4 min. video?
Or this new video from Italy showing wtc7 and a controlled demolition of a steel frame building side by side?

***
Here's a new video from Italy. It shows wtc7 side by side with a controlled demolition.
**
There are some gaping holes in the 'official' story.
This 4 min. video on wtc7 points out one.
and this 1 min. 46 sec. vioeo from Italy.

**

Did you look at this video that Snakesforbrains provided?
It's just 1 min long. Take the time, listen and learn.

***
Take the time to look at a few of the videos listed on the sites Vector417 posted. I did


It took about 5 seconds for me to recognize that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. It's a no brainer.

Today:

People here should stop saying that WTC7 collapsed due to DD/F until the final report comes out.


Come on, people, when are you going to stop giving this clown the attention he craves and does not deserve? When?

[Christopher7]

If that's the criteria that you wish to utilize, then tinhatters (such as yourself) should likewise stop saying that WTC7 collapsed due to controlled demolition until the final report comes out.Saying WTC7 was a CD does not depend on the NIST report, it is a counter point of view that NIST refuses to acknowledge.

The working hypothesis, the previously published interim report, and reality all make it clear that there is no evidence whatsoever to support your demolition fantasy. FEMA acknowledged that WTC7 imploded and NIST acknowledged that the debris was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.
Videos and photos to confirm these facts.
Since controlled demolition the only known cause of a high rise building imploding, CD must be considered as a possible cause.

[Christopher7]

Chris Sarns, AKA Chrstopher7, on not making hasty judgments:Would it be asking too much for you to adhere to Darat's directive to attack the argument and not the arguer?

The working hypothesis does not offer any possible explanation as to how all the core columns failed.

They postponed the final draft again because they can't get the facts to fit their absurd hypothesis.

Core columns 74, 71, 68, 65 and 62 were attached to other core columns with girders in in all 4 directions.
Also note that the core columns have splices every 2 floors.
That means the N and S girders would have to break loose from all 5 columns on 3 floors while the E-W girders held. [except the W side of column 62 which was surrounded by a slab]
15 column splices would also have to fail and the vertical framing necessary for the elevators would have to bend.

The floor beams would rip loose from the girders long before all that happened.

[Gravy]

Would it be asking too much for you to adhere to Darat's directive to attack the argument and not the arguer?I pointed out, with numerous examples, that you are by far the worst violator of the principle to which you ask others to adhere. Need another example?

The working hypothesis does not offer any possible explanation as to how all the core columns failed.

They postponed the final draft again because they can't get the facts to fit their absurd hypothesis.There you go. 1,600 posts, and nearly all of them in this thread, and you're still whining about NIST's 2004 interim report. That's simply pathetic. Please stop.

[LashL]

nonsensical and self-defeating blather

Well, that was complete and utter nonsense in light of your prior posts. You've clearly lost the plot and are simply trolling, and I am not inclined to feed trolls, so "see ya'".

[Christopher7]

I pointed out, with numerous examples, that you are by far the worst violator of the principle to which you ask others to adhere. Need another example? The working hypothesis does not offer any possible explanation as to how all the core columns failed.

They postponed the final draft again because they can't get the facts to fit their absurd hypothesis.I said the NIST hypothesis is absurd.
I did not attack another poster as you do.

There you go. 1,600 posts, and nearly all of them in this thread, and you're still whining about NIST's 2004 interim report. That's simply pathetic. Please stop.You are talking about me because you cannot counter the facts i have posted.
These facts about the framing of WTC7 will not change in the final report.

Core columns 74, 71, 68, 65 and 62 were attached to other core columns with girders in in all 4 directions.
The core columns have splices every 2 floors.
That means the N and S girders would have to break loose from all 5 columns on 3 floors while the E-W girders held. [except the W side of column 62 which was surrounded by a slab]
15 column splices would also have to fail and the vertical framing necessary for the elevators would have to bend.

The floor beams would rip loose from the girders long before all that happened.

[Gravy]

Time to use the magic forum software to make this thread disappear. See you in August, Christophera7.

[Christopher7]

Time to use the magic forum software to make this thread disappear. See you in August, Christophera7.When the argument is lost and insults and diversion fail, silence the truth.

[jaydeehess]

People here should stop saying that WTC7 collapsed due to DD/F until the final report comes out.

The working hypothesis does not include a possible explanation for how all the core columns collapsed.

Chris, it was your proposing this very arguement, that Gravy attacked.

If his quoting you back at you was an attack upon you then your statement, quoted in this post, was an attack on all other posters here taking the opposing view of the collaspe of WTC 7.

[jaydeehess]

They postponed the final draft again because they can't get the facts to fit their absurd hypothesis.

.

,,, and does this statement have any evidence to back it up? No, it is your own opinion. An opinion biased by your strident political viewpoint.

If it is attacked will you take it as a personal attack?

[twinstead]

,,, and does this statement have any evidence to back it up? No, it is your own opinion. An opinion biased by your strident political viewpoint.

I'm shocked. Simply SHOCKED. Chris would NEVER do that. You take that back, mister!

[jaydeehess]

When the argument is lost and insults and diversion fail, silence the truth.

The evidence is simply stacked against your opinion of what the truth is Chris.

Is there anything new you have?
No?

Has the NIST report been released?
No?

Then there is nothing further to discuss.
Catch ya later.

[Christopher7]

The evidence is simply stacked against your opinion of what the truth is Chris.

Is there anything new you have?
No?

Has the NIST report been released?
No?

Then there is nothing further to discuss.
Catch ya later.Not so.

Floor plan of 8 to 45. [Same as floor 7]
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8...l8edit4pp2.png (http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8526/wtc7fl8edit4pp2.png)

NIST L-50
H2.7 Collapse Progresses: The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east. The general absence of the Floor 7 slab and braced frames around the center core column line, due to the presence of elevators shafts, creates a more likely scenario for the simultaneous lateral displacement of the center core columns
***without similarly displacing other core columns.***

The text lists columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 but Figure L-49 does not include column 62 which is surrounded by a 8” slab with 2 layers of rebar.

Core columns 74, 71, 68, 65 and 62 were attached to other core columns with girders in all 4 directions.
The core columns have splices every 2 floors.
That means the N and S girders would have to break loose from all 5 columns on 3 floors while the E-W girders held.
15 column splices would also have to fail and the vertical framing necessary for the elevators would have to bend.

The floor beams would rip loose from the girders long before all that happened.

Even if the center row of core columns were to fail in this manner, the building would not collapse.
They offer NO explanation as to how the rest of the core columns failed.

[twinstead]

Chris it doesn't help your cause to be so sure of yourself. You are not the end-all of opinion about the collapse of WTC7. You are not even qualified to be in the loop concerning the experts' discussion of WTC7.

Pardon me if I don't consider you of an importance in any way, shape, or form in the investigation concerning WTC7; it's nothing personal.

[jaydeehess]

Not so.

Floor plan of 8 to 45. [Same as floor 7]
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8...l8edit4pp2.png (http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8526/wtc7fl8edit4pp2.png)

NIST L-50
H2.7 Collapse Progresses: The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east. The general absence of the Floor 7 slab and braced frames around the center core column line, due to the presence of elevators shafts, creates a more likely scenario for the simultaneous lateral displacement of the center core columns
***without similarly displacing other core columns.***

The text lists columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 but Figure L-49 does not include column 62 which is surrounded by a 8” slab with 2 layers of rebar.

Core columns 74, 71, 68, 65 and 62 were attached to other core columns with girders in all 4 directions.
The core columns have splices every 2 floors.
That means the N and S girders would have to break loose from all 5 columns on 3 floors while the E-W girders held.
15 column splices would also have to fail and the vertical framing necessary for the elevators would have to bend.

The floor beams would rip loose from the girders long before all that happened.

Even if the center row of core columns were to fail in this manner, the building would not collapse.
They offer NO explanation as to how the rest of the core columns failed.

THAT's your point of contention??!! That NIST(in the interim report) excluded the farthest west column of the line of columns listed in the text, from the diagrams. Yeah, smoking gun there Chris. Obviously it was not as advertised, obviously it must have been pre-planted explosives.

NIST does not (in the interim report) then go on to explain the detail of what came next after the line of core columns were compromised. Gee, Chris, does it take an engineer to explain to you that the cantilever trusses would no longer be supported well enough to withstand the mass above them? They are pulled down and inward at their core ends. Basically those cantilever trusses and associated braced frames, represent a foundation for the part of WTC 7 that was above the Con-Ed building. Come on, you know what will occur once the cantilever trusses do that don't you Chris? The entire structure comes down.

[Christopher7]

THAT's your point of contention??!! That NIST(in the interim report) excluded the farthest west column of the line of columns listed in the text, from the diagrams.The screenwall and the west penthouse collapsed at the same time.[+-1/2 sec]
The west penthouse is over columns 62 and 65. [pg L-13]
Figure L-49 does not include column 62 which is surrounded with a reinforced concrete slab on floors 6, 7 and 8.
The hypothesis does not include a mechanism for the collapse of column 62 and hence, no way to explain the collapse of the west penthouse.

NIST does not (in the interim report) then go on to explain the detail of what came next after the line of core columns were compromised. Gee, Chris, does it take an engineer to explain to you that the cantilever trusses would no longer be supported well enough to withstand the mass above them? They are pulled down and inward at their core ends. Basically those cantilever trusses and associated braced frames, represent a foundation for the part of WTC 7 that was above the Con-Ed building. Come on, you know what will occur once the cantilever trusses do that don't you Chris? The entire structure comes down.There was only one truss cantilever:
L-15 Figure L-18
Truss #3 has a 10 ft cantilever span between column 61 and column 61A and an 18 ft back span to column 62.
It is not involved in the horizontal collapse hypothesis.

[jaydeehess]

Chris, page L-14(bolding mine)

Columns 47 through 54, at the north facade, were transferred at Floor 7 by cantilever girders to bring
them in line with the substation columns, offset 6 ft to 9 ft to the south. The back-span of these
cantilevers was supported by the north side core columns. The eastern most cantilever girder was
connected to truss #1, and the western most cantilever girder was connected to truss #3 (see Fig. L–18).

although the trusses were also on the existing Con-Ed columns those could hardly be expected to support a lot more than they had originally been designed for in the much smaller Con-Edison building. The majority of the load would have been taken by the north side core columns and the south facade columns. The north side core columns relied on their braced frame system to keep what is essentially a 40 storey building above floor # 7 from crushing the Con-Ed building. The horizontal collapse described by NIST in the interim report would severely compromise that braced frame core which in turn holds up the north end of those trusses.

So Chris, if the south end of those trusses tilts then the columns running from them up to the rooftop will be pulled downward. The Con-Ed building and its columns will offer some stability to the trusses north of the core but as the columns under the centerline of the roof give way they are also getting damaged and being given more and more of the load of those 40 stories. Those trusses tilting down at their south end puts extra pressure on the offset at their north end.
The trusses fail or the columns of Con-ed under them fail, or a combination of both. All that is left then is the north perimeter columns above floor 7. The north part of the building, already moving slightly inward now loses the columns under the offset at the north end of the trusses. The north portion of the building essentially falls 7 stories as those columns fail. There is already damage to the south face perimeter columns and even less to keep the south portion of the building from falling.
What is left? The east portion beyond the 'kink'. It has no lateral support along its eastern face, it is subject to the intense vibratrion of the rest of the building collapsing and its floor beams are connected to the western portion which is falling. Can't really expect it to remain standing then can we?

ETA: sorry cantilever girder not truss.

[Christopher7]

Chris, page L-14(bolding mine)
Columns 47 through 54, at the north facade, were transferred at Floor 7 by cantilever girders to bring them in line with the substation columns, offset 6 ft to 9 ft to the south. The back-span of these cantilevers was supported by the north side core columns. The eastern most cantilever girder was connected to truss #1, and the western most cantilever girder was connected to truss #3 (see Fig. L–18).
The back-span of the girders supported the floor and tied the exterior columns to the core columns.
They did NOT carry the weight of the exterior columns.
A girder, cantilevered 6' cannot hold up 40 stories of building.
Although they are not shown, the 6' - 9' cantilevered part had to have angle and/or cross bracing to transfer the weight of 40 stories to the Sub station support columns.
Truss #3 shows how cross and angle bracing is used to make columns 61 and 61a [#not shown] rigid and keep column 61 from sagging.

The majority of the load would have been taken by the north side core columns and the south facade columns.No.
If the center core column row failed, the weight would be transfered to the north and south core columns.
Since this area was mostly elevator shafts, there wasn't a great amount of weight to transfer.

The north side core columns relied on their braced frame system to keep what is essentially a 40 storey building above floor # 7 from crushing the Con-Ed building.The core columns relied on their compressive strength to keep what is essentially a 40 story building above floor # 7 from crushing the Con-Ed building.
The north side
The horizontal collapse described by NIST in the interim report would severely compromise that braced frame core which in turn holds up the north end of those trusses.?

[jaydeehess]

If the center core column row failed, the weight would be transfered to the north and south core columns.
Since this area was mostly elevator shafts, there wasn't a great amount of weight to transfer.

No only a good percentage of the entire mass of the north half of the building above floor 7.

Rough estimate, if the core was supporting 50% of the gravity load and the central line of columns taking 1/3 of that then 17% of the load would have to be transferred to the two other column rows. However stating it in that way would be to invoke a magical method by which those columns simply disappeared. Instead they were pulled out of line. This is a violent rather than magically simple method of removing columns from taking on a load and most certainly would affect the rest of the core very significantly.

This was not surgery, it was more akin to a gunshot.

Above Floor 7, the building had typical steel framing for high-rise construction. The floor systems had
composite construction with steel beams supporting concrete slabs on metal deck, with a floor thickness
of 5.5 in. The core and perimeter columns supported the floor system and carried their loads to the
foundation. The perimeter moment frame also resisted wind forces. Columns above Floor 7 did not align
with the foundation columns, so braced frames, transfer trusses, and transfer girders were used to transfer
loads between these column systems, primarily between Floors 5 and 7. Floors 5 and 7 were heavily
reinforced concrete slabs on metal decks, with thicknesses of 14 in. and 8 in., respectively.

Basically a building constructed on stilts above an existing building, making the system at floors 5-7 the 'foundation' of the 40 storey building above.

Point is Chris that the damage being spoken of directly compromised the "so braced frames, transfer trusses, and transfer girders" that transfered the load to the columns. The compressive strength of a column is one thing but the column MUST have the ability to resist buckling and to that end bracing is put in place. In the core of WTC 7 the line of central core columns were tied to the ones to the north and south and the whole system provided that bracing. Severly disrupt that core system and you lose the structural integrity required to resist the load.

Just why do you think they wasted all that steel in all the bracing from floor 7 on down?

[GStan]

Christopher
Why are you still persisting in this thread? You have proven the points you set out to about 4,000 posts ago, those being:

(1) Evidence for 10-story hole is unreliable, as it is only from eyewitnesses and not supported in photos/videos, because of smoke
(2) There is not enough evidence to prove (or disprove) debris damage in the area of the initiating event, although evidence suggests its unlikely
(3) There is not enough evidence to prove (or disprove) a diesel fed fire in the area of the initiating event, although evidence suggests its unlikely

And even if the evidence did disprove debris damage and diesel fire in the area of the initiating event, none of these points harm the hypothesis that WTC7 collapsed as a result of extensive debris and fire damage. None of these points does anything to advance the theory of a controlled demolition.

[jaydeehess]

Figure L-18 Chris.

That's not a huge waste of steel Chris. Its an essential part of the system that is supporting a 40 storey building.

What would happen if a key component, such as part of the eastern most portion of it, got badly damaged?

[Christopher7]

Christopher
Why are you still persisting in this thread? You have proven the points you set out to about 4,000 posts ago, those being:
Although i appreciate your conceding these points, i would like to reiterate:

(1) Evidence for 10-story hole is unreliable, as it is only from eyewitnesses and not supported in photos/videos, because of smokeThere are 4 eyewitnesses who made statements in conflict with the single '10 story gouge" statement.

(2) There is not enough evidence to prove (or disprove) debris damage in the area of the initiating event, although evidence suggests its unlikelyIt is impossible to disprove but there is no reason to think there was. They have had photographs of the east half of the south side all along. If there was significant damage, they would have said so and published the photographs.

(3) There is not enough evidence to prove (or disprove) a diesel fed fire in the area of the initiating event, although evidence suggests its unlikelyThere was no smoke coming from the NE generator or mechanical rooms.
There is no reason to believe there was a diesel fuel leak, much less a fire there.
There was NO fire reported anywhere on the first 6 floors of the east half at any time.

And even if the evidence did disprove debris damage and diesel fire in the area of the initiating event, none of these points harm the hypothesis that WTC7 collapsed as a result of extensive debris and fire damage.I disagree.
Without diesel fuel fires, there just isn't enough fuel to heat a column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, to 1,000° F, over 4 floors.
The fires burned around the AIE at different times.

None of these points does anything to advance the theory of a controlled demolition.Correct

[Christopher7]

If the center core column row failed, the weight would be transfered to the north and south core columns.
Since this area was mostly elevator shafts, there wasn't a great amount of weight to transfer.
No only a good percentage of the entire mass of the north half of the building above floor 7.No, the north row of core columns were already carrying half the weight north of the column row.
They were designed to handle several times that weight as is customary.

Rough estimate, if the core was supporting 50% of the gravity load and the central line of columns taking 1/3 of that No, the weight of the floors was carried by the north and south row core columns and the 2 ends of the center row.
The center row would carry half of the central core area.

This was not surgery, it was more akin to a gunshot.Actually, it's more like pulling 5 teeth at once.
A gunshot is closer to my theory
.
Basically a building constructed on stilts above an existing building, making the system at floors 5-7 the 'foundation' of the 40 storey building above.You try to make it sound like the designers didn't make proper allowances for the design aspects.
There was a great deal of cross bracing in the lower floors.

Point is Chris that the damage being spoken of directly compromised the "so braced frames, transfer trusses, and transfer girders" The hypothesis is:
If one of the diagonals of truss # 2 and/or the east transfer girder was damaged or severed by collapse debris from the vertical progression, there would be a horizontal force developed in the Floor 7 slab as columns 77 and 78 became unstable.
The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of
columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east.

This would put stress on truss #1 and core columns 75, 76 and 77.
Columns 75 and ..... hold on a minute....
What happened to core column 77?

Column 80 would have to fail at floor 5 for truss #2 to fall the way they have it in figure L-49
Falling debris would have to break thru floor 7 before it could cause floor 5 to collapse.
If floor 7 is gone, there's no build up of debris.

[funk de fino]

I disagree.
Without diesel fuel fires, there just isn't enough fuel to heat a column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, to 1,000° F, over 4 floors.
The fires burned around the AIE at different times.


If you read the latest update it seems they reckon this is not necessary. They point more towards floor slabs moving due to heating causing lateral deflections rather than total failure of a column due to the effects of pure heating.

Do you agree?

[jaydeehess]

No, the north row of core columns were already carrying half the weight north of the column row.
They were designed to handle several times that weight as is customary.

Which can only occur IF the core is intact, the entire core structure is designed to brace each other, remove one row of columns and that bracing is practically non-existant. and given that the initial event compromises the east end of the core's system of bracing and load transfer there is not much left to support the structure's central loads. Sure, there is still a lot of compressive strength left in the remaining columns but a column must be able to resist buckling forces not just axial loads.
Think of a 2X4, you can take a short piece and put an enormous load on it and it will not fail until it crushes straight down along its axis. Make it longer and it still has the same compressive strength as the short piece BUT it will buckle and snap well before you reach the compressive failure load that crushed the short piece.

No, the weight of the floors was carried by the north and south row core columns and the 2 ends of the center row.
The center row would carry half of the central core area.

You make it sound like the central column row was pretty much an unneccessary and did not actually contribute much.


You try to make it sound like the designers didn't make proper allowances for the design aspects.
There was a great deal of cross bracing in the lower floors.

Not at all, indeed there was a great deal of cross bracing and the system was severely compromised. Essentially if you lose the central row of columns you have the north row braced by what? Mostly the transfer girders alone? The south row is braced but only on the south and west sides of them as the central row is pulling them north and the east end bracing is compromised.

The hypothesis is:
If one of the diagonals of truss # 2 and/or the east transfer girder was damaged or severed by collapse debris from the vertical progression, there would be a horizontal force developed in the Floor 7 slab as columns 77 and 78 became unstable.

Agreed;

H1.4 Truss #2 and/or
east transfer girder fail,
columns 77 and 78 fail,
floors 5/7 exert lateral
forces on adjacent
columns




The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of
columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east.

This would put stress on truss #1 and core columns 75, 76 and 77.
Columns 75 and ..... hold on a minute....
What happened to core column 77?

Where's your beef?

H2.7 Collapse progresses
horizontally at columns 74, 71,
68, 65, 62; leads to sudden
onset of global instability


Column 80 would have to fail at floor 5 for truss #2 to fall the way they have it in figure L-49

What?
Truss # 2 connects to column 77 as well which has already failed. What makes you believe that column 80 is in play at that time? What makes you think that all forces on column 77 or 80 or truss #2 would be east-west?

Once again we run into the fact that this is a prelim report and as such contains little detail and simplified mechanisms and Chris uses this to say it had to be other than that way. Sorry Chris but there never may be the level of detail that you seem to require from NIST. Odd then that you are so very willing to subscribe to a contention of CD when there is only a hand waving arguement and really scant detail given by any proponent of such a collapse.

The most detailed of the CD senarios states that severing of "key columns"
would cause the collapse progression seen. Except for the initiating event then this is exactly what NIST has stated and your arguement re: the progression of collapse beyond the IE is moot.

[jaydeehess]

Edit window has passed....
I wrote;

The most detailed of the CD senarios states that severing of "key columns"
would cause the collapse progression seen. Except for the initiating event then this is exactly what NIST has stated and your arguement re: the progression of collapse beyond the IE is moot.

In fact the above follows from what einsteen wrote in another thread.

For this thread in particular I should have stated that the proponents of CD either state that a large amount of explosive was used to sever a lot of columns in sequence, or that only a small amount of explosive would be required. Which arguement is used depends strictly , it seems, on what logical statements the opposition has made rather than on any cogent theory.

The former becomes a moot point in that a large number of loud explosive cracks or booms were not heard thus meaning that no explosive powerful enough to have severed these columns was used. (thermite cannot be used to 'sequence' a number of column failures)

The later requires that only a key column or two be severed but means that the NIST collapse progression senario will have to be very similar, if not identical to any that might get put forth by a proponent of CD.

lex parsimoniae

This leaves us only with the cause of the initial failure to consider. There is scant, strictly circumstantial evidence of the use of explosives. Basically only the few reports of a loud sound characterised by those people as 'explosive'. On the other hand there is very definitive evidence of large fires and very good evidence of structural damage to the building done by the debris from WTC 1, even if there is no direct evidence of damage specifically at the area of the initial collapse.

The final resting place of the debris is a consequence of the center of the building failing first and is not evidence of anything beyond that.

The time it took for the north face to come down is a product of the damage done within the building prior to the perimeter frame starting to move and not evidence of anything beyond that

"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Occam would weep as he rolled over in his grave if we were to conclude that CD is the most plausible mechanism of collapse.

[Christopher7]

If you read the latest update it seems they reckon this is not necessary. They point more towards floor slabs moving due to heating causing lateral deflections rather than total failure of a column due to the effects of pure heating.

Do you agree?No

NIST 12-18-07
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Elevated temperatures in the floor elements lead to thermal expansion, sagging, and weakening that result in failure of floor connections and/or buckling of floor beams.

Note they said the floor beams would buckle, not the columns.

Sufficient floor component failures (connections and/or beams) result in at least one long unsupported column at the lower floors, which leads to the initiation of global collapse.

If the column(s) does not fail, there is no vertical collapse.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
the north row of core columns were already carrying half the weight north of the column row.
They were designed to handle several times that weight as is customary.
Which can only occur IF the core is intact, the entire core structure is designed to brace each other, remove one row of columns and that bracing is practically non-existant.The N-S cross bracing would be gone but the E-W cross bracing and the floor beams would still be holding the N & S column rows in place.
H2.7 Collapse Progresses:
"..... simultaneous lateral displacement of the center core columns without similarly displacing other core columns."

and given that the initial event compromises the east end of the core's system of bracing and load transfer there is not much left to support the structure's central loads.At this point, there is little or no additional load on the east end of the column rows because everything under the E Penthouse has already collapsed.

Column 80 would have to fail at floor 5 for truss #2 to fall the way they have it in figure L-49
Truss # 2 connects to column 77 as well which has already failed.
Wrong. Truss #2 supports column 77 and fails at floor 5 causing column 77 to fail.

What makes you believe that column 80 is in play at that time?
The stick drawing conveniently leaves out the other half of Truss #2 which is supported by column 80.

[jaydeehess]

fur crys sake


The N-S cross bracing would be gone but the E-W cross bracing and the floor beams would still be holding the N & S column rows in place.


So if this would be sufficient to keep the building stable, ask yourself why the three rows of columns had to be braced to each other with the N-S bracing.

Next time you are in a house with a central supporting wall. Knock the wall out and see how the house reacts Chris. Better yet smack out a corner first and a few studs on one outer wall, maybe remove a few floor joists as well and then start knocking out the central load bearing wall. Wear a hardhat.

At this point, there is little or no additional load on the east end of the column rows because everything under the E Penthouse has already collapsed.

Do you propose to ignore that the core also has lost a significant bracing structure at its east end?

The core was braced for a reason Chris. The bracing is compromised and you keep telling me that it could not lead to collapse which seems to be saying that the engineers that designed in all this bracing were fools in your mind, or they were being paid by the steel industry to use more steel than was neccessary.

Originally Posted by C7
Column 80 would have to fail at floor 5 for truss #2 to fall the way they have it in figure L-49
Quote jdh:
Truss # 2 connects to column 77 as well which has already failed.
Wrong. Truss #2 supports column 77 and fails at floor 5 causing column 77 to fail.


Originally Posted by jdh
What makes you believe that column 80 is in play at that time?
The stick drawing conveniently leaves out the other half of Truss #2 which is supported by column 80.

If 77 failed and the east penthouse had collapsed onto the base of 77 then it has pounded truss #2, right Chris? The debris from the east penthouse and the mass of material from 40 floors has come down onto floor 7. Will that floor pan survive being hit and loaded by that debris? Not really likely. When it fails where does it then go? To the floor pan of the 5th floor and onto truss #2.

Why is it Chris that you believe that the building can have a vertical failure from a low floor all the way to the rooftop and have all that debris rain down and have absolutly no ill effect on truss #2? What makes you believe that column 80 would stop this from occuring?

[Christopher7]

Next time you are in a house with a central supporting wall. Knock the wall out and see how the house reacts Chris.There were 3 central rows of columns. The floor slabs were supported by the north and south column rows.

Do you propose to ignore that the core also has lost a significant bracing structure at its east end?
No, the E-W bracing and the floor slabs would prevent the north and south column rows from collapsing to the east.

The core was braced for a reason Chris. The bracing is compromised and you keep telling me that it could not lead to collapse
The N-S bracing in the core is to keep the building from buckling to the north or south. The floor beam connections and the strength of the columns would keep them from collapsing inward.
NIST knows this. That's why the hypothesis says:
"simultaneous lateral displacement of the center core columns without similarly displacing other core columns."

If 77 failed and the east penthouse had collapsed onto the base of 77 then it has pounded truss #2, right Chris? Figure L-49 shows column 77 failing as a result of Truss#2 failing.

The debris from the east penthouse and the mass of material from 40 floors has come down onto floor 7. Will that floor pan survive being hit and loaded by that debris? Not really likely. When it fails where does it then go? To the floor pan of the 5th floor and onto truss #2.Correct, but herein lies the rub.
If floor 7 has already collapsed then it can't create "horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east."

[jaydeehess]

What part of
H1.4 Truss #2 and/or East Transfer Girder: If one of the diagonals of truss # 2 and/or the east
transfer girder was damaged or severed by collapse debris from the vertical progression, there would be a
horizontal force developed in the Floor 7 slab as columns 77 and 78 became unstable.
.................

....• H2.7 Collapse Progresses: The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of
columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east. The general absence of the Floor 7 slab and
braced frames around the center core column line, due to the presence of elevators shafts,
creates a more likely scenario for the simultaneous lateral displacement of the center core
columns without similarly displacing other core columns. The possible result is a failure of
all the columns at their splices, as shown in Fig. L–49.

Do you have trouble understanding Chris?

This states that the debris damages truss #2 which results in the lateral displacement of the central columns. The central columns lacked only the floor slabs that the other column rows had. However the central row ids an integral part of the bracing of the entire core. The bracing at the east end of the core is now compromised and the rest of the core is thus less able to resist lateral forces Chris both because of this loss AND because of the loss of the central columns. The N-S bracing between the two outer rows of columns is compromised as well by the displacement of the central column row.

AND....... this whole section deals with those general senarios which NIST would look into in more detail and you continue to try and look at what they wrote as being the exact method by which collapse progressed.

It is at this point that the preliminary report stops. They have notdescribed what would occur next but it will be the N-S instability of the other core column rows due to the lack of N-S bracing with the compromise of the central row and associated N-S girders. Lateral displacement of the central row of columns could be accomplished without the similar E-W displacement of the outer two rows BUT NIST says nothing about what N-S movement would be open for those two rows.

[Christopher7]

What part of
Quote:
H1.4 Truss #2 and/or East Transfer Girder: If one of the diagonals of truss # 2 and/or the easttransfer girder was damaged or severed by collapse debris from the vertical progression, there would be a horizontal force developed in the Floor 7 slab as columns 77 and 78 became unstable.

Do you have trouble understanding Chris?The part where the floor 7 slab can create enough horizontal force to pull 5 columns and everything connected to them sideways, when it has already collapsed.

[Christopher7]

L-50 [54 on pg counter]
H1.4 Truss #2 and/or East Transfer Girder: If one of the diagonals of truss # 2 and/or the east transfer girder was damaged or severed by collapse debris from the vertical progression, there would be a horizontal force developed in the Floor 7 slab as columns 77 and 78 became unstable.
• H2.7 Collapse Progresses: The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east. The possible result is a failure of all the columns at their splices, as shown in Fig. L–49.

1] 15 column splices, 27 [east-west] girder to column connections and 30 [north & south] girder to column connections, would have to be ripped apart.

2] Floor 7 slab would have to collapse before debris could damage truss # 2 and/or the east transfer girder.
There would then be no build up of debris on floor 7 and therefore, very little horizontal force.
Truss #2 supported column 77 which supported 40 floor slabs.
It was many times stronger that the floor beams on floor 7.
The floor beams would fail first, then the girders connecting the columns.

3] Figure L-49 does not include columns 62 and 80, or half of Truss #2.
Column 62 was surrounded with a reinforced slab.
Column 80 would have to buckle at floor 4 and at the splice near floor 3 for Truss #2 to collapse.
There were NO fires in this area.

4] They offer no explanation of how the rest of the core columns failed.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/618/frameblowupeta5.png

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1120/l49ja3.jpg

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/8439/l49eza7.jpg


Pg L-51 The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis, would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse ...
classic:
1]top quality, the highest quality
2]definitive , a standard of it’s kind
Progressive collapses of the kind in WTC 7 have occurred only in controlled demolitions.
WTC 7 imploded [fell in on itself and straight down - FEMA 5-31].
Building implosion is a fine art. It cannot happen by chance.

[jaydeehess]

The vertical collapse has columns 79, and/or 80 and/or 81 failing first Chris. That has the debris that falls impacting floor 7 before causing the failure of one of the diagonals of truss #2 or the support for truss #1 (east transfer girder) or truss #1 itself.
Look at where columns 79,80,81 are and tell me where debris coming down through floor 7 along their length is going to end up Chris. It will hit the east transfer girder, truss #1 or truss #2 (at its eastern end).
the way you state it you seem to assume the debris has severed all of the east portion of floor 7 from the portion to the west. NIST has not said that and it does not follow from anything else either.
If the east end of truss#2 drops then truss#2 itself is pulling on the central row of columns and the first column affected is 77. Column 77 becoming unstable will add to the forces tilting truss #2and thus pulling on the E-W girders connecting that row of columns.

bolds mine:
Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus
Main Entry: classic
Part of Speech: adjective 2
Definition: characteristic
Synonyms: prototypal, prototypical, regular, representative, simple, standard, time-honored, typical, usual, vintage

[Christopher7]

As always, you put up a thought provoking post.

The vertical collapse has columns 79, and/or 80 and/or 81 failing first Chris.That requires floors to collapse first, something that has never happened in a modern high rise building.*

This part of the hypotheses must assume something that has no president.

[The greater the span, the larger the beams and girders, and the longer it will take to heat them up]

It also requires fires on 4 contiguous floors, burning hot enough and long enough, to heat a column weighing 35,000 pounds to over 1,000 F.

*Windsor was a hybrid, mostly RC with exterior box columns weighing 216 pounds per floor on the upper 10 floors. It cannot be compared to a conventional high rise.
[columns 79, 80 & 81 weighed 8,760 pounds per floor]

That has the debris that falls impacting floor 7 before causing the failure of one of the diagonals of truss #2 or the support for truss #1 (east transfer girder) or truss #1 itself. The floor beams were the smallest members and the beam to girder connection was the least strong.
These would be the first connections to fail

The girders supported 3 floor beams and were necessarily bigger and stronger than the beams. The girders connected the core columns and their connections were necessarily stronger than the beam to girder connection.

The trusses were, by far, the strongest part of the framing at floor 7 because they were supporting so much weight and designed to support several times that weight.
They would be the last to fail.

In other words, by the time the trusses failed, most of floor 7 has collapsed around them.

So what's pulling 5 core columns and everything attached to them sideways at floor 7 ?

Look at where columns 79,80,81 are and tell me where debris coming down through floor 7 along their length is going to end up Chris. On the 14" slab on floor 5 or lower.

It will hit the east transfer girder, truss #1 or truss #2 (at its eastern end).
the way you state it you seem to assume the debris has severed all of the east portion of floor 7 from the portion to the west. NIST has not said that and it does not follow from anything else either. http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/9232/fl7ebs9.png

Good point. For the sake of argument, let's say that column 80 fails and a large part of every floor between it and column 77 falls with it.
The debris takes out the east half of Truss#2 and the floor around it.
The floors have been mostly torn away from the girders connecting 76, 77 and 78.
This debris will land between 77 and 80 so there won't be much between 77 and 74.

However, at this point there are 38 stories pushing down on 77 so the debris is kinda minimal in comparison anyway.
I wonder why they even stressed that point.
This is why i enjoy debating with you. Your questions and observations require me to look at aspects i would not otherwise look at.

78 will also be falling, adding lateral stress to the south column row.
Somethings gotta give. The question is what?

The 'kicker' is that diagonal brace. It makes that box rigid.
T2 will apply force as shown but the connections where the top and middle girders of T2 connect to 74 are not stronger than 15 column splice joints.
The reinforced slabs between the elevators and the NS girder connections will also resist lateral force.

74 will resist the lateral force and 'take up' some of that force.
There will be less lateral force applied to 71 and less yet to 68 and so on.
The hypothesis requires that the girder to beam connection on the west side of 62 break loose while all the intervening connections hold.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1120/l49ja3.jpg



bolds mine:
Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus
Main Entry: classic
Part of Speech: adjective 2
Definition: characteristic
Synonyms: prototypal, prototypical, regular, representative, simple, standard, time-honored, typical, usual, vintage

Progressive collapses are a characteristic of controlled demolitions..
The standard practice in building implosion is to blow the central supports first.
WTC 7 is representative of a typical building implosion.

Although not perfect, given that it was 576 feet high and only 140 feet front to back, it was a hellava good shot. ................. too good.

[jaydeehess]

Yes the 'box' is going to be rigid, and heavy and thus if it tilts at the east end it is going to pull 77 and 74 out of vertical. So your only point of contention then is that the connections going west from there 'should' have failed first rather than all pull out of line.

If so though you already have 80,77 and 74 pulled out of line and the floors above would then be unsupported along that vertical. Now 71 has no eastern bracing and, as I always point out to you, it lost this bracing not in a magical moment but by having it violently torn away. Is 71 still stable? If not then if it also fails then the same occurs to 68 and so on and once again you have horizontal progression of failure within the core.

With the central row gone the other two are going to have no support towards the center. You have created a Jenga structure.

[Christopher7]

Yes the 'box' is going to be rigid, and heavy and thus if it tilts at the east end it is going to pull 77 and 74 out of vertical. So your only point of contention then is that the connections going west from there 'should' have failed first rather than all pull out of line.No
1] If a girder to column connection were to fail, it would be the one on the east side of 74, not the west side of 62.

That did not happen because there was a weaker point.

2] The girder connection in the center of T2 was nowhere near strong enough to break 2 column splice joints and BEND 74 below the 5th floor. It would have torn loose in a heartbeat.
74 [on the right] was a built up column with web plates, weighing 730 pounds per lineal ft.

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/4788/t2esp7.jpg

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7948/nistw28smlk9.jpg

[jaydeehess]

No
1] If a girder to column connection were to fail, it would be the one on the east side of 74, not the west side of 62.

That did not happen because there was a weaker point.

2] The girder connection in the center of T2 was nowhere near strong enough to break 2 column splice joints and BEND 74 below the 5th floor. It would have torn loose in a heartbeat.
74 [on the right] was a built up column with web plates, weighing 730 pounds per lineal ft.

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/4788/t2esp7.jpg

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7948/nistw28smlk9.jpg

If column 80 has failed and dropped the east side of the box and this did infact tear loose the grider to column connection on T2 then it also would likely taer loose the colum to girder connection on at least one end of the lower girder in that box, either at column 80 or at 74.

Now 77 drops. 74 then has all the floors above it in catenary action and pulling the entire vertical length of 74 to the east AND little or no eastern bracing at floor 7 and below. The columns were thick for a reason, they held a lot of mass and to do so they require that the forces be along their centerline. If 77 dropped then it would not matter how thick and strong it was. If it hits the ground it will fail under the mass above it. If it does not then it is simply adding to the mass in catenary action pulling on 74.


Now I suppose you will point out that this is not what NIST said. However we do know for a fact that a vertical progression at column(s) 79,80,81 occured and that is where one has to start in order to look at the following horizontal progression.
Again I will point out that this was preliminary theory and that NIST does in fact state many times in that report that further study will be required. That further study would be to determine would be the most probable sequence of events that would result in matching what was seen occuring on the periphery (sides and roof).

[Christopher7]

Again I will point out that this was preliminary theory and that NIST does in fact state many times in that report that further study will be required. That further study would be to determine would be the most probable sequence of events that would result in matching what was seen occuring on the periphery (sides and roof).Will you now acknowledge that the current NIST hypothesis doesn't work?

It is now obvious that their "T2 pulled 5 columns sideways" hypothesis is not viable.

[jaydeehess]

Will you now acknowledge that the current NIST hypothesis doesn't work?

It is now obvious that their "T2 pulled 5 columns sideways" hypothesis is not viable.

No, not without someone stating that the calculations were done. I don't have the training to do so and neither do you.

Thus I await the report by the people who do.

I have been pointing out that IF things were as you say then the exact progression of collapse could take some other sequence than that sketched out in the appendix L report.

[pomeroo]

Will you now acknowledge that the current NIST hypothesis doesn't work?

It is now obvious that their "T2 pulled 5 columns sideways" hypothesis is not viable.


So, why can't I find a fantasist to oppose Mark and Arthur Scheuerman on a 'Hardfire' edition that will be used in a BBC documentary? Shouldn't you people be spreading da twoof?

[Christopher7]

No, not without someone stating that the calculations were done. I don't have the training to do so and neither do you.Never give an inch.
How much 'training' does it take to figure out that a 1" thick splice plate, welded to a beam, cannot provide enough lateral 'pull' to bend a built up column weighing 730 pounds per lineal ft.?
Come on man, this is not a hard one.

I have been pointing out that IF things were as you say The data and the drawing are from the FEMA and NIST reports.
Figure 5-8 clearly shows that the weak point is the girder to column 77 splice plate.

then the exact progression of collapse could take some other sequence than that sketched out in the appendix L report.All the core columns under the screenwall and the west penthouse failed at the same time [within 1/2 second]
NIST L-33
"The simultaneous failure of screenwall and west penthouse structures,"

A 'progressive' structural collapse in a steel [or wood] framed building cannot 'progress' that fast.

As i have shown, the "T2 pulled 5 columns sideways" is ludicrous.

They offer NO explanation as to how the rest of the core columns failed within 1/2 second.

Their hypothesis is junk science yet you are willing to wait for the ever delayed Half Baked Farce III in hopes they will be able to come up with a mechanism for the observed collapse, other than CD. They were given "Mission Impossible" and they tried to BS their way thru.

When are you going to realize that they keep postponing the final draft because they cannot explain the "horizontal progression" or how normal building fires heated a column weighing over 4 tons per floor to over 1,000° F. on 4 contiguous floors.

[jaydeehess]

Never give an inch.

Unlike you, I know when a full understanding of a subject is beyond what I have been trained for.

I have been pointing out that IF things were as you say
The data and the drawing are from the FEMA and NIST reports.
Figure 5-8 clearly shows that the weak point is the girder to column 77 splice plate.

By that I meant your, " if such-and-such occured then this-or-that did not happen...."

Obviously I accept the drawings and descriptions of the structure.

When are you going to realize that they keep postponing the final draft because they cannot explain the "horizontal progression" or how normal building fires heated a column weighing over 4 tons per floor to over 1,000° F. on 4 contiguous floors.

Unlike you, I am not operating from a standpoint of paranoid mistrust of every and all gov't agencies.
You simply refuse to entertain any other explanation for column failure than a complete heating to total failure.

[pomeroo]

Never give an inch.
How much 'training' does it take to figure out that a 1" thick splice plate, welded to a beam, cannot provide enough lateral 'pull' to bend a built up column weighing 730 pounds per lineal ft.?
Come on man, this is not a hard one.

The data and the drawing are from the FEMA and NIST reports.
Figure 5-8 clearly shows that the weak point is the girder to column 77 splice plate.

All the core columns under the screenwall and the west penthouse failed at the same time [within 1/2 second]
NIST L-33
"The simultaneous failure of screenwall and west penthouse structures,"

A 'progressive' structural collapse in a steel [or wood] framed building cannot 'progress' that fast.

As i have shown, the "T2 pulled 5 columns sideways" is ludicrous.

They offer NO explanation as to how the rest of the core columns failed within 1/2 second.

Their hypothesis is junk science yet you are willing to wait for the ever delayed Half Baked Farce III in hopes they will be able to come up with a mechanism for the observed collapse, other than CD. They were given "Mission Impossible" and they tried to BS their way thru.

When are you going to realize that they keep postponing the final draft because they cannot explain the "horizontal progression" or how normal building fires heated a column weighing over 4 tons per floor to over 1,000° F. on 4 contiguous floors.



You have pontificated for over a year. I am trying to find an inside job theorist to oppose Mark Roberts and Arthur Scheuerman on a show that will be excerpted by the BBC and shown to a worldwide audience. Why won't anyone step up to the plate?

[Christopher7]

Unlike you, I know when a full understanding of a subject is beyond what I have been trained for. I can read plans and understand the T2 detail in figure 5-8.
The stick drawing in Figure L-49 is easy enough for anybody to understand.
The splice joints connecting the top girder to column 77 are clearly the weakest point of the truss.
If the east half of T2 is ripped away, the downward force on column 77 will cause this splice to break.
The splice is clearly not strong enough to bend a column weighing 730 per lineal ft., much less pull 5 columns sideways.
This is not difficult for anyone that can read and understand plans and drawings.

Obviously I accept the drawings and descriptions of the structure.If you have any ability at all to understand what 5-8 is depicting, you would agree that the splice would tear loose or rip apart long before T2 could transfer enough lateral force to bend column 74.

Quote: C7
When are you going to realize that they keep postponing the final draft because they cannot explain the "horizontal progression" or how normal building fires heated a column weighing over 4 tons per floor to over 1,000° F. on 4 contiguous floors.

Unlike you, I am not operating from a standpoint of paranoid mistrust of every and all gov't agencies.
You simply refuse to entertain any other explanation for column failure than a complete heating to total failure.Unlike me, you have blind faith in an administration that systematically distorts scientific documents.

Their hypothesis [not mine] requires a core column to be uniformly heated to over 1,000° F on 4 contiguous floors, and then have 3 floors collapse before it would fail.

[DavidJames]

Their hypothesis [not mine] requires a core column to be uniformly heated to over 1,000° F on 4 contiguous floors, and then have 3 floors collapse before it would fail.You have, in your hands, the evidence to bring down the Bush administration and ensure they pay for their crimes.

It's a very long thread, if you would be so kind as to point me to the post where you describe what you are doing to correct this miscarriage of justice.

[Christopher7]

You have pontificated for over a year. I am trying to find an inside job theorist to oppose Mark Roberts and Arthur Scheuerman on a show that will be excerpted by the BBC and shown to a worldwide audience. Why won't anyone step up to the plate?If i could show the videos of the implosion of WTC 7 and pictures of the debris pile, i would debate Mark and Arthur.

[Christopher7]

You have, in your hands, the evidence to bring down the Bush administration and ensure they pay for their crimes.

It's a very long thread, if you would be so kind as to point me to the post where you describe what you are doing to correct this miscarriage of justice.
^

When i have debated this point about the T2 factor to the point where i feel jaydeehess has explored every possible argument, i will send a summary to Richard Gage.

[jaydeehess]

I can read plans and understand the T2 detail in figure 5-8.
The stick drawing in Figure L-49 is easy enough for anybody to understand.

Granted.

The splice joints connecting the top girder to column 77 are clearly the weakest point of the truss.

Most likely yes.

If the east half of T2 is ripped away, the downward force on column 77 will cause this splice to break.
The splice is clearly not strong enough to bend a column weighing 730 per lineal ft., much less pull 5 columns sideways.
This is not difficult for anyone that can read and understand plans and drawings.

I am not trained, neither are you, to do those calculations. You are flying by the seat of your pants and operating from a standpoint of personal incredulity.

In a test set up of that arrangement I have little doubt that the connections would fail first, it certainly looks like they would. In the case of a real world impulse I do not know what would occur.
What i do know is that things do not always work the way they look like they will. The straw being driven through a palm tree by a hurricane is the prime example. Personally I have seen electronic equipment destroyed by line voltage spikes AND the fuses still in pristine condition. The fuses were designed to be the weakest link! How can an electronic circuit designed to take a voltage or current overload one and a half times the current that the fuse is designed to blow be destroyed and a fuse still be OK?


When are you going to realize that they keep postponing the final draft because they cannot explain the "horizontal progression" or how normal building fires heated a column weighing over 4 tons per floor to over 1,000° F. on 4 contiguous floors.

Unlike me, you have blind faith in an administration that systematically distorts scientific documents.

Their hypothesis [not mine] requires a core column to be uniformly heated to over 1,000° F on 4 contiguous floors, and then have 3 floors collapse before it would fail.


,, and other possibilities are being explored such as the effect of differential heating, heating while under lateral stress or with lack of original bracing.

[Christopher7]

I am not trained, neither are you, to do those calculations. You are flying by the seat of your pants and operating from a standpoint of personal incredulity.The 'calculations' are self evident.
14 column splices are stronger than 1 girder splice.
A W14x730 column is stronger than 1 girder splice.
14 column splices and a W14x730 column are many times stronger than 1 girder splice.

In a test set up of that arrangement I have little doubt that the connections would fail first, it certainly looks like they would. In the case of a real world impulse I do not know what would occur.Yes you do. You just won't admit it.
A single girder splice is simply not strong enough to bend a W14x730 column, much less bend a W14x730 column and break 14 column splices.

Their hypothesis [not mine] requires a core column to be uniformly heated to over 1,000° F on 4 contiguous floors, and then have 3 floors collapse before it would fail.
,, and other possibilities are being explored such as the effect of differential heating, heating while under lateral stress or with lack of original bracing.It still requires 3 floors to collapse, something that has never happened in a modern high rise building or in scientific tests.
It still requires 3 splices to be heated to over 1,000° F, something normal building fires cannot do.

http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe

8) How adequate is a fire safe product rated for (http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe)one hour during a fire? (http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe)Answer: A typical fire burns at around 800°F. As it passes through the building, the fire's intensity changes as flammable items are consumed. Fires usually average only 20 minutes in any location.

[jaydeehess]

Chris the point is we have pretty much exhausted any discussion based on the preliminary report. I have given you senerios that take into account the breaking of the splices at column 77 in which column 77 still fails such as the splice along the bottom girder of the "box" also breaking. Be sure to include, in your paper to Gage, the idea that when the splice on the upper girder breaks it will be quite probable that the splice on the lower girder also breaks. So that , as I pointed out already, would take care of column 77 and leave Column 74 with none of the very heavy bracing to its east that it had before and which must have been there for some reason right?

[Christopher7]

Chris the point is we have pretty much exhausted any discussion based on the preliminary report. I have given you senerios that take into account the breaking of the splices at column 77 in which column 77 still fails such as the splice along the bottom girder of the "box" also breaking.There is no question that if T2 fails, 77 will fall.
The splice at the bottom right of T2 would buckle,
The lower diagonal splice and one of the beam to column connections would also tear apart.
[or the upper diagonal splice]
There's something we both missed.
The combination of the diagonal splice, the girder to column splice and the beam to column connection, would put considerable horizontal force to the east at floor 7.
Resisting that force is the strength of column 74 [continuous from below floor 5 to 3 1/2 feet above floor 7], the column splice joints above floors 7 and 9, the girders connecting column 74 to 71 at floors 6, 7, 8 and 9, and 8 north and south girder to column connections.

Although this scenario probably creates more horizontal force than the NIST scenario, it's not enough to bend a core column weighing 730 pounds per lineal ft., rip 12 girder to column connections apart and break 2 column splices.

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/4499/t2eexj0.jpg

As for the floor 7 slab [between 77 and 74] creating horizontal force as in the NIST scenario.
The floor beams between 77 and 74 ran north and south and were supported by T2.
Only the 5" shear studs studs were holding the slab to the girders between 76, 77 and 78.
About half of the area next to the girder between 76 and 77 was stairwell.


Be sure to include, in your paper to Gage, the idea that when the splice on the upper girder breaks it will be quite probable that the splice on the lower girder also breaks. So that , as I pointed out already, would take care of column 77 and leave Column 74 with none of the very heavy bracing to its east that it had before and which must have been there for some reason right?Right, however, column 74 still had bracing in 3 directions including cross bracing to north and south on floors 5 and 6.

[pomeroo]

If i could show the videos of the implosion of WTC 7 and pictures of the debris pile, i would debate Mark and Arthur.


What would prevent you from showing any videos or pictures you want?

[Christopher7]

T1 & T2 were not there to brace columns 73 and 74 if that's what you were saying. They were there to transfer the weight of column 76 to columns 73 and 79, and the weight of column 77 to columns 74 and 80.
Since the diagonals were W14x890, columns 73 and 74 were probably as heavy from floor 5 down.

[pomeroo]

T1 & T2 were not there to brace columns 73 and 74 if that's what you were saying. They were there to transfer the weight of column 76 to columns 73 and 79, and the weight of column 77 to columns 74 and 80.
Since the diagonals were W14x890, columns 73 and 74 were probably as heavy from floor 5 down.



Do you want to be on 'Hardfire' ?

[Christopher7]

What would prevent you from showing any videos or pictures you want?That sort of thing needs to be agreed to in advance along with the understanding that i can present evidence about WTC 7 and debate that evidence. I don't consider myself qualified to debate the Trade Towers, the Pentagon or Shanksville in and detail although i could offer one or two key points on each.

[Christopher7]

Do you want to be on 'Hardfire' ?Possibly.
Would you post a URL of a Hardfire program?

[jaydeehess]

Possibly.
Would you post a URL of a Hardfire program?

Here's one; Avery and Bermas versus Mark Roberts

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1501073182328817124

You will note that the show is a 1/2 hour format. Thus WTC 7 as the sole subject would give you more time than in this episode in which a range of subjects are only touched on. Showing video or photos before commenting would cut down on the time given to comment. I would suggest that if you are to have video and photos to show then in order to make things move along these should be made available to Mark and Arthur beforehand. You may need not include what it is about the specific shots that you intend to say. That would be up to you and pomeroo to hash out.

[Christopher7]

Here's one; Avery and Bermas versus Mark Roberts

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1501073182328817124

You will note that the show is a 1/2 hour format. Thus WTC 7 as the sole subject would give you more time than in this episode in which a range of subjects are only touched on. Showing video or photos before commenting would cut down on the time given to comment. I would suggest that if you are to have video and photos to show then in order to make things move along these should be made available to Mark and Arthur beforehand. You may need not include what it is about the specific shots that you intend to say. That would be up to you and pomeroo to hash out.I just watched the show. Although the host is an OTer he was polite and both sides had, more or less, equal time. The only objectionable comment was Mark saying that it was reprehensible for Dylan and Jayson to quote Wally Miller. This was just a cheap shot and entirely inappropriate. Mark is free to express his opinions about the facts but not his opinion of his opponent.
I live in California and cannot afford the air fair to NY and lodging. Perhaps it is possible to arrange a teleconference.

[BenBurch]

You would be amazed at how hard it is to be polite to a TMer as it is really, really hard to be polite to liars and/or idiots. Pomeroo gets props for that.

[pomeroo]

I just watched the show. Although the host is an OTer he was polite and both sides had, more or less, equal time. The only objectionable comment was Mark saying that it was reprehensible for Dylan and Jayson to quote Wally Miller. This was just a cheap shot and entirely inappropriate. Mark is free to express his opinions about the facts but not his opinion of his opponent.
I live in California and cannot afford the air fair to NY and lodging. Perhaps it is possible to arrange a teleconference.


Unfortunately, we simply don't have a budget for travel expenses. If it proves impossible to find anyone to champion the inside job theory, we will do two shows on February 26, the second of them a live call-in show. I will post the phone numbers later this week. You are, of course, welcome to call us.

[Christopher7]

Unfortunately, we simply don't have a budget for travel expenses. If it proves impossible to find anyone to champion the inside job theory, we will do two shows on February 26, the second of them a live call-in show. I will post the phone numbers later this week. You are, of course, welcome to call us.Is this a public access studio/broadcast?
How can i view it?
I take it a teleconference isn't an option ?

[Christopher7]

You would be amazed at how hard it is to be polite to a TMer as it is really, really hard to be polite to liars and/or idiots. Pomeroo gets props for that.
There are no bad students, only bad teachers.
Pat Morita

[jaydeehess]

I believe that what Mark was referring to was the use of the Miller quote by Avery. Mr.Miller has gone on record stating that his "no bodies" comments were similie and not meant literally. It is quite clear in Loose Change that Avery and Bermas intended the viewer to expect that the statements were meant to be literal.


But,,,,,,,,, that's not WTC 7 nor whether or not you will call in to 'Hardfire'.

[twinstead]

There are no bad students, only bad teachers.
Pat Morita

You must have had some pretty crappy teachers.
twinstead

[Christopher7]

L-50
H1.4 Truss #2 and/or East Transfer Girder: If one of the diagonals of truss # 2 and/or the east transfer girder was damaged or severed by collapse debris from the vertical progression, there would be a horizontal force developed in the Floor 7 slab as columns 77 and 78 became unstable.
• H2.6 Collapse Does Not Progress: The Floor 7 slab may fail at adjacent columns prior to imposing lateral displacements sufficient to fail the columns or their splices.
• H2.7 Collapse Progresses: The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east. The general absence of the Floor 7 slab and braced frames around the center core column line, due to the presence of elevators shafts, creates a more likely scenario for the simultaneous lateral displacement of the center core columns without similarly displacing other core columns. The possible result is a failure of all the columns at their splices, as shown in Fig. L–49
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1120/l49ja3.jpg

NIST is saying that the floor 7 slab between columns 77 and 74 pulled 5 core columns sideways simultaneously.
For this to happen, all the following must occur simultaneously:
Column 74 BENDS below floor 5 and breaks at 2 splice joints.
The other 4 columns break at 3 splice joints.
Four girder to column connections on the west side of column 62 fail
but the 24 intervening beam to column connections hold.
[62 was surrounded by an 8 inch thick, reinforced* concrete slab on floor 7]
36 north south, girders bend and start to break at column connection.
Sixteen 5 ½ inch thick, 10 foot wide, reinforced concrete slabs, rip apart.**

The hypothesis assumes falling debris took out the east half of T2 and therefore,
the floor 7 slab between columns 80 and 77.
That leaves the slab between columns 77 and 74, to pull 5 core columns sideways.
The floor beams between 77 and 74 ran north and south and were supported by T2.
Only the 5" shear studs were holding the slab to the girders between 76, 77 and 78.
Part of that area was the stairwell and a service shaft.
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/9232/fl7ebs9.png

There’s another aspect NIST did not mention.
T2 supported column 77 at floor 7.
When it failed, 41 floor slabs between columns 77 and 74 were pushing down on what was left of T2. It would fail at the splice joints.
The combination of a splice on the diagonal brace, a girder to column splice and a beam to column connection are not strong enough to do all the damage listed above.
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/4499/t2eexj0.jpg

They offer NO explanation as to how the rest of the core columns failed.


* two layers of 5/8” steel reinforcing bar, 6”apart, in both directions.
**one layer of 6”x 6” W1.4 [5/8”] welded wire.

[jaydeehess]

Chris, has it ever been mentioned that what you are railing on about is a preliminary report?;)

There’s another aspect NIST did not mention.
T2 supported column 77 at floor 7.
When it failed, 41 floor slabs between columns 77 and 74 were pushing down on what was left of T2. It would fail at the splice joints.


,,, and I pointed out that this would also have 41 floor slabs pulling column 74 to the east as they hang in cantilever fashion. Some will fall and come crashing down doing damage to whatever they hit at floor 7 or 6 or 5, or lower. Then there is the aspect of the machinery on the roof. I forget, was there anything heavy up there at about the location of column 74 (no sarcasm, I do forget) If so then this too will be tumbling down through the building

[Christopher7]

Chris, has it ever been mentioned that what you are railing on about is a preliminary report?The hypothesis is still the same and it is not viable.

,,, and I pointed out that this would also have 41 floor slabs pulling column 74 to the east as they hang in cantilever fashion. Some will fall and come crashing down doing damage to whatever they hit at floor 7 or 6 or 5, or lower. Then there is the aspect of the machinery on the roof. I forget, was there anything heavy up there at about the location of column 74 (no sarcasm, I do forget) If so then this too will be tumbling down through the buildingAs i pointed out:

The floor beams between 77 and 74 ran north and south and were supported by T2.
Only the 5" shear studs were holding the slab to the girders between 76, 77 and 78.
Part of that area was the stairwell and a service shaft.

The slabs would have pulled away from the girders connecting 76, 77 and 78.

Columns 76, 77 and 78 collapsed at the same time or shortly after columns 79, 80 and 81 as is evidenced by the 'kink'

This is consistent with both theories.

The NIST hypothesis is reasonable in assuming that the falling debris would lead to the collapse of 76, 77 and 78, but the horizontal force of the floor 7 slab would be minimal and the strength of the T2 splices were no where near enough to pull 5 columns sideways.

[jaydeehess]

We await your paper. The one you will be sending to Gage. Since Gage will be someone who will be predisposed to accept what you write as he reviews it, it would seem appropriate for you to post a link to it here so that those who would be supposed to be predisposed the other way could also review and comment.

I suggest though that you allow for updating it after the WTC 7 final report comes out.

yeah, yeah, its being postponed deliberatly because NIST knows that they won't be able to show that the building could collapse without explosives:rolleyes:

[Christopher7]

We await your paper.
No horizontal collapse

L-50
H1.4 Truss #2 and/or East Transfer Girder: If one of the diagonals of truss #2 and/or the east transfer girder was damaged or severed by collapse debris from the vertical progression, there would be
a horizontal force developed in the Floor 7 slab as columns 77 and 78 became unstable.

• H2.6 Collapse Does Not Progress: The Floor 7 slab may fail at adjacent columns prior to imposing lateral displacements sufficient to fail the columns or their splices.

• H2.7 Collapse Progresses: The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east. The general absence of the Floor 7 slab and braced frames around the center core column line, due to the presence of elevators shafts, creates a more likely scenario for the
simultaneous lateral displacement of the center core columns without similarly displacing other core columns. The possible result is a failure of all the columns at their splices, as shown in Fig. L–49. [column 62 not shown]

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/1293/l49ecq4.jpg

NIST is saying that the floor 7 slab between columns 77 and 74 pulled 5 core columns sideways simultaneously.
For this to happen, all the following must occur simultaneously:

Column 74 BENDS below floor 5 and breaks at 2 splice joints.
The other 4 columns break at 3 splice joints.
Four girder to column connections on the west side of column 62 fail
while the 24 intervening beam to column connections hold.
[62 was surrounded by an 8 inch thick, reinforced* concrete slab on floor 7]
36 north south, girders bend and start to break at column connection.
Sixteen 10 foot wide, reinforced concrete slabs, rip apart.**

The hypothesis assumes column 80 failed and falling debris took out the east half of T2.
Therefore, the floor 7 slab between columns 80 and 77 is no longer there.
That leaves the slab between columns 77 and 74, to pull 5 core columns sideways.
Part of that area was the stairwell and a service shaft.
The girder between columns 77 and 74 was holding the slab to column 74.
It is not strong enough to bend column 74 and break 2 splice joints, much less pull 5 columns sideways.


http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/9323/fl7efo3.png


They offer NO explanation as to how the rest of the core columns failed.


*two layers of 5/8” steel rebar, 6”apart, in both directions.
**slab noted above and 15, 2 1/2" slabs with one layer of 6”x 6” W1.4 [5/8”] welded wire.

Source:
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

[Christopher7]

No horizontal collapse

**slab noted above and 15, 2 1/2" slabs with one layer of 6”x 6” W1.4 [5/8”] welded wire.
Correction:
**slab noted above and 15, 5 1/2" slabs with one layer of 6”x 6” W1.4 [5/8”] welded wire.

Here is a short version:

NIST horizontal collapse hypothesis: 12-18-07

H1.4: ….. a horizontal force developed in the Floor 7 slab
The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east
… simultaneous lateral displacement of the center core columns
… possible result is a failure of all the columns at their splices, as shown in Fig. L–49.
[column 62 not shown]

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/1293/l49ecq4.jpg

NIST is saying that the floor 7 slab between columns 77 and 74 pulled 5 core columns sideways simultaneously.

The girder between columns 77 and 74 held the slab to column 74.
It is not strong enough to bend column 74 and break 2 splice joints, much less pull 5 columns sideways.


They offer NO explanation as to how the rest of the core columns failed.

[Christopher7]

There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the initiating event.
[the failure of core columns 79, 80 and/or 81]

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf
L-38 [42 on pg counter]
I4.2 Unbraced Columns: If floor systems failed, one or more columns may have lost lateral bracing.
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.

L-44
I4.6 uniform steel temperatures of approximately 570º C [1058º F] would result in column failure.


1] Core columns 79, 80 and 81 weighed over 7 tons per floor.

2] Core columns were 2 stories high and the splices were about 3 1/2 feet above the odd numbered floors.
For a core column to fail at 3 splice joints, floors 8, 9 and 10, or floors 10, 11 and 12, would have to collapse.

3] There were fires on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13, at different times in the area where the collapse began.

These fires were not sufficient to heat a column weighing over 7 tons per floor to 1058º F on 4 contiguous floors.

Fire temp
http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe
8) How adequate is a fire safe product rated for one hour during a fire?
Answer: A typical fire burns at around 800°F. As it passes through the building, the fire's intensity changes as flammable items are consumed. Fires usually average only 20 minutes in any location.

[GlennB]

<snip>
Fire temp
http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe
8) How adequate is a fire safe product rated for one hour during a fire?
Answer: A typical fire burns at around 800°F. As it passes through the building, the fire's intensity changes as flammable items are consumed. Fires usually average only 20 minutes in any location.

The SchwabCorp website is the one that Terral uses for all his fire temperature information.

It is at odds with every fire science and fire study website that I've ever read (many) which indicate that an office/house fire typically runs in excess of 800° Centigrade.

A lightweight example : "..although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C..." from http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html
and there are many heavyweight fire studies available on the Web that agree with such figures.

Terral has never managed to accept this. I wonder whether, quite simply, The SchwabCorp website contains a typo that nobody at SchwabCorp has ever noticed or bothered to correct? In any event, I'm surprised you quote this erroneous SchwabCorp figure, as you have clearly done mountains of research into this subject.

[funk de fino]

A recent investigation on the UK Crimewatch program stated that a fire lit outside someone door, in a vestibule area, reached temps between 700 and 1100 deg C

C7, please do not use stuff Terral uses, it makes you look stupid

The fire that destroyed the building across the street from me lasted more than a few hours. The building was steel framed and was a normal office/household items Class A fire. Guess what happened to it?

Using quotes with "averages" and "usually" in a case like 911 is also stupidity IMO. They were unusually large buildings and unusually large fires and were unusually not fought.

[Christopher7]

A recent investigation on the UK Crimewatch program stated that a fire lit outside someone door, in a vestibule area, reached temps between 700 and 1100 deg CGood point
Some 'normal building fires' burn as hot as the one you mentioned.

The fire that destroyed the building across the street from me lasted more than a few hours. The building was steel framed and was a normal office/household items Class A fire. Guess what happened to it?Source?
The building may have burned for many hours but it did not burn in any one place at those temperatures for a long time.

They were unusually large buildings and unusually large fires and were unusually not fought.When a fire is out of control, it is just as hot as a fire that is not being fought. The part of the fire the firefighters can get to and attack will not be as hot but the parts they can't get to will burn at maximum temperatures.

[funk de fino]

Good point
Some 'normal building fires' burn as hot as the one you mentioned.

ok

Source?
The building may have burned for many hours but it did not burn in any one place at those temperatures for a long time.

I have posted a link to the picture of the warehouse collapsed in the heiwa/fire/steel thread I believe. I will link again tomorrow if you want. It is a personal picture I took last week. I can get more pics if you want. It was fought. The contents were household/office items in storage.

The fires in the SW corner burned for hours? No?

When a fire is out of control, it is just as hot as a fire that is not being fought. The part of the fire the firefighters can get to and attack will not be as hot but the parts they can't get to will burn at maximum temperatures.

I'm not talking about temps, I'm talking about your other bolding. Times and location.

[Christopher7]

ok
Salute

I have posted a link to the picture of the warehouse collapsed in the heiwa/fire/steel thread I believe. I will link again tomorrow if you want*. It is a personal picture I took last week. I can get more pics if you want. It was fought. The contents were household/office items in storage. *yes, please
Was it a 1 story warehouse?
The framework designed to hold up a roof cannot be compared to a framework designed
to hold up 40, 5 1/2" concrete slabs and office contents.

The fires in the SW corner burned for hours? No?
The fires in the SW corner burned for hours in the same place, yes.
The fires in the SW corner did not move around like normal fires. ..... incredible
[The fires in the rest of the building moved around as they consumed all the fuel in one area and ignited nearby furnishings]
The fires in the SW corner did not spread to the west face. ..... incredible
[floors 18, 22, 29 and 31 burned out on the west side before 2:00 p.m., and then floor 22 started up again. ..... incredible]

I'm not talking about temps, I'm talking about your other bolding. Times and location.? Please clarify.

[funk de fino]

*yes, please
Was it a 1 story warehouse?
The framework designed to hold up a roof cannot be compared to a framework designed
to hold up 40, 5 1/2" concrete slabs and office contents.

I'm not comparing it in any way as far as load weights are concerned. It was in reply to your incorrect claim of fire temps not being high. The fires would have been easily higher than below.

uniform steel temperatures of approximately 570º C [1058º F] would result in column failure


It was originally posted to the heiwa guy who was claiming normal office type fires do not weaken or deform steel. In this case it was pure heat and gravity that caused the steel frame of the building to collapse and deform. The fire was fought for hours. You can see parts which are still painted that obviously did not have paint burned off have also deformed during the collapse. Columns up the side were pulled in also.


The fires in the SW corner burned for hours in the same place, yes.
The fires in the SW corner did not move around like normal fires. ..... incredible
[The fires in the rest of the building moved around as they consumed all the fuel in one area and ignited nearby furnishings]
The fires in the SW corner did not spread to the west face. ..... incredible
[floors 18, 22, 29 and 31 burned out on the west side before 2:00 p.m., and then floor 22 started up again. ..... incredible]

Not incredible. Floor 22. You made that assumption from a photo when someone clearly showed a video which showed the effects of the wind on how the fire looked at certain times. Dont be misleading here. Your photo fakery nonsense was one of your poorer attempts in this thread along with the magical fires.

Please clarify.

Fires usually average only 20 minutes in any location

I'm saying these blanket statements are not relevant in this case. Average times, any locations. It was not a normal event, nor a normal building, nor normal size fires. I would not describe any of them as average.

[GlennB]

A recent investigation on the UK Crimewatch program stated that a fire lit outside someone door, in a vestibule area, reached temps between 700 and 1100 deg C
Good point
Some 'normal building fires' burn as hot as the one you mentioned.




Christopher7 -
At the risk of appearing rude, your words above appear distinctly weaselish.

That is, the SchwabCorp website you quoted seems to be unique in quoting such low temperatures for building fires. Every other fire science/study/investigation website I have read reports much higher temperatures.

For the sake of clarity and the avoidance of doubt - are you sticking with the SchwabCorp figures or would you like to retract that reference?

[Christopher7]

I'm not comparing it in any way as far as load weights are concerned. It was in reply to your incorrect claim of fire temps not being high. The fires would have been easily higher than below.

"uniform steel temperatures of approximately 570º C [1058º F] would result in column failure"Normal building fire temps may reach 1100º F, but i would like to see the source of the 1100º C. [2012º F]

In this case it was pure heat and gravity that caused the steel frame of the building to collapse and deform.
Source?

The fires in the SW corner burned for hours in the same place, yes.
The fires in the SW corner did not move around like normal fires. ..... incredible
[The fires in the rest of the building moved around as they consumed all the fuel in one area and ignited nearby furnishings]
The fires in the SW corner did not spread to the west face. ..... incredible
[floors 18, 22, 29 and 31 burned out on the west side before 2:00 p.m., and then floor 22 started up again. ..... incredible]

Not incredible. Floor 22. You made that assumption from a photo when someone clearly showed a video which showed the effects of the wind on how the fire looked at certain times.NIST said the fires had burned out. If you want to debate the fire on floor 22, please do so here:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/47142/1/#new

The point for this discussion is, normal building fires don't burn in one place for hours.
They consume the fuel in one area and move on, as did the fires in the east half of WTC 7.

I'm saying these blanket statements are not relevant in this case. Average times, any locations. It was not a normal event, nor a normal building, nor normal size fires. I would not describe any of them as average.That was the only thing i could find on how long and how hot normal building fires burn. It just gives the 'normal' range of time and temp.

There was no debris damage to or near the AIE.
This was a normal event with normal size fires in a normal office building.
Temperatures may have exceed the norm in some areas but did not burn long enough to heat a column weighing over 7 tons per floor to over 1000º F on one floor, much less 4 contiguous floors.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7 -
That is, the SchwabCorp website you quoted seems to be unique in quoting such low temperatures for building fires. Every other fire science/study/investigation website I have read reports much higher temperatures.Please post them.

[GlennB]

Please post them.

One is posted already, above.

Then there's :
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf
a comparison between positively and naturally ventilated fires. See section 3.2 for summary temperatures, but max=980°C and 1050°C respectively, declining at approx 0.8°C/sec.

http://www.marlinbuilt.com/icf.html
"Serious house fires can contain temperatures of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit."

How many do you want?

[funk de fino]

Normal building fire temps may reach 1100º F, but i would like to see the source of the 1100º C. [2012º F]

See Glenn links. Also the one I seen was a fire investigator on BBC Crimewatch program describing afire caused by an arson attack. 700 to 1100 deg C. I take his word over your C7

Source?

Excuse me? That is my photograph of a fire I witnessed. Where my cousin and my friend work, which is literally 20 yards from my work. It is a storage and removals company. Do you doubt me?

NIST said the fires had burned out. If you want to debate the fire on floor 22, please do so here:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/47142/1/#new

Get real. Boost your pathetic slow moving threads with the morons and children. The building above had to have he fire brigade called out again the next day cause it started up again. Go figure.


The point for this discussion is, normal building fires don't burn in one place for hours.
They consume the fuel in one area and move on, as did the fires in the east half of WTC 7.

Not average office building, not average size fires, not average events. You know not how much fuel was in each location.


That was the only thing i could find on how long and how hot normal building fires burn. It just gives the 'normal' range of time and temp.

It gives incorrect temps. The rest is meaningless in this non normal case.


There was no debris damage to or near the AIE.
This was a normal event with normal size fires in a normal office building.
Temperatures may have exceed the norm in some areas but did not burn long enough to heat a column weighing over 7 tons per floor to over 1000º F on one floor, much less 4 contiguous floors.

Blah blah blah. Also stundied.

[Christopher7]

One is posted already, above.

Then there's :
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf
a comparison between positively and naturally ventilated fires. See section 3.2 for summary temperatures, but max=980°C and 1050°C respectively, declining at approx 0.8°C/sec.

http://www.marlinbuilt.com/icf.html
"Serious house fires can contain temperatures of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit."

How many do you want?Thank you for the info.

I would appreciate it if you could post a couple more.

The gas temperatures measured in the room were similar for both experiments prior to ventilation as each fire grew to an initial peak of approximately 800 °C (1470 °F).
Figure 31 shows that maximum temperatures were attained in about 8 minutes and dropped to 400 °C (735 °F) at 16 minutes.
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf

To heat a column weighing over 7 tons per floor to over 1000 °F, temperatures would remain above 1000 °F for a lot longer than a few minutes.

[funk de fino]

Thank you for the info.

I would appreciate it if you could post a couple more.

The gas temperatures measured in the room were similar for both experiments prior to ventilation as each fire grew to an initial peak of approximately 800 °C (1470 °F).
Figure 31 shows that maximum temperatures were attained in about 8 minutes and dropped to 400 °C (735 °F) at 16 minutes.
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf

To heat a column weighing over 7 tons per floor to over 1000 °F, temperatures would remain above 1000 °F for a lot longer than a few minutes.

Ventilation through broken windows perhaps?

Your link said 800 deg F. It was wrong. Look at temps with ventilation. Very high.

The WTC building was on fire for hours. You do not know the exact locations of all fires during those hours.

[GlennB]

Thank you for the info.

I would appreciate it if you could post a couple more.


Want me to come over and wipe your #rse for you too?
I'm amazed you can quote Terral's source without verifying it, so it's time for you to go to school on your own bike. Research it yourself. Put "house fire experiment" and similar phrases into Google. Piece of cake.

The gas temperatures measured in the room were similar for both experiments prior to ventilation as each fire grew to an initial peak of approximately 800 °C (1470 °F).
Figure 31 shows that maximum temperatures were attained in about 8 minutes and dropped to 400 °C (735 °F) at 16 minutes.
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf



Note the critical phrase - "prior to ventilation". "Ventilation" in fire experiments will include such simple techniques as the breaking of windows. WTC7 was well broken, was it not? You seem to be desperately searching for a loophole that will allow you to cling to the SchwabCorp nonsense, and showing your true CT colours as you bury your head in the sand.

[Christopher7]

Your link said 800 deg F. It was wrong. Look at temps with ventilation. Very high.You are right.
That should read 800°C
Schwab is guilty of false advertising. imo
They were right about the time - 20 minutes.

The WTC building was on fire for hours. You do not know the exact locations of all fires during those hours.True
I do know from NIST L that the fire on floor 12 worked its way around the east half of WTC 7 and burned out before 4:45.
This is consistent with the experiment in the NISTIR 7213 document that GlennB posted:
Figure 32 - Natural Ventilation Room Temperatures pg 41 [43 on pg counter]
The fire reaches 800° C [1472°F] in about 4 minutes and drops off to 75° C [170°F] at 24 minutes.
When the window is opened at about 6 minutes, the fire jumps to between 900°C and 1000°C [1652°F - 1832°F] for about 4 minutes.

[funk de fino]

You are right.
That should read 800°C
Schwab is guilty of false advertising. imo
They were right about the time - 20 minutes.

Average times. This depends on amount of fuel. This building was not average. Some of the fires in the building lasted for more than 20 mins in one place. The Fire locations are based on a lot of observation which was sporadic and did not identify all locations or durations

True
I do know from NIST L that the fire on floor 12 worked its way around the east half of WTC 7 and burned out before 4:45.
This is consistent with the experiment in the NISTIR 7213 document that GlennB posted:
Figure 32 - Natural Ventilation Room Temperatures pg 41 [43 on pg counter]
The fire reaches 800° C [1472°F] in about 4 minutes and drops off to 75° C [170°F] at 24 minutes.
When the window is opened at about 6 minutes, the fire jumps to between 900°C and 1000°C [1652°F - 1832°F] for about 4 minutes.

Ok

I believe steel loses significant amount of strength above 600 deg C

If you look at that table the room temp is above 600 deg C from about 200 secs till about 1300 secs. Now this is in a small room with a specific amount of fuel. It may have been more in some locations in WTC7 but it could also have been less, we cannot really say with any accuracy.

In this case the fire has been above the point where steel starts to lose strength for about 18 mins. If we agree that the temps that are reachable in a normal office fire are comparable with this then all we need to be aware of is how long the fire remained in each location around the IE.

This we cannot do IMO. I am not claiming to know any fire durations or locations with any certainty but the fires had enough heat to weaken the columns.

[Christopher7]

go to school on your own bike.Good line :D
BTW: Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?

Note the critical phrase - "prior to ventilation". "Ventilation" in fire experiments will include such simple techniques as the breaking of windows. WTC7 was well broken, was it not?When a fire burns hotter, it burns out faster so the amount of heat released is about the same.

NISTIR 7213 pg 9
The fan caused heat to be released quicker in the PPV experiment, but ultimately both experiments released approximately the same amount of heat.



FWIW: I've had that Schwab quote in my files since Sept. It now resides in the recycle bin.

[Christopher7]

Average times. This depends on amount of fuel. This building was not average. Some of the fires in the building lasted for more than 20 mins in one place. The Fire locations are based on a lot of observation which was sporadic and did not identify all locations or durations Correct

I believe steel loses significant amount of strength above 600 deg CThat is an assumed temp.

"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."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm)

Chapter 3. Thermal response of structures to real fires.
Prescriptive fire gradings and design methods based on heating single elements in the fire resistance test over-simplify the whole fire design process. The real problem can be addressed by performance based design methods where possible fire scenarios are investigated and fire temperatures are calculated based on the compartment size, shape, ventilation, assumed fire load and thermal properties of the compartment boundaries. The temperatures achieved by the connected structure can then be determined by heat transfer analysis. This chapter describes and tests some of the methods available to engineers and designers to predict fire temperatures and heat transfer to the structure.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm

In this case the fire has been above the point where steel starts to lose strength for about 18 mins. If we agree that the temps that are reachable in a normal office fire are comparable with this then all we need to be aware of is how long the fire remained in each location around the IE.Correct

The 38-story Meridian Bank Building burned for more than 19 hours on February 23, 1991. It was the largest high-rise office building fire in modern American history -- completely consuming eight floors of the building.

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.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf


1.1
On the 23rd June 1990 a fire developed in the partly completed fourteen storey building in the Broadgate development.
The fire lasted 4.5 hours including 2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000°C. [1832°F]

4.2.1
The Broadgate fire was introduced in Chapter 1 of this thesis. Structural damage caused by the fire included distortion of a number of trusses and universal beams and axial shortening of five columns by 100mm [4 inches]. The deflection of the trusses produced dishing of the floor of up to 600mm relative to the columns. The concrete floor slab separated from its metal decking in some areas but generally followed the level of its deflected supporting members. Despite large deflections, the structure behaved well and there was no collapse of any of the columns, beams or floors.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm


In the 14 story building, 5 columns had axial shortening.[squashing]
In the 38 story building, the columns did not deform because they were much larger and would take longer to heat up.
In a 47 story building, the columns are larger yet.
Columns 79, 80 and 81 were supporting large floor areas, making them even larger.
Column 79 weighed 7.6 tons per floor.

[funk de fino]

Correct

OK

That is an assumed temp.

Incorrect, this is about steel not buildings


"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."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm)

Chapter 3. Thermal response of structures to real fires.
Prescriptive fire gradings and design methods based on heating single elements in the fire resistance test over-simplify the whole fire design process. The real problem can be addressed by performance based design methods where possible fire scenarios are investigated and fire temperatures are calculated based on the compartment size, shape, ventilation, assumed fire load and thermal properties of the compartment boundaries. The temperatures achieved by the connected structure can then be determined by heat transfer analysis. This chapter describes and tests some of the methods available to engineers and designers to predict fire temperatures and heat transfer to the structure.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm

This is about collapse. I posted about how steel is affected by the temps.

Correct

Ok

The 38-story Meridian Bank Building burned for more than 19 hours on February 23, 1991. It was the largest high-rise office building fire in modern American history -- completely consuming eight floors of the building.

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.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf


1.1
On the 23rd June 1990 a fire developed in the partly completed fourteen storey building in the Broadgate development.
The fire lasted 4.5 hours including 2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000°C. [1832°F]

4.2.1
The Broadgate fire was introduced in Chapter 1 of this thesis. Structural damage caused by the fire included distortion of a number of trusses and universal beams and axial shortening of five columns by 100mm [4 inches]. The deflection of the trusses produced dishing of the floor of up to 600mm relative to the columns. The concrete floor slab separated from its metal decking in some areas but generally followed the level of its deflected supporting members. Despite large deflections, the structure behaved well and there was no collapse of any of the columns, beams or floors.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm


In the 14 story building, 5 columns had axial shortening.[squashing]
In the 38 story building, the columns did not deform because they were much larger and would take longer to heat up.
In a 47 story building, the columns are larger yet.
Columns 79, 80 and 81 were supporting large floor areas, making them even larger.
Column 79 weighed 7.6 tons per floor.

Now who is comparing buildings after ticking off me earlier for it?

Different types of buildings react in different way and neither of those had sginificant damage doent to them by the Twin Towers falling on them.

Then again I do not have to tell you that

[funk de fino]

Care to disagree with my claim that steel loses a significant amount of strength above 600 deg C?

What they are saying is that this weakeining happens but that it depends on loads and fire temps and temp profile. The steel weakens regardless.

Yet you are the one claiming exacts about whether or not the columns would have weakened or failed? You know everything you need to to make these claims do you?


http://web.archive.org/web/20030818132750/http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm

All materials become weaker when they get hot. The strength of steel at high temperature has been defined in great detail and it is known that at a temperature of 550oC structural steel will retain 60% of its room temperature strength (see Figure 28). This is important because, before the introduction of limit state design concepts, when permissible stress was used as a basis for design, the maximum stress allowed in a member was about 60% of its room temperature strength. This led to the commonly held assumption that 550oC was the highest or "critical" temperature that a steel structure would withstand before collapse.

Recent international research has shown however that the limiting (failure) temperature of a structural steel member is not fixed at 550oC but varies according to two factors, the temperature profile and the load

[Christopher7]

Care to disagree with my claim that steel loses a significant amount of strength above 600 deg C?

What they are saying is that this weakeining happens but that it depends on loads and fire temps and temp profile. The steel weakens regardless.

Yet you are the one claiming exacts about whether or not the columns would have weakened or failed? You know everything you need to to make these claims do you?

http://web.archive.org/web/20030818132750/http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm

The site you posted quotes BS476 - British Standards 1989
"All materials become weaker when they get hot. The strength of steel at high temperature has been defined in great detail and it is known that at a temperature of 550oC structural steel will retain 60% of its room temperature strength"

The mid 90's Cardington report says:

Prescriptive fire gradings and design methods based on heating single elements in the fire resistance test over-simplify the whole fire design process.


The real problem can be addressed by performance based design methods where possible fire scenarios are investigated and fire temperatures are calculated based on the compartment size, shape, ventilation, assumed fire load and thermal properties of the compartment boundaries. The temperatures achieved by the connected structure can then be determined by heat transfer analysis. This chapter describes and tests some of the methods available to engineers and designers to predict fire temperatures and heat transfer to the structure.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...cardington.htm (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm)

This study was to ascertain a more accurate assessment of how steel framework responds in buildings.

The tests clearly show that the results of the method used in the 1989 tests were way off the mark.

"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 [I]assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm)


BTW: you can copy and paste °

[jaydeehess]

"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."

They do not state the obvious though do they, that this refers to a standard and very typical post and beam construction, that it refers to a structure with no previous structural damage, that it refers to a structure that had only one fire going at a time , and that it refers to a structure of only a few stories high.

They make no statement of how these tests would apply to non-standard construction, to buildings which had suffered previous damage or to very large structures.

[funk de fino]

The site you posted quotes BS476 - British Standards 1989
"All materials become weaker when they get hot. The strength of steel at high temperature has been defined in great detail and it is known that at a temperature of 550oC structural steel will retain 60% of its room temperature strength"

The mid 90's Cardington report says:

Prescriptive fire gradings and design methods based on heating single elements in the fire resistance test over-simplify the whole fire design process.


The real problem can be addressed by performance based design methods where possible fire scenarios are investigated and fire temperatures are calculated based on the compartment size, shape, ventilation, assumed fire load and thermal properties of the compartment boundaries. The temperatures achieved by the connected structure can then be determined by heat transfer analysis. This chapter describes and tests some of the methods available to engineers and designers to predict fire temperatures and heat transfer to the structure.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...cardington.htm (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm)

This study was to ascertain a more accurate assessment of how steel framework responds in buildings.

The tests clearly show that the results of the method used in the 1989 tests were way off the mark.

"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 [I]assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm)


BTW: you can copy and paste °

FFS man

The failure to collapse means nothing so why bold it? It is the performance of steel. Not beams, not columns. I am not saying it is the critical failure point. Steel loses significant amount of strength above 600 deg C. You know, I know it. You have to cling to this as you tried to cling to your 800 deg F claim.

My site is flawed and outdated yet you use a truther site? Get real C7

At temps seen in normal office/household fires, steel deforms and steel buildings can fail. End of story.

[GlennB]

<snip>
"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."
<snip>


While echoing the comments of JayDee and Funk, I find it massively ironic that - just a few days from your claiming 900°F is the standard - you are freely quoting 800-900° C in defence of your nonsense. And, what's more, for the steel itself, not just the peak air temperatures.

It's the good ol' Truther Tango folks. Jig around till you fall off the edge of the dancefloor. Dear Lord save us.

[jaydeehess]

Fact is that tests will allow the industry to tune their standards but will absolutly never, ever cover every situation and there will always be senarios that prove the engineering to be less than adequate in those senarios.

In the case of the WTC towers it was never anticipated that a large aircraft with a large amount of fuel and flying at top speed would be deliberatly flown into them and even if it had been considered I doubt very much that it could have been designed to withstand all variations of that senario (ie. different floors hit, different angles of attack, different locations accross the floor space being attacked) without at least partial collapse.

In the case of WTC 7 we have basically a skyscraper constructed over a much lower existing building, we have impact damage weakening the structure including evidence of core damage after the impact by WTC 1 debris, and we have unchecked fires on many floors some of which are on adjacent floors and encompassing many of the same columns.

The short story in this thread is that Chris chooses to minimize these facts while exaggerating the significance of booming sounds emanating from a building undergoing collapse and thus arriving at the conclusion that the building had to have explosives installed for it to collapse as it did.

[Christopher7]

They do not state the obvious though do they, that this refers to a standard and very typical post and beam construction, that it refers to a structure with no previous structural damage, that it refers to a structure that had only one fire going at a time, and that it refers to a structure of only a few stories high.

They make no statement of how these tests would apply to non-standard construction, to buildings which had suffered previous damage or to very large structures.
First of all, there was no structural damage to or near columns 79, 80 or 81.

The test building was designed to test how steel members react to fire in a building.
The difference in design and size would not alter the ability of the framing members to carry their load as they are sized, according to architectural standards and building codes, to carry several times their required load.
The only difference is, the taller the building, the bigger the columns and the longer it takes to heat them up.
The same is true for floor beams, the longer the span, the larger the beam.

The Cardington tests clearly showed that the 1989 single member tests were too low in their estimate of 600° as being the 'critical' temperature.
steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse
As in the Meridian Plaza and all other high rise fires, there was some beam bending, and even column squashing in buildings 8-14 stories, but no collapse.

The fires in WTC 7 appeared to be about the same intensity as the fires in the Meridian Plaza.
The fires in the Meridian Plaza were on 8 contiguous floors.
WTC 7 had fires on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13 in the AIE.
Columns 79, 80 and 81 were much larger than the columns in the Meridian Plaza.

The NIST hypothesis requires:
3 floors collapse around a column.
[Unprecedented]

A fire hot enough and burning long enough to heat a column weighing 7 tons per floor to more than 1100/1700° F (?) on 4 contiguous floors.

The failure of 1 of 24 core columns leads to the implosion and total collapse of a 47 story building into a pile of rubble in less than 20 seconds.

[Christopher7]

The failure to collapse means nothing so why bold it?Quite the contrary.
The FACT that there have been NO collapses in modern high rise buildings or in scientific tests means the NIST hypothesis is dependent on an unprecedented event occurring three times.

It is the performance of steel. Not beams, not columns.Exactly wrong.
The Cardington tests were to see how beams and columns respond to fire in a building as opposed to testing single members separately.

I am not saying it is the critical failure point. Steel loses significant amount of strength above 600 deg C. You know, I know it.The NIST report used the 600°C from the 1989 tests.
The Cardington tests showed that beams and columns in a building DO NOT COLLAPSE when heated to 900°C

My site is flawed and outdated yet you use a truther site? Get real C7Your site? Truther site?
They are sites where scientific data can be found.

At temps seen in normal office/household fires, steel deforms and steel buildings can fail. End of story.At temps seen in normal office/household fires, steel deforms but it does NOT collapse!

[funk de fino]

Quite the contrary.
The FACT that there have been NO collapses in modern high rise buildings or in scientific tests means the NIST hypothesis is dependent on an unprecedented event occurring three times.

Because something has not happened before it cannot happen? Is this the best you have? Why do you have to quantify it with high rise? Why not just say buildings?

It matters not whether a building is a high rise or a low rise if they are both steel framed then fire will affect the steel the same way in each dependiong on fire proofing. The difference in temp profile and how they are put together will affect how or when it will collapse but that is not my initial claim is it?

Exactly wrong.
The Cardington tests were to see how beams and columns respond to fire in a building as opposed to testing single members separately.

The NIST report used the 600°C from the 1989 tests.
The Cardington tests showed that beams and columns in a building DO NOT COLLAPSE when heated to 900°C

Ok C7, have a look at this link. Look specifically at BS5950-8 (2003) Figure 2 This is from 2003. Tell me what it says about the performance of steel at temps?

Care to disagree with this?

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/HotRolledCarbonSteel/mechanicalProperties.htm

The use of the British Steel data in BS5950-8 was justified by large scale beam and column tests.

My claim is that steel reduces in strength quite significantly at temps above 600 deg C. I am correct. You have claimed otherwise. You are wrong.

I know you can admit when you are wrong so now is the time C7

Your site? Truther site?
They are sites where scientific data can be found.

You should link to original sites if possible not sites that site only part of somones PHD thesis and not the original tests.

At temps seen in normal office/household fires, steel deforms but it does NOT collapse!



Wrong, wrong, wrong

[Dave_46]

I would like to make a few comments.

With regard to fire temperatures. As a useful rule of thumb, if you can see flames/glowing, then the temperature is above about 800°C. In my experience temperatures reaching 1100°C in a "normal" fire is not unexpected. I put normal in quotes because there is no such thing as a normal fire, they are all different. Perhaps typical would be a better word.

With regard to fire duration. Se my comment above regarding normal fires. I suspect that the twenty minute figure may be derived from the average time for a fire to be burning before it is controlled. To be clear, that is estimation on my part, I don't know. Also, most fires are much much smaller than those in the WTC. Fires that are of domestic size that I have been involved with could typically last about twenty minutes, but I have set some that lasted quite a bit longer than that.


<snip>
"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."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm)

<snip>

I have stated before, the building was not a "simulated" eight storey building. It WAS an eight storey building. (Christopher7, that comment was not directed at you, I realise that you were quoting).

The fact that "no collapse was observed " does not mean that there was no failure of the structure. In the largest test fire, which was awsome to watch (althogh still smaller than the WTC fires) about half of one floor was used. After the test we were not allowed to enter the floor above the fire because of the damage done to the structure. It hadn't collapsed but there was severe sagging of the floor.

With regard to steel temperature.

<snip>
"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."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm)


<snip>

It is impossible to give a fixed temperature at which any steel member will fail. The load carried by steel members will vary, the strength of the members will vary. The safety factors incorporated in the design will vary. Therefore the temperature that a member will fail at will depend on all these factors. As peteweaver posted in another thread

Terral, a material's ability to support load in fire is determined by heat, mechanical & thermal properties of the material and the effect of load upon the material.

You could have a fire at 300 degrees C cause a collapse if the effect of load is great enough, and on the other hand you could have a structure survive temperatures of 1100 degrees C if the load is light enough.

As a consequence of this uncertainty the standard test (in the UK, part of the BS476 series that, if memory serves has been mentioned in this thread by Christopher7) uses a figure of about 550-600°C as the failure temperature. This is to some extent arbitrary, but it is thought to represent a reasonable figure. (I have given that figure from memory, its been a few years since I did this sort of testing)

I have used the word fail, but even this will have different meanings. In the context of the fire resistance test it relates to a specific deflection of the test member, and not collapse.

Dave

[Christopher7]

The FACT that there have been NO collapses in modern high rise buildings or in scientific tests means the NIST hypothesis is dependent on an unprecedented event occurring three times.

Because something has not happened before it cannot happen? There is no reason to believe it happened.

Why do you have to quantify it with high rise? Why not just say buildings?
It matters not whether a building is a high rise or a low rise if they are both steel framed then fire will affect the steel the same way in each dependiong on fire proofing.It matters a great deal because 3 to 4 story buildings have much smaller framing members that heat up much faster and sometimes collapse.
In buildings 8-14 stories, there has been axial shortening of columns and beam distortions but no floor collapses.
In buildings over 14 stories there have been beam and girder distortions but no axial shortening of columns and no floor collapses.

The Cardington tests showed that beams and columns in a building DO NOT COLLAPSE when heated to 900°C
My claim is that steel reduces in strength quite significantly at temps above 600 deg C. I am correct. You have claimed otherwise. You are wrong.You are right. Steel looses significant strength at temps above 600°C, but in a high rise building where it's all tied together, it does not collapse, even at 700-900°C.

[tsig]

There is no reason to believe it happened.

It matters a great deal because 3 to 4 story buildings have much smaller framing members that heat up much faster and sometimes collapse.
In buildings 8-14 stories, there has been axial shortening of columns and beam distortions but no floor collapses.
In buildings over 14 stories there have been beam and girder distortions but no axial shortening of columns and no floor collapses.


You are right. Steel looses significant strength at temps above 600°C, but in a high rise building where it's all tied together, it does not collapse, even at 700-900°C.

Then why spend all that money on fire proofing the steel.Maybe the insulators union was in on it. We are all guilty. Except the twoofers.

[funk de fino]

There is no reason to believe it happened.
WTF??

When the Wright brothers had the first proper powered flight was this impossible because it had never happened before?

When someone first swum the english channel was this impossible?

What about the collapse of the 11 storey buliding in Cairo due to fire?

It matters a great deal because 3 to 4 story buildings have much smaller framing members that heat up much faster and sometimes collapse.
In buildings 8-14 stories, there has been axial shortening of columns and beam distortions but no floor collapses.
In buildings over 14 stories there have been beam and girder distortions but no axial shortening of columns and no floor collapses.

Diefferent buildings are designed in different ways and we know all three buildings on 911 were unusual designs. The fires in these buidlings were also larger than in your usual buildings. In the case of the WTC7 they burned pretty much for 7 hours in different locations. They were huge buildings but they were also huge fires. Those smaller framing members also have smaller loads on them.


You are right. Steel looses significant strength at temps above 600°C, but in a high rise building where it's all tied together, it does not collapse, even at 700-900°C.

Again this depends on the design of the building. Those were specific composite tests. I have seen them also, not just the cherrypicked thesis paper you linked to via a truther site.

You have very sneakily cherry picked my post and missed out stuff you got completely wrong so that you do not have to admit it. Stop being a coward and when you quote me try to answer all the points or retract your false claims in future. If not I will leave you to your dishonesty.

You have no reply to the building I showed you that collapsed due to fire when you say this was not possible? I am going to Russia tomorrow but I can get more and better pictures of this building where the columns have deformed even more than you see in this picture due to fire alone.

The steel is all tied together in low rise and they still fail?

You have no reply to the mace stuff or the later revisions on the British Standard?

No explanation for quoting PHD thesis papers instead of original sources?

If steel cannot collapse due to fires in high rise then why do they apply fireproofing on the frame in high rises? Why not just on low rises?

You were caught out using duff info to support your position, then you tried to cling to your claims and have been shown to be wrong. This destroys a lot of what you claim would have stopped the WTC7 from falling as it did.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by C7
It matters a great deal because 3 to 4 story buildings have much smaller framing members that heat up much faster and sometimes collapse.
In buildings 8-14 stories, there has been axial shortening of columns and beam distortions but no floor collapses.
In buildings over 14 stories there have been beam and girder distortions but no axial shortening of columns and no floor collapses.

Originally posted by funk de fino
Different buildings are designed in different ways and we know all three buildings on 911 were unusual designs. The fires in these buidlings were also larger than in your usual buildings. In the case of the WTC7 they burned pretty much for 7 hours in different locations. They were huge buildings but they were also huge fires. Those smaller framing members also have smaller loads on them.

Then there is the bald fact that each of the collapsed buildings also suffered physical damage before the fires began. In fact WTC 7 was evacuated several hours before it actually collapsed partially because of the concern that it was going to. Concern about the stability of the structure was raised shortly after the collapse of WTC 1. Then the fires went to work on the structure.

Chris's point of contention is mainly that the collapse would not have proceeded exactly as NIST sets out in the preliminary report. It may very well not have and THAT is precisley the reason they stated that more research needed to be done.
Chris also claims definitatively that fire could not reduce the strength of the large columns enough to cause them to fail yet in that completely ignores or minimizes the effect that the debris damage to the structure would have had. In all previous fires, in buildings that start out intact, the load on heated members would be just as designed. That simply cannot be said to have been the case in any of the WTC structures.
Chris states that certain things have never occured before and when shown them to have he ups the ante to include new parameters. The end result of such an arguement would be to state that no identical building to WTC 7 has ever collapsed due to fire. This means that the contention, "this has never happened before" is warrented by the criteria that an identical building to WTC 7 has never collapsed before so WTC 7 could not have collapsed. That is the definition of circular reasoning.

Did the Windsor suffer a collapse? Yes, it did and the only thing that saved it from total collapse was the concrete core which prevented a core collapse such as occured certainly in WTC 7. Would it have stood had the core columns been the same size as the main columns of WTC 7? Chris' arguement would suggest it would. However we also have the example of the WTC towers which did indeed have massive steel core columns and which suffered fires closer to the top of the building than was experienced by WTC 7 and they certainly did collapse.

We do not have an identical building to WTC 7 to compare to. We do however have the Windsor and the towers that we can take certain lessons from as well as the many examples of other steel structures that have suffered complete collapse even with no prior physical damage, such as the Kader Toy factory.

Has it never happened before? Not exactly as occured in Manhattan on Sept 11/01, but other incidents point to a confluence of insults to the structures involved being able to cause it to happen. The frank fact of these cases is that the events that caused the collapses of 3 of the WTC structures have never come together before. What is also shown is that other WTC structures that suffered similar or worse debris damage and or similar fires did not collapse but were so badly damaged that they had to be pulled down. That they were considered too dangerous to even enter to place explosives in them. They were, basically in danger of collapsing spontaneously many days/weeks after Sept. 11/01. This is also true of the Windsor despite its robust concrete core columns.

[Christopher7]

Then why spend all that money on fire proofing the steel.Good question
The Cardington tests showed that high rise buildings were using more fireproofing than was necessary.

1.1 Background to the project

Fire safety engineers are concerned first and foremost with life safety not only of the occupants of a building but also the fire service. The aim of structural fire engineering design is to ensure that structures do not collapse when subjected to high temperatures in fire. Traditional prescriptive methods of design based on fire resistance testing, require steel elements of construction to stay below a critical temperature, typically 550°C, for the fire resistance period of the structure. This has led to extensive use of passive fire protection to limit the heating of the structural elements (boards, sprays and intumescents) at considerable cost (up to 20% of the total construction cost).

It has been acknowledged for many years that the failure of determinate structures in the fire resistance furnace bears little resemblance to the failure of similar elements as part of a highly redundant frame. However the fire resistance test has a history of safety albeit not based on scientific reasoning.

Design of structures for fire still relies on single element behaviour in the fire resistance test. The future of structural fire design has to be evaluated in terms of the whole performance based design of structures for fire. This should include natural fire exposures, heat transfer calculations and whole frame structural behaviour, recognising the interaction of all elements of the structure in the region of the fire and any cooler elements outside the boundary of the compartment.

The beginnings of change started after evidence from real fires suggested that the contributions of modern steel deck composite floor systems were under utilised when designing for the fire limit state.

On the 23rd June 1990 a fire developed in the partly completed fourteen storey building in the Broadgate development. [115] The fire began in a large contractors hut on the first floor and smoke spread undetected throughout the building. The fire detection and sprinkler system were not yet operational out of working hours.

The fire lasted 4.5 hours including 2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000°C. The direct fire loss was in excess of �25 million however, only a fraction of the cost (�2 million) represented structural frame and floor damage. The major damage was to the building fabric as a result of smoke. Moreover, the structural repairs after the fire took only 30 days. The structure of the building was a steel frame with composite steel deck concrete floors and was only partially protected at this stage of construction. During and after the fire, despite large deflections in the elements exposed to fire, the structure behaved well and there was no collapse of any of the columns, beams or floors. [115] The Broadgate phase 8 fire was the first opportunity to examine the influence of fire on the structural behaviour of a modern fast track steel framed building with composite construction.

[funk de fino]

Was the broadgate building a tube within a tube design?

Did it have a electrical station below it and cantilever elements?

[GlennB]

A report into The Broadgate, Cardington and other fire experiences :
http://guardian.150m.com/fire/small/cardington.htm
is a fascinating document and well worth a read, containing as it does a wealth of fire data and major building fire reports.

Wish I'd found it earlier, as it would have quickly shut up some CT fools who like to quote a max 900°F for persistent building fire temperatures.

But, back to the point, was Broadgate a 47-storey building of unusual design? Was it subject to full static load? Was there incidental impact damage? Was the fire fought?

You really are grasping at straws Chris7, and you seek to move the goalposts on an almost daily basis.

[Christopher7]

When the Wright brothers had the first proper powered flight was this impossible because it had never happened before?
When someone first swum the english channel was this impossible?Impossible? I said "There is no reason to believe it happened."

What about the collapse of the 11 storey buliding in Cairo due to fire?
A low rise building in a country with lax building codes that are often ignored. Like the toy factory in Thailand, it was substandard.

Diefferent buildings are designed in different ways and we know all three buildings on 911 were unusual designs. The fires in these buidlings were also larger than in your usual buildings.
In the case of the WTC7 they burned pretty much for 7 hours in different locations. They were huge buildings but they were also huge fires. The fires in WTC 7 were not as large as the fires in the Caracus Tower.
The fires in the east half of WTC 7 appeared to be about the same intensity as the fires in the Meridian Plaza which burned for 19 hours.

Those smaller framing members also have smaller loads on them.
Right. High rise buildings are built more robust and redundant.

You are right. Steel looses significant strength at temps above 600°C, but in a high rise building where it's all tied together, it does not collapse, even at 700-900°C.
Again this depends on the design of the building.The core and perimeter frame design requires larger framing members which take longer to heat up.

Those were specific composite tests. I have seen them also, not just the cherrypicked thesis paper you linked to via a truther site.Here's the same report from a 'non-truther' site.
http://guardian.150m.com/fire/small/cardington.htm
The 'truther' site is a mirror of this site.
Do you know of any other relevant studies? The Manchester paper you referred to was based on a 1988 study.

You have very sneakily cherry picked my post and missed out stuff you got completely wrong What did i get wrong?

You have no reply to the building I showed you that collapsed due to fire when you say this was not possible?Show me where i said that.

I am going to Russia tomorrow but I can get more and better pictures of this building where the columns have deformed even more than you see in this picture due to fire alone.It was a 3 story building.
Bon Voyage

The steel is all tied together in low rise and they still fail?The steel is much smaller and lighter.

No explanation for quoting PHD thesis papers instead of original sources?Here's the Main Report, June 2000.

"Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments."
http://www.civ.ed.ac.uk/research/fire/public_html/Cardington/main.pdf

details
http://www.civ.ed.ac.uk/research/fire/cardington.html

You were caught out using duff info to support your position, then you tried to cling to your claims and have been shown to be wrong. Where?

[Dave_46]

Good question
The Cardington tests showed that high rise buildings were using more fireproofing than was necessary.
<snip>


The construction of the Cardington building was very different from the WTC towers, and, I suspect, building 7. It was erected in the mid 90's to represent what was then current construction practice. Conclusions about fire protection (not fire proofing please) would not necessarily be applicable to older structures.

<snip>
It has been acknowledged for many years that the failure of determinate structures in the fire resistance furnace bears little resemblance to the failure of similar elements as part of a highly redundant frame. However the fire resistance test has a history of safety albeit not based on scientific reasoning.

<snip>

I commented on the fire resisance test in post 4370. As I wrote in that post, failure of a test specimen in a fire resistance test does not mean collapse (although collapse would, of course, be counted as failure. Fire resistance test failure is typically due to deflection beyond a set limit, or excessive temperature of steel members.



<snip>
On the 23rd June 1990 a fire developed in the partly completed fourteen storey building in the Broadgate development. [115] The fire began in a large contractors hut on the first floor and smoke spread undetected throughout the building. The fire detection and sprinkler system were not yet operational out of working hours.

The fire lasted 4.5 hours including 2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000°C. The direct fire loss was in excess of �25 million however, only a fraction of the cost (�2 million) represented structural frame and floor damage. The major damage was to the building fabric as a result of smoke. Moreover, the structural repairs after the fire took only 30 days. The structure of the building was a steel frame with composite steel deck concrete floors and was only partially protected at this stage of construction. During and after the fire, despite large deflections in the elements exposed to fire, the structure behaved well and there was no collapse of any of the columns, beams or floors. [115] The Broadgate phase 8 fire was the first opportunity to examine the influence of fire on the structural behaviour of a modern fast track steel framed building with composite construction.


A thought or two about the Broadgate fire, from the paragraphs presented.

The fire was in a "partly completed" building, so the fire load would be minimal. The fire was in a contractors hut, which evidently burned as would be expected, with temperatures exceeding 1000°C (surprise surprise). The fire was evidently undetected for some time, but the fire damage was restricted, probably because of the restricted fire load. Had there been a large fire load, then the fire would have been more severe, and it is likely that the fire would have been detected earlier. The use of the 4.5 hour duration figure is therefore misleading regarding the severity of the fire. From personal experience of fires, I would also doubt the "2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000°C" statement, if the fire was in "a large contractors hut" (I have been involved in test fires on this sort of construction). It seems unlikely to me that a fire in a contractors hut, even a large one would last for so long at that temperature.

The account presented says that the major damage was from smoke, which I think is quite normal. Smoke damage is also easier (cheaper) to clean up in a building under construction than one which is occupied.

I will also note that the composite steel deck is what, in itself, provides the fire resistance separation between floors.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

A low rise building in a country with lax building codes that are often ignored. Like the toy factory in Thailand, it was substandard.

Interestingly enough, the Kader toy factory was substandard/in violation of code in two ways. One was a lack of fire escapes, which undoubtably increased the number of people killed but can't have had any bearing on the collapse. The other was that the building was steel framed, when local building codes called for all buildings of that height to be concrete framed because of the vulnerability of steel to fire-induced collapse. It's possible that may be relevant.

Dave

[Christopher7]

Interestingly enough, the Kader toy factory was substandard/in violation of code in two ways. One was a lack of fire escapes, which undoubtably increased the number of people killed but can't have had any bearing on the collapse. The other was that the building was steel framed, when local building codes called for all buildings of that height to be concrete framed because of the vulnerability of steel to fire-induced collapse. It's possible that may be relevant.

Dave
It was a 3 story building.
funk de fino posted a picture of a 3 story building that had collapsed here in the US.
The columns were much smaller than the columns in a skyscraper or even a 14 story building.

The columns in a 3 story building have been known to collapse.
The columns in 8-14 story buildings have been known to 'squash' but not collapse.
The columns in skyscrapers [buildings over 400'] do not collapse or 'squash', even in severe conditions.
The larger the column, the more impervious it is to fire.
The columns in the AIE weighed over 7 tons per floor.

[DGM]

It was a 3 story building.
funk de fino posted a picture of a 3 story building that had collapsed here in the US.
The columns were much smaller than the columns in a skyscraper or even a 14 story building.

The columns in a 3 story building have been known to collapse.
The columns in 8-14 story buildings have been known to 'squash' but not collapse.
The columns in skyscrapers [buildings over 400'] do not collapse or 'squash', even in severe conditions.
The larger the column, the more impervious it is to fire.
The columns in the AIE weighed over 7 tons per floor.
Chris:
You need to take a break your not making any sense. What happens to the columns is all about load, Size in this case has no bearing.

[Christopher7]

Chris:
What happens to the columns is all about load, Size in this case has no bearing.Wrong

Loads being roughly proportional, a small column and a large column will fail at the about same temperature.
However, the larger the column, the l o n g e r it takes to heat that column up.
In real world events, 3 story steel framed buildings have collapsed.
In real world events and scientific tests, beams and columns in 8-14 story buildings have distorted but did not collapse because they are larger than the columns in a 3 story building.
In real world fires in buildings over 14 stories, there has been no column distortion and no beam or column collapse because they are larger yet.
Normal building fires simply can't burn anywhere near long enough to heat a column weighing over 7 tons per floor to 1100°F.
[In the Cardington tests, steel temperatures of 1700°F did not result in collapse]

[funk de fino]

It was a 3 story building.
funk de fino posted a picture of a 3 story building that had collapsed here in the US.
The columns were much smaller than the columns in a skyscraper or even a 14 story building.

The columns in a 3 story building have been known to collapse.
The columns in 8-14 story buildings have been known to 'squash' but not collapse.
The columns in skyscrapers [buildings over 400'] do not collapse or 'squash', even in severe conditions.
The larger the column, the more impervious it is to fire.
The columns in the AIE weighed over 7 tons per floor.

Jesus C7

It was a warehouse it was not a three storey building. The Steel frame collapsed due to heat from the fire. There was no load on the top apart from corrogated roof sections. The coulmns did not just sqaush they deformed considerably.

It was also not in America. It was next to my work, I am not from America as I have said many times.

You make grandoise claims like "steel does not collapse when tied together" but then move the goalposts when you are shown one that did.

You also deny the 11 storey building collapsing as a low rise. Changing as you go along.

Think about your larger columns = larger fires
Think about larger fires = Longer fires

The British standards I mentione earlier was newer than the 1988 study and i even linked this to you and you ignored and said 550 deg C was assumed because of a slightly later study. The 2003 BS is later than this.

[Dave Rogers]

The columns in a 3 story building have been known to collapse.
The columns in 8-14 story buildings have been known to 'squash' but not collapse.
The columns in skyscrapers [buildings over 400'] do not collapse or 'squash', even in severe conditions.

Are you seriously trying to support a line of argument with the unsupported assertion that the taller a building is, the less likely it is to collapse?

Dave

[Christopher7]

Jesus C7

It was a warehouse it was not a three storey building. The Steel frame collapsed due to heat from the fire. There was no load on the top apart from corrogated roof sections. The coulmns did not just sqaush they deformed considerably.Whatever, it was not a high rise building.

It was also not in America. It was next to my work, I am not from America as I have said many times.Where do you live. Transylvania?

You make grandoise claims like "steel does not collapse when tied together" but then move the goalposts when you are shown one that did.The Cardington report said that.

You also deny the 11 storey building collapsing as a low rise. Changing as you go along.What 11 story building? Was that the one in Egypt?

Think about your larger columns = larger fires???
Larger columns do not = larger fires.
Think about larger fires = Longer fires
Fires that burn faster burn out sooner, releasing about the same amount of heat.

The British standards I mentione earlier was newer than the 1988 study and i even linked this to you and you ignored and said 550 deg C was assumed because of a slightly later study. The 2003 BS is later than this.The URL you posted was written in 2003 but it is based a 1988 study.
In any case, it in no way refutes the Cardington test results.

BTW: My first name is not Jesus

[Christopher7]

Are you seriously trying to support a line of argument with the unsupported assertion that the taller a building is, the less likely it is to collapse?

DaveYou seem to be having difficulty grasping the concept that a steel column weighing 15,000 pounds per floor, will take much longer to heat up than a column weighing 1,000 pounds per floor.
It's all about the transfer of BTU's.
To put it in layman's terms, it takes longer to cook a 20 pound turkey that it does to cook a 12 pound turkey.

[funk de fino]

Whatever, it was not a high rise building.

And the steel frame collapsed due to normal office fires even though it was tied together

Where do you live. Transylvania?

Close, Scotland although I am in Siberia today

The Cardington report said that.
You are right. Steel looses significant strength at temps above 600°C, but in a high rise building where it's all tied together, it does not collapse, even at 700-900°C.

You claimed it

What 11 story building? Was that the one in Egypt?

Yes, although I hear the sound of goalposts shifting already

???
Larger columns do not = larger fires.
Fires that burn faster burn out sooner, releasing about the same amount of heat.

I was trying to, once again, show thse were not normal buildings and normal fiures, a fact you try to ignore because it is inconvenient

The URL you posted was written in 2003 but it is based a 1988 study.
In any case, it in no way refutes the Cardington test results.

The use of the British Steel data in BS5950-8 was justified by large scale beam and column tests.

These tests considered steel performance. Not as part of a structure. The cardington tests did but they did not test a tube in tube structure or the WTC design. We were discussing steel performance and you made several false claims and then tried to move goalposts when found out. I read the Cardington tests and not just the thesis paper you linked to via truther sites.

If there is no collpase of steel frames in buildings above a certain height then why use fireproofing at all? Note - Cardington tests do not say it is not required but that it is possibly overused AFAIK.

[Dave Rogers]

You seem to be having difficulty grasping the concept that a steel column weighing 15,000 pounds per floor, will take much longer to heat up than a column weighing 1,000 pounds per floor.

No trouble at all, thanks. The argument that you stated was equivalent to stating that very tall buildings never fall down due to height alone. Without considering any details of construction whatsoever, this statement is fundamentally absurd.

Dave

[Architect]

Chris

I have to tell you, your arguments are stunningly poor. Dave used to work for BRE and knows his stuff. Stop willfully representing fire test data and hence making an erse of yourself.

[Dave_46]

Chris

I have to tell you, your arguments are stunningly poor. Dave used to work for BRE and knows his stuff. Stop willfully representing fire test data and hence making an erse of yourself.

Um, I used to work for BRE. Whether Dave Rogers did I don't know.

Dave (46)

[Dave Rogers]

Dave used to work for BRE and knows his stuff.

That's him up there ^, not me. I know different stuff.

Dave (47, actually)

[Dave_46]

That's him up there ^, not me. I know different stuff.

Dave (47, actually)

The 46 refers to my year of birth, rather than my age.

Dave (61 actually)

[jaydeehess]

Did the WTC tower columns deform in the 1975 fire?

If in that case the columns did deform. The fire was IIRC at the 11th floor area. The greatest differences between that fire and 9/11 was the impact damage to all three buildings that preceeded the fires. It would tell us that Chris is wrong in saying that large columns do not deform in fire. It would also illustrate that Chris is correct when he says that a building is much more secure from fire damage if it is intact at the outset of the fire.

Now Chris will minimize the idea that impact damage had any effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

[Christopher7]

And the steel frame collapsed due to normal office fires even though it was tied togetherSource please.

I was trying to, once again, show thse were not normal buildings and normal fiuresThese were normal fires.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9554/copyofwtc7n448bv4.jpg

These tests considered steel performance. Not as part of a structure. The cardington tests did but they did not test a tube in tube structure or the WTC design.True
The tube in tube design is tied together in the same manner as a matrix frame building. The concrete slabs play a roll in dispersing heat and providing lateral strength.
The Cardington tests were more accurate that the single member tests.

Tube in tube buildings have larger framing members that take longer to heat up.

We were discussing steel performance and you made several false claims and then tried to move goalposts when found out.What claims?

I read the Cardington tests and not just the thesis paper URL of the report you read please.
Did the data differ from the thesis?

you linked to via truther sites.Here's the same report from a 'non-truther' site.
http://guardian.150m.com/fire/small/cardington.htm
The 'truther' site is a mirror of this site.

If there is no collpase of steel frames in buildings above a certain height then why use fireproofing at all? Note - Cardington tests do not say it is not required but that it is possibly overused AFAIK. Traditional prescriptive methods of design based on fire resistance testing, require steel elements of construction to stay below a critical temperature, typically 550°C, for the fire resistance period of the structure. This has led to extensive use of passive fire protection to limit the heating of the structural elements (boards, sprays and intumescents) at considerable cost (up to 20% of the total construction cost).
It has been acknowledged for many years that the failure of determinate structures in the fire resistance furnace bears little resemblance to the failure of similar elements as part of a highly redundant frame. However the fire resistance test has a history of safety albeit not based on scientific reasoning.

The Cardington tests call into question the need for fire protection on large steel members in high rise structures.

[Christopher7]

No trouble at all, thanks. The argument that you stated was equivalent to stating that very tall buildings never fall down due to height alone.
DaveWrong

I stated that floors and columns in high rise buildings don't collapse because of the size of the framing members.

[Christopher7]

Did the WTC tower columns deform in the 1975 fire?Answer that question before pontificating on 'what if'.

[funk de fino]

Source please.

What do you mean source? I showed you the picture and offered to get more. The building caught fire and it collapsed. It was a fought fire. What more do you need or are you accusing me of lying?

These were normal fires.

Huge and long fires in huge buildings of non standard design

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9554/copyofwtc7n448bv4.jpg

True
The tube in tube design is tied together in the same manner as a matrix frame building. The concrete slabs play a roll in dispersing heat and providing lateral strength.
The Cardington tests were more accurate that the single member tests.

They are different tests


Tube in tube buildings have larger framing members that take longer to heat up.

How long were the fires and how big were the loads? Were the loads on that building as built?

What claims?

Your 800 deg F claim and your claim steel did not lose significant strength at temps of 600 deg C

URL of the report you read please.
Did the data differ from the thesis?

Find it yourself. The thesis was based on the Cardington test but did tests themselves also

Here's the same report from a 'non-truther' site.
http://guardian.150m.com/fire/small/cardington.htm
The 'truther' site is a mirror of this site.

Your post does not have all the information. Missing info

Traditional prescriptive methods of design based on fire resistance testing, require steel elements of construction to stay below a critical temperature, typically 550°C, for the fire resistance period of the structure. This has led to extensive use of passive fire protection to limit the heating of the structural elements (boards, sprays and intumescents) at considerable cost (up to 20% of the total construction cost).
It has been acknowledged for many years that the failure of determinate structures in the fire resistance furnace bears little resemblance to the failure of similar elements as part of a highly redundant frame. However the fire resistance test has a history of safety albeit not based on scientific reasoning.

The Cardington tests call into question the need for fire protection on large steel members in high rise structures.

It called into the question the amount needed depending on structure and type of loading and designs. It does not state that we need no fireproofing.

What caused collapse initiation on WTC 1&2?

[Christopher7]

What do you mean source? I showed you the picture and offered to get more. The building caught fire and it collapsed. It was a fought fire. What more do you need or are you accusing me of lying?I was referring to the 11 story building in Egypt.
The warehouse you posted was a low rise building.
High rise is loosely defined as 6 stories or more.

Huge and long fires in huge buildings of non standard designThese are NOT huge fires.
They are normal building fires.
NIST report 12-18-07
The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, ......


http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9554/copyofwtc7n448bv4.jpg

Tube in tube buildings have larger framing members that take longer to heat up.
How long were the fires and how big were the loads? Were the loads on that building as built?
The fires moved around the east half of the building, burning less than an hour in any location.
They were normal building fires.
The construction of WTC 7 was described as "redundant".
''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.

Your 800 deg F claim and your claim steel did not lose significant strength at temps of 600 deg CI made no claim, i quoted the Cardington thesis.
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."


Main Report June 2000
http://www.civ.ed.ac.uk/research/fire/public_html/Cardington/main.pdf

In fact approximately 90% of the deflection at 500°C and 75% at 600°C is explained by thermal expansion alone. Most of the rest is explained by increased strains due to reduced modulus of elasticity. However the behaviour remains stable until about 700°C when the first signs of runaway begin to appear.

I read the Cardington tests and not just the thesis paperThe thesis was based on the Cardington test but did tests themselves also.
Your post does not have all the information. Missing infoDid the data or results differ from the thesis i sited?
No.
The data shows that large framing members do not collapse, even when heated to 800-900° C.

[funk de fino]

Lets just see how it goes in C7 land shall we?

It was a 3 story building.
funk de fino posted a picture of a 3 story building that had collapsed here in the US.


It was a warehouse it was not a three storey building. The Steel frame collapsed due to heat from the fire. There was no load on the top apart from corrogated roof sections. The coulmns did not just sqaush they deformed considerably.


Whatever, it was not a high rise building

And the steel frame collapsed due to normal office fires even though it was tied together


Source please.


What do you mean source? I showed you the picture and offered to get more. The building caught fire and it collapsed. It was a fought fire. What more do you need or are you accusing me of lying?


I was referring to the 11 story building in Egypt.
The warehouse you posted was a low rise building.
High rise is loosely defined as 6 stories or more.


useless Christopher, just useless

These are NOT huge fires

Are you saying the firemen on scene were lying? What were the floor areas for WTC7?

The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, ......


Combined with debri damage of course....dont forget........again

I made no claim, i quoted the Cardington thesis

You said my claim that steel loses strength at temps of 600 deg C was incorrect?

I note on another thread you name Heiwa as an expert. Do you seriously expect anyone to take you seriously after that?

[Architect]

Heiwa, that used to claim that steelwork couldn't fail in normal fire conditions? Great source, eh?

[Christopher7]

Are you saying the firemen on scene were lying? As you well know, some firefighters, who could only see the south west corner, used terms like "fire on every floor" and "fully involved".
In actual fact, WTC 7 was not fully involved.
Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.
http://www.eastglenvillefd.com/_mgxroot/page_10845.html

The access ramp at the north east corner was never blocked by debris or fire.
There were NO fires on the first 6 floors, at any time, in the east half of WTC 7.
There was access to the 8th floor at noon when firefighters noted:
No fires on floor 8 and a cubicle fire on floor 7 at the west end.
There were fires that moved around the east half of WTC 7 on floors 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13.
This is what the fires looked like at around 4:00 p.m.

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

Remember, the POINT here is:
These fires were no where near hot enough to heat a column weighing 7.6 tons per floor, to over 1000° F on 4 contiguous floors.

What were the floor areas for WTC7?Core column 79 carried the largest floor area, about 2,000 sq.ft.

This is the current NIST hypothesis:
12-18-07
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Column 79 was near the north east corner of the building.
There was NO debris damage any where near column 79.
The 'stress' caused by the debris damage to the south west portion of WTC 7 would be taken up by the intervening framework.
There is no way the debris damage to the south west part of WTC 7 could cause 'structural damage' to column 79.

That leaves 'normal building fires' like the ones we see in the above picture to heat a column weighing 7.6 tons per floor, to over 1000° F, on 4 contiguous floors.


You said my claim that steel loses strength at temps of 600 deg C was incorrect?I agree with you that steel looses strength at 600° C.
However, steel framework does not collapse in real world high rise fires,
or scientific tests at 800°-900° C.

[funk de fino]

As you well know, some firefighters, who could only see the south west corner, used terms like "fire on every floor" and "fully involved".
In actual fact, WTC 7 was not fully involved.
Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.
http://www.eastglenvillefd.com/_mgxroot/page_10845.html

Is that all they claimed? Did they all say just that it was fully involved? Did any of them perhaps say they were huge fires? How many floors were on fire according to FEMA and the firemen witness' on site?

The access ramp at the north east corner was never blocked by debris or fire.
There were NO fires on the first 6 floors, at any time, in the east half of WTC 7.
There was access to the 8th floor at noon when firefighters noted:
No fires on floor 8 and a cubicle fire on floor 7 at the west end.
There were fires that moved around the east half of WTC 7 on floors 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13.
This is what the fires looked like at around 4:00 p.m.

On one side of the building? Sad, usual truther tactic showing north side omly?


Remember, the POINT here is:
These fires were no where near hot enough to heat a column weighing 7.6 tons per floor, to over 1000° F on 4 contiguous floors.

No, you are incorrect. The fires were plenty hot you just dont know if they lasted a long enough time. False claim again C7.


Core column 79 carried the largest floor area, about 2,000 sq.ft.

I never asked that. I asked what was the area of each floor roughly.

This is the current NIST hypothesis:
12-18-07
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Glad you have flip flopped back to the correct hypothesis again

Column 79 was near the north east corner of the building.
There was NO debris damage any where near column 79.
The 'stress' caused by the debris damage to the south west portion of WTC 7 would be taken up by the intervening framework.
There is no way the debris damage to the south west part of WTC 7 could cause 'structural damage' to column 79.

IYO


That leaves 'normal building fires' like the ones we see in the above picture to heat a column weighing 7.6 tons per floor, to over 1000° F, on 4 contiguous floors.


No, it does not

I agree with you that steel looses strength at 600° C.

Why it take you this long to agree then?

However, steel framework does not collapse in real world high rise fires,
or scientific tests at 800°-900° C.

What caused the bowing of the columns in WTC1&2 then? The fires were hotter than 800 to 900 deg C in WTC7.

What about my warehouse C7, you said steel frames cannot fail due to fire when tied together. Do you admit in this case it did?

Do you still claim Heiwa as your expert after reading his posts?

[Christopher7]

Is that all they claimed? Did they all say just that it was fully involved? Did any of them perhaps say they were huge fires? How many floors were on fire according to FEMA and the firemen witness' on site?Using photographs and firefighters statements, NIST compiled a chronology of the fires in the east half of WTC 7.

NIST L 22–26
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12 burned west to east across the south side
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on floors 11 and 12 at SE corner, progressing north
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg (http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg)

About 3:00 p.m.
Fires on floors 7 and 12 along the north face
The fire on floor 12 spread in both directions, eventually reaching the NE corner
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/3849/copyofnorthfacekj6.png

Sometime later, fires on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out by this time
[NIST did not publish this photo]


Remember, the POINT here is:
These fires were no where near hot enough to heat a column weighing 7.6 tons per floor, to over 1000° F on 4 contiguous floors.
No, you are incorrect. The fires were plenty hot you just dont know if they lasted a long enough time.The fires on floors 7 and 12 appeared on the north side about 3:00 p.m. [second picture above]
In the third picture, there are no fires on floors 9 and 11, so it was taken before 4:45.
The fire on floor 7 had burned out.
The fire on floor 8 appeared sometime after 3:00 p.m. and had burned out the offices on the right.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out the area to the east end and 20 windows to the west of where it had first appeared.
The fire on floor 13 appeared sometime after 3:00 p.m. and it had already burned out much of the east end.

The fires did NOT burn more than about an hour in any location.



The fires were hotter than 800 to 900 deg C in WTC7.Source?

What about my warehouse C7, you said steel frames cannot fail due to fire when tied together.Reade my posts again. I said there have been no collapses in high rise buildings.

[cloudshipsrule]

Quote:
The fires were hotter than 800 to 900 deg C in WTC7.
Source?

The original source was jet fuel. The secondary source was everything in the office spaces which was flamable. ;-)

[funk de fino]

Using photographs and firefighters statements, NIST compiled a chronology of the fires in the east half of WTC 7.

NIST L 22–26
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12 burned west to east across the south side
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on floors 11 and 12 at SE corner, progressing north
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg (http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg)

About 3:00 p.m.
Fires on floors 7 and 12 along the north face
The fire on floor 12 spread in both directions, eventually reaching the NE corner
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/3849/copyofnorthfacekj6.png

Sometime later, fires on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out by this time
[NIST did not publish this photo]


This is not all that I asked for. This is from FEMA and is some of the available info. There are many witness accounts from firefighters stating that there were huge fires in the building yet you say they were not huge. Are you saying there are no quotes from firefighters on the day saying that the fires were huge, the building was fully involved, the building was engulfed or that it will collapse? Tell me what the average floor area of the building was C7? Was it about 40,000 ft?

How many floors do you think were on fire (dont just quote FEMA just state what you think from reading the report)?


The fires on floors 7 and 12 appeared on the north side about 3:00 p.m. [second picture above]
In the third picture, there are no fires on floors 9 and 11, so it was taken before 4:45.
The fire on floor 7 had burned out.
The fire on floor 8 appeared sometime after 3:00 p.m. and had burned out the offices on the right.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out the area to the east end and 20 windows to the west of where it had first appeared.
The fire on floor 13 appeared sometime after 3:00 p.m. and it had already burned out much of the east end.

The fires did NOT burn more than about an hour in any location.

Bolded above is incorrect. You know the fires in the SW corner burned for longer and there was smoke in most videos emanating from most floors on the south side and in most pictures of the south side. How long did they last?

Source?

We have recently posted many links that show normal office fires reach temps far higher than you said prior to being proved wrong. The fires in the WTC7 would easily have reached 1100 deg C. Tell me why they would not be as normal fires as far as temps go?

Reade my posts again. I said there have been no collapses in high rise buildings.

I have read them and you have claimed steel frames do not fail in fires. You did not qualify that with high rise. The 11 storey building in Egypt is low rise is it?

here are some of your statements

At temps seen in normal office/household fires, steel deforms but it does NOT collapse!


Oh really?

In buildings 8-14 stories, there has been axial shortening of columns and beam distortions but no floor collapses

Egypt building, 11 storey

If steel frame in high rise do not collapse or deform then what caused the bowing of the columns in WTC1&2?

If steel frames in high rise do not collapse or deform then why did the steel frame on the Windsor building collapse and deform?

Tell me why the steel framed building across the street from me collapsed despite having no loads above the columns and having the fire fought prior to being put out.

[jaydeehess]

The original source was jet fuel. The secondary source was everything in the office spaces which was flamable. ;-)

CSR, that's the towers. No jet fuel in WTC 7.

ETA: I didn't see the 'wink' at the end of your post, sorry.

[Christopher7]

This is not all that I asked for. This is from FEMA and is some of the available info.Wrong
That fire chronology is from the NIST Apx. L report.
They interviewed over 100 firefighters and other witnesses
They had photographs to confirm the statements of the firefighters and other witnesses.

NIST issued an Approach Summary on 12-18-07.
After a year of reviewing the data, they determined that diesel fuel fires did not contribute to the initiating event.
They did not make any changes to the fire chronology.

There are many witness accounts from firefighters stating that there were huge fires in the building yet you say they were not huge. Are you saying there are no quotes from firefighters on the day saying that the fires were huge, the building was fully involved, the building was engulfed or that it will collapse?No
I am simply quoting the NIST report and showing the photos of the fires in the east half of WTC 7.
A few firefighters overstated the size and extent of the fires.
That is not surprising, it was a traumatic experience.
The photographs clearly show the real size and extent of the fires.
NIST used statements of specific descriptions like "No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8" and "Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face." not generalities like "huge fires" or "fully involved".

Tell me what the average floor area of the building was C7? Was it about 40,000 ft?I don't know. How is this relevant?

The fires on floors 7 and 12 appeared on the north side about 3:00 p.m. [second picture above]
In the third picture, there are no fires on floors 9 and 11, so it was taken before 4:45.
The fire on floor 7 had burned out.
The fire on floor 8 appeared sometime after 3:00 p.m. and had burned out the offices on the right.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out the area to the east end and 20 windows to the west of where it had first appeared.
The fire on floor 13 appeared sometime after 3:00 p.m. and it had already burned out much of the east end.

The fires did NOT burn more than about an hour in any location.
Bolded above is incorrect.[1] You know the fires in the SW corner burned for longer and there was smoke in most videos emanating from most floors on the south side and in most pictures of the south side. How long did they last?[2][1] "The fires" refers to the fires in the east half of WTC 7, not the smoke screen at the SW corner.

[2] The was smoke coming from the south side of the the SW corner rooms, on nearly every floor,
for 3 to 4 hours.

Whatever produced all that smoke, did not produce enough heat to break the windows on the west side of those rooms, on most floors.

Fires move from place to place, leaving burned out areas and broken windows.

The SW corner was a smoke screen imo.


We have recently posted many links that show normal office fires reach temps far higher than you said prior to being proved wrong. The fires in the WTC7 would easily have reached 1100 deg C. Tell me why they would not be as normal fires as far as temps go?
Normal building fires can burn as hot as 1100° F, NOT C.
The Cardington report noted that hotter fires consume the available fuel faster and the net result in BTU's produced is about the same as fires burning at lower temperatures for a longer period.

I have read them and you have claimed steel frames do not fail in fires. You did not qualify that with high rise. I did not include the words 'high rise' in that statement. My bad, thank you for the correction.

The 11 storey building in Egypt is low rise is it? 11 story building collapse
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3432163.stm

The governor of Cairo said the building did not have planning permission for its 11 storeys - it had approval for just four floors.
Building collapses in Egypt are not uncommon, with buildings regulations sometimes ignored and unauthorised floors added, making existing structures unsafe.

If steel frames in high rise do not collapse or deform then why did the steel frame on the Windsor building collapse and deform?
The Windsor Plaza was NOT a steel frame building.
It was primarily a reinforced concrete frame with very light weight exterior columns on the upper 10 floors.
It cannot be compared to a steel frame high rise building with much larger framing members.

Tell me why the steel framed building across the street from me collapsed despite having no loads above the columns and having the fire fought prior to being put out.It was NOT a high rise building.
The columns were much smaller and lighter than the columns in a high rise building.

If steel frame in high rise do not collapse or deformI have noted that steel does deform but does not collapse in high rise building fires.
what caused the bowing of the columns in WTC1&2?I don't know. NIST does not know.
Furthermore

NIST CANNOT explain how the Trade towers collapsed.

NIST reply to stj911truth
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
pg 3
NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers.
PG 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.
NIST’s analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation.



NIST is unable to explain how WTC 7 collapsed.
The current hypothesis does NOT include an explanation for the collapse of the north and south core column rows.


Six and a half years later, NIST cannot confirm the 'official story' for the collapse of The Trade Towers or building 7.


It is time for NIST to seriously look at the possibility of Controlled Demolition.

[jproudj]

I have noted that steel does deform but does not collapse in high rise building fires.

The steel of the madrid building was the only part of it to 'collapse' in the fire. What is your point? You're citing an example which clearly undermines your notion that steel doesn't 'collapse' in fire. Floor slabs in the upper, steel part of the madrid building failed due to the perimeter columns failing. The concrete parts halted this. Don't see what you are getting at.

[Christopher7]

Correction:

Quote jdh:
We have recently posted many links that show normal office fires reach temps far higher than you said prior to being proved wrong. The fires in the WTC7 would easily have reached 1100 deg C. Tell me why they would not be as normal fires as far as temps go?

Quote C7:
Normal building fires can burn as hot as 1100° F, NOT C.[wrong!]

NISTIR 7213
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf


The gas temperatures measured in the room were similar for both experiments prior to ventilation as each fire grew to an initial peak of approximately 800 °C (1470 °F).
Figure 31 shows that maximum temperatures were attained in about 8 minutes and dropped to 400 °C (735 °F) at 16 minutes.

Figure 32 - Natural Ventilation Room Temperatures pg 41 [43 on pg counter]
The fire reaches 800° C [1472°F] in about 4 minutes and drops off to 75° C [170°F] at 24 minutes.
When the window is opened at about 6 minutes, the fire jumps to between 900°C and 1000°C [1652°F - 1832°F] for about 4 minutes.

The test room had minimal fuel. [no books in bookcase, no papers in desk etc.]
'Normal building fires' could involve more fuel and last longer.

A fire would have to burn at 800-1000° C for a long time to heat a column weighing 7.6 tons per floor to 600° C.

[funk de fino]

Wrong
That fire chronology is from the NIST Apx. L report.
They interviewed over 100 firefighters and other witnesses
They had photographs to confirm the statements of the firefighters and other witnesses.

NIST issued an Approach Summary on 12-18-07.
After a year of reviewing the data, they determined that diesel fuel fires did not contribute to the initiating event.
They did not make any changes to the fire chronology.

How many floors? Just give me a number.

No
I am simply quoting the NIST report and showing the photos of the fires in the east half of WTC 7.
A few firefighters overstated the size and extent of the fires.
That is not surprising, it was a traumatic experience.
The photographs clearly show the real size and extent of the fires.
NIST used statements of specific descriptions like "No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8" and "Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face." not generalities like "huge fires" or "fully involved".

So the firefighters and comanders are lying or mistaken. Their exopert witness statements are unreliable. Did NIST not only use statements that were definite fires that were observed. If there was no-one in the building later in theday then how could all the fires have been observed?

Do you think there may have been more floors on fire when you take into consderation the videos of the south side andthe photos?

I don't know. How is this relevant?

Huge floor area, fires on floors huge? Norrmal floor areas in office buildings?


[1] "The fires" refers to the fires in the east half of WTC 7, not the smoke screen at the SW corner.

[2] The was smoke coming from the south side of the the SW corner rooms, on nearly every floor,
for 3 to 4 hours.

Whatever produced all that smoke, did not produce enough heat to break the windows on the west side of those rooms, on most floors.

Fires move from place to place, leaving burned out areas and broken windows.

The SW corner was a smoke screen imo.

So anything that destroys your false claims is faked? Good logical and rational stuff. There are videos of the flames from that corner you know. Maybe this is where the diesel was burned?

Normal building fires can burn as hot as 1100° F, NOT C.
The Cardington report noted that hotter fires consume the available fuel faster and the net result in BTU's produced is about the same as fires burning at lower temperatures for a longer period.


Wrong again, glad you correct it later. How many times does it takesomeone to get something into your head if it jars with your fantasy?


I did not include the words 'high rise' in that statement. My bad, thank you for the correction.

OK
11 story building collapse
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3432163.stm

The governor of Cairo said the building did not have planning permission for its 11 storeys - it had approval for just four floors.
Building collapses in Egypt are not uncommon, with buildings regulations sometimes ignored and unauthorised floors added, making existing structures unsafe.

What caused it to collapse? It was a fire. It was a highrise.


The Windsor Plaza was NOT a steel frame building.
It was primarily a reinforced concrete frame with very light weight exterior columns on the upper 10 floors.
It cannot be compared to a steel frame high rise building with much larger framing members.

The steel framed part collapsed. You compare the cardington test building and the Broadgate building to WTC7 yet I cannot compare the steel frame collapse to WTC7? Hypocritical much? I could say you cannot compare becuase they were low rise and that high rise are more likely to collapse. You cannot prove me wrong, especially as these buildings had no prior structural damage like WTC7

It was NOT a high rise building.
The columns were much smaller and lighter than the columns in a high rise building.

The building collapsed in a shorter fire than WTC7 with the same type of fuel but with no structural damage and less loads.

I have noted that steel does deform but does not collapse in high rise building fires.
I don't know. NIST does not know.
Furthermore

NIST CANNOT explain how the Trade towers collapsed.

NIST reply to stj911truth
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
pg 3
NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers.
PG 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.
NIST’s analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation.



NIST is unable to explain how WTC 7 collapsed.
The current hypothesis does NOT include an explanation for the collapse of the north and south core column rows.


Six and a half years later, NIST cannot confirm the 'official story' for the collapse of The Trade Towers or building 7.


It is time for NIST to seriously look at the possibility of Controlled Demolition.


Dishonest truther crap C7. They know why the columns on WTC1%2 bowed and they know what caused collapse initiation. They do not cover what happened after that in any detail because they do not have to.

NIST are looking at hypothetical blast scenarios and have found how much evidence?

[funk de fino]

*snipped loads of embarrassing backtracking*

A fire would have to burn at 800-1000° C for a long time to heat a column weighing 7.6 tons per floor to 600° C.


How long? Show us your figures.

[Christopher7]

How many floors? Just give me a number.I have posted this information several times.
There were fires on floors 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 in the area of the initiating event.

So anything that destroys your false claims is faked? Good logical and rational stuff. There are videos of the flames from that corner you know. Maybe this is where the diesel was burned?
There was no diesel fuel above the 9th floor.

In the few offices where there were flames, the windows on the west face were broken from the heat as is the case in any fire.

In most of the SW corner offices, the 'fires' were not hot enough to break the windows on the west side even though they 'burned' for 3 to 4 hours.

A lot of smoke and no fire = smoke screen.

11 story building collapse
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3432163.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3432163.stm)

The governor of Cairo said the building did not have planning permission for its 11 storeys - it had approval for just four floors.
Building collapses in Egypt are not uncommon, with buildings regulations sometimes ignored and unauthorised floors added, making existing structures unsafe. What caused it to collapse? It was a fire. It was a highrise.It collapsed because someone added 7 stories on top of a building designed to hold up 4 stories.
If you have difficulty understanding this, you need professional help of some sort.

The steel framed part collapsed. You compare the cardington test building and the Broadgate building to WTC7 yet I cannot compare the steel frame collapse to WTC7?The Windsor Plaza was a hybrid design.
The weight of the building was carried by the reinforced concrete frame.
The exterior box columns on the upper 10 stories weighed 18 pounds per lineal foot or 216 pounds per floor.

The column in question here weighed 1,267 pounds per lineal foot or 7.6 tons per floor.

They know why the columns on WTC1%2 bowed and they know what caused collapse initiation. They do not cover what happened after that in any detail because they do not have to.Really? Why not?

Why is NIST still investigating how WTC 7 collapsed completely?

NIST are looking at hypothetical blast scenarios and have found how much evidence?They are NOT looking into "hypothetical blast scenarios" in the Trade Towers.
They are NOT looking at the first 7 floors of WTC 7.
"ARA will conduct nonlinear dynamic collapse analyses using LS-DYNA that include analyses of detailed full floor models and global models. The detailed floor analyses will determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46"
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0186.htm

[pomeroo]

This thread is undoubtedly the biggest inside joke in the history of the JREF. Over a hundred pages of idiocy and the NIST Report hasn't even been released yet. A comic gold mine.

[Darth Rotor]

This thread is undoubtedly the biggest inside joke in the history of the JREF. Over a hundred pages of idiocy and the NIST Report hasn't even been released yet. A comic gold mine.
Glad we didn't lose you. :)

WB, pomeroo.

DR

[pomeroo]

Glad we didn't lose you. :)

WB, pomeroo.

DR


What would I do without this place?

[jaydeehess]

They are NOT looking into "hypothetical blast scenarios" in the Trade Towers.
They are NOT looking at the first 7 floors of WTC 7.
"ARA will conduct nonlinear dynamic collapse analyses using LS-DYNA that include analyses of detailed full floor models and global models. The detailed floor analyses will determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46"
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0186.htm


Typical misreading by you Chris. You are so very wedded to the idea that there is a giant conspiracy that you read into that statement what you wanted it to say.

ARA will conduct analyses, in collaboration with NIST, to determine the location and cause of the initiating event (i.e., the first component or group of components that failed) that led to global collapse of WTC 7. The analyses will determine the series of component and subsystem failures subsequent to the initiating event that led to global collapse that are consistent with observations from video and photographic records and other evidence. NIST will conduct all fire analysis of the building and analysis of the structural response to fires in-house and supply ARA initiating event data based on the in-house analyses.

ARA will conduct nonlinear dynamic collapse analyses using LS-DYNA that include analyses of detailed full floor models and global models. The detailed floor analyses will determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations), and aid the development of a more coarse model for use in the global analyses that captures essential behaviors and failure mechanisms. Two types of global analyses will be conducted. Sensitivity studies will be conducted to determine the response of WTC 7 to various scenarios of initiating events. Final analyses will support the determination of the location and cause of the initiating event, by incorporating data from NIST for simulating the initiating event, as well as the location and cause of subsequent failures that led to global collapse


Another way of reading this is that they will be looking into the collapse that NIST itself has stated began on the lower floors. The collapse began below 8th floor and thus the collapse caused the failure of floors 8 through 46.

The specific tasks that ARA will perform include:

Conduct detailed analyses of floor components and subsystems with appropriate steel and concrete constitutive models.
Determine the floor response to gravity loads for up to twenty initiating event scenarios
Develop an equivalent representation of the tenant floors for the global model.
Conduct global analysis under service gravity loads to determine the structural response of WTC 7 to different initiating events, including characterization of the load redistribution within the structural system for two states of damage from debris impact.
Conduct a sensitivity study to determine the global structural response to gravity loads for up to twenty initiating event scenarios
Conduct final global analyses that simulate up to five initiating events and the subsequent failure sequences up to the point of global instability.


We already know that hypothetical blast senarios will be part of the study and ARA will investigate 20 senarios. You assume that since this press release does not specifically state that blast senarios will be investigated , that they will not be. I do not jump to that conclusion. Instead I would assmue that one or more of those 20 senarios will include blast events since such has been spoken of by NIST in the past.
Once again you have shown that you are more than willing to use lack of evidence to reach conclusions that line up with your preconceived notion of a vast conspiracy.

[Christopher7]

Typical misreading by you Chris.Yes, but not the way you have stated.

Here is the paragraph that comes before the one we have been discussing
Read carefully:

ARA will conduct analyses, in collaboration with NIST, to determine the location and cause of the initiating event …… consistent with observations from video and photographic records


NIST will conduct all fire analysis of the building and analysis of the structural response to fires in-house and supply ARA initiating event data based on the in-house analyses.


i.e. ARA will analyize the initiating event and floors 8 - 46
BUT
they will have only the fire analysis supplied by NIST to work with.
AND
There is nothing in this document about hypothetical blast events. or CD.



A separate document refers to hypothetical blast events.
Note that they only use the term "controlled demolition" when saying "NIST has found no evidence of a blast or CD event".
They are NOT considering CD as a possibility.
They tap dance around CD by using the phrase "hypothetical blast events"
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_award0539.htm

ARA (2) shall determine if there is any scenario* of a hypothetical blast event or events that could have occurred

*Hello ............ Here's a scenario: It was a CD
A CD is "consistent with observations from video and photographic records"

hypothetical blast events are being considered for their contribution to the collapse of WTC 7

NIST is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse.

CD blast events do not "contribute to" or "play a roll in" collapse, they are the sole cause of collapse.

While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event,

They did not say they have found no evidence of CD, only that they have found no evidence of a blast or CD event.[no evidence of explosions]

NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical[1] blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure[2] of one or more critical elements[3] as a result of blast.

This is doublespeak.

[1] How [or why] do you "determine the magnitude of a hypothetical"?

[2] blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure.
CD blast events definitely lead to structural failure.

[3] of one or more critical elements
CD's cause all the critical elements to fail.

They are not considering CD as a possibility even though it fits the criteria:
"consistent with observations from video and photographic records"

But then, what would you expect from an agency headed by an appointee of an administration that systematically distorts scientific documents?

[jaydeehess]

ARA (2) shall determine if there is any scenario* of a hypothetical blast event or events that could have occurred

*Hello ............ Here's a scenario: It was a CD
A CD is "consistent with observations from video and photographic records"

The building fell down and all CD's fall down(if done properly) and that is the extent of a CD being 'consistent' with the video and photographic records of the collapse of WTC 7. However, there is no video or photographic record that is consistent with any blast event having occured. Since a blast event is required for CD then looking for a blast event, even one, would seem prudent and given that no record of one is in evidence then such a senario must be refered to as hypothetical.

They did not say they have found no evidence of CD, only that they have found no evidence of a blast or CD event.[no evidence of explosions]

Um, Chris, any CD would have to include a "blast event". You have the gall to charge NIST with doublespeak when you have just engaged in it yourself.

NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical[1] blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure[2] of one or more critical elements[3] as a result of blast.

This is doublespeak.

[1] How [or why] do you "determine the magnitude of a hypothetical"?

You determine how big an event would be required to do the job. This is exactly what CD companies do before loading explosives onto a column. They determine what size of charge would be needed and where to locate those charges. In the case of WTC 7 NIST must also take into account that no prep work would be done to the columns. Once again I also point out that there is no video or photographic record of any blast having taken place and thus all calculations in that regard are for a hypothetical senario of a blast event(s).

[2] blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure.
CD blast events definitely lead to structural failure.

Actually, no, they don't always, even in well planned CD's. In the case of WTC 7 one would consider a single blast event that sufficiently further weakened the structure such that the already weakened building could not arrest a local failure.

[3] of one or more critical elements
CD's cause all the critical elements to fail.

They are refering again to a blast that would fail one or a few critical members and the other damage to the building, impact and fire, causing other members to be unable to arrest the local failure.

Now there is nothing more to be discussed until the reports are in Chris!

[funk de fino]

I have posted this information several times.
There were fires on floors 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13 in the area of the initiating event.

Inever asked about the Initiation event. I asked how many floors were on fire. Why do you have to dodge an answer to a simple question?

There was no diesel fuel above the 9th floor.

Did I say there was? There are firemen who think the black smoke seen at some points during the day came from the diesel.

In the few offices where there were flames, the windows on the west face were broken from the heat as is the case in any fire.

This goes back to my question about floor areas. Fires nearer the centre of the building would not have been visible but would have been producing smoke. The smoke was exiting the building somewhere. It looks like most was exiting the windows on the south side.

In most of the SW corner offices, the 'fires' were not hot enough to break the windows on the west side even though they 'burned' for 3 to 4 hours.

Plenty broken windows elswhere though eh?

A lot of smoke and no fire = smoke screen

And the need for the smokescreen would have been?

It collapsed because someone added 7 stories on top of a building designed to hold up 4 stories.
If you have difficulty understanding this, you need professional help of some sort.

Did it collapse immediately the floors were added to the 4 storeys? It collapsed when it caught fire. If you try to deny this then it is not me who needs professional help.


The Windsor Plaza was a hybrid design.
The weight of the building was carried by the reinforced concrete frame.
The exterior box columns on the upper 10 stories weighed 18 pounds per lineal foot or 216 pounds per floor.

The column in question here weighed 1,267 pounds per lineal foot or 7.6 tons per floor.

It was also a smaller fire

Really? Why not?

They were tasked to find out why the building failed to stop things like this happening again. Thye explained the initiation and then it is clear that global collapse ensues. Thye do not need to explain why the collapse ensued after the initiation because it is blatantly obvious except to stupid truthers. Dont be one C7

Why is NIST still investigating how WTC 7 collapsed completely?

NIST are still investigatin the initiation.

They are NOT looking into "hypothetical blast scenarios" in the Trade Towers.
They are NOT looking at the first 7 floors of WTC 7.
"ARA will conduct nonlinear dynamic collapse analyses using LS-DYNA that include analyses of detailed full floor models and global models. The detailed floor analyses will determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46"
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0186.htm

See JDH posts

[jaydeehess]

It collapsed because someone added 7 stories on top of a building designed to hold up 4 stories.


That refutes the notion that if a building withstood initial insult then it should remain standing indefinatly as is often stated about the towers. The Egytian building stood after being built, then it caught fire and collapsed because it was weaker than it should have been designed for. In the case of the WTC buildings they too were weaker than they should have been because either a bloody big and fast aircraft hit them or because a bloody big building rained large, heavy, dense material down on it. Then they caught fire!

The Windsor Plaza was a hybrid design.
The weight of the building was carried by the reinforced concrete frame. [/QUOTE]

The core of a building with long span trusses is carrying basically half the gravity load. Certainly it is carrying half the floor span load, the extra it carries is the core equipment and floor loads(ie elevators). The exterior columns would be carrying 1/2 the floor span loads.
You are a carpenter. If you built a deck supported on two ends and you made the supports at one end 6X6 and on the opposite side 4X$ would you be avble to load the center of that deck with more weight than if both ends were 4X4 supports or would it fail at the same loading?

As for the Windsor being a hybrid, so was WTC 7 in that it was a building constructed over an existing, much smaller , building. This required some unigue load carrying members to be incorporated.



Why is NIST still investigating how WTC 7 collapsed completely?

The towers collapsed completely because the mass of the upper, falling debris overwhelmed the capacity of lower structural members. Show that occured immediatly after initial collapse and one need not calculate it for the entire building.

However in WTC 7 this was not the mechanism that led to global collapse. Instead one or two columns failed giving rise to a local vertical collapse which led to a horizontal progression of failure that prompted global collapse.. If you cannot see why this needs more study than the tower's full collapse then you need professional help.

[Christopher7]

The building fell down and all CD's fall down(if done properly) and that is the extent of a CD being 'consistent' with the video and photographic records of the collapse of WTC 7.Pure denial.

WTC 7 fell in a manner entirely consistent with a professional building implosion.

1) It IMPLODED.
Building implosion is a fine art. It cannot happen by chance.
Every high rise building that has ever imploded was a CD.
This alone is enough to qualify the videos as evidence of a CD.

2) It fell mostly straight down and landed mostly in it's own footprint,
as is evidenced by the FACT that the center of the debris pile is just west of the center of the original footprint.
FEMA said the north face fell straight down.
NIST said it landed mostly in its own footprint.
We can see that it did not fall perfectly straight down.
CD's do not fall perfectly straight down.
CD's do not land entirely in their original footprint.
A reasonable person would not nitpick and argue these points.

3) It fell at a speed consistent with a CD.
Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.

However, there is no video or photographic record that is consistent with any blast event having occured. Since a blast event is required for CD then looking for a blast event, even one, would seem prudent and given that no record of one is in evidence then such a senario must be refered to as hypothetical.The official story is also hypothetical.

any CD would have to include a "blast event".So your position is:

It fell like a dead duck.

It looked like a pile of dead duck.

However, I did not hear it quack.

Therefore, it was not a duck.



Where is the blast event [clap of thunder]?

The sound in this video is from the hand held camera recording people several blocks away. It is not from the tripod mounted camera recording the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLnBSyc4ICo

The sound has been deleted from the camera recording the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ


It critical seconds when Daryl heard a clap of thunder have been edited out of the only two videos that have the sounds of the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=926V_0C3pdQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktiwbkPEYlU&feature=related

[LastChild]

That refutes the notion that if a building withstood initial insult then it should remain standing indefinatly as is often stated about the towers. The Egytian building stood after being built, then it caught fire and collapsed because it was weaker than it should have been designed for. In the case of the WTC buildings they too were weaker than they should have been because either a bloody big and fast aircraft hit them or because a bloody big building rained large, heavy, dense material down on it. Then they caught fire!

Oh brother. So now the WTC towers upper floors are the equivalent of after thought floors added on that followed absolutely no building codes or standards? I guess we'll be throwing this lame comparison on to the fail pile with the rest of the third world toy factories and highway overpasses. Keep trying though maybe someday you'll have something but I doubt it.

The towers collapsed completely because the mass of the upper, falling debris overwhelmed the capacity of lower structural members. Show that occured immediately after initial collapse and one need not calculate it for the entire building.

If they want to claim it's a fact they do. Because it just doesn't happen. Ever. That's why it's just a highly speculative theory that can't even be modeled.

However in WTC 7 this was not the mechanism that led to global collapse. Instead one or two columns failed giving rise to a local vertical collapse which led to a horizontal progression of failure that prompted global collapse.. If you cannot see why this needs more study than the tower's full collapse then you need professional help.

Nice contradiction there. You claim to know exactly how it collapsed without even seeing the NIST report yet and then claim it needs more investigation from NIST. So what we have for the first time in history is three global collapses to two different designs for two different reasons that have never caused a steel constructed high-rise to suffer complete global collapse before and never will again.

[applecorped]

LostChild, you are stundilicious.

[Christopher7]

LostChild, you are stundilicious.When your comparisons are shown to be ridiculous and you are reminded that NIST did not even attempt to explain 'your theory' of how the towers collapsed beyond the point if initiation, all you can do is post out one of your stock insults.

There is NO BASIS for the claim "airplane/debris damage brought down the Trade Towers and WTC 7"

[Drs_Res]

There is NO BASIS for the claim "Controlled Demolitions/therm*te/DEWS/Pods/
Holograms/Nukes/Mini Nukes/Missles/C4 Coated 3" rebar on 4 foot centers brought down the Trade Towers and WTC 7"

Fixed that for you.:D

[jaydeehess]

Pure denial.

WTC 7 fell in a manner entirely consistent with a professional building implosion.

1) It IMPLODED.
Building implosion is a fine art. It cannot happen by chance.
Every high rise building that has ever imploded was a CD.
This alone is enough to qualify the videos as evidence of a CD.

It fell down and you characterize the manner in which it collapsed as similar enough to what one might expect of a CD to conclude that it was CD. I would need much more than that.

2) It fell mostly straight down and landed mostly in it's own footprint,
as is evidenced by the FACT that the center of the debris pile is just west of the center of the original footprint.
FEMA said the north face fell straight down.
NIST said it landed mostly in its own footprint.
We can see that it did not fall perfectly straight down.
CD's do not fall perfectly straight down.
CD's do not land entirely in their original footprint.
A reasonable person would not nitpick and argue these points.

That's really no different than your point 1)
It fell down and you characterize the manner in which it collapsed as similar enough to what one might expect of a CD to conclude that it was CD. I would need much more than that.


3) It fell at a speed consistent with a CD.
Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.

No, actually the north face fell in 6-7 seconds, at the very most the north half of the building fell in 6-7 seconds.
You know how long the entire building fell and you understand that the interior of the building likely had already failed/collapsed when the north face fell.
The official story is also hypothetical.

I believe NIST says several times that their senarios are hypotheses, so your point is what?

So your position is:

It fell like a dead duck.

It looked like a pile of dead duck.

However, I did not hear it quack.

Therefore, it was not a duck.

An odd way of putting it. I would revise your analogy and say that ;
You see it fly
It has wings
Therefore it is a duck.

Where is the blast event [clap of thunder]?

The sound in this video is from the hand held camera recording people several blocks away. It is not from the tripod mounted camera recording the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLnBSyc4ICo

The sound has been deleted from the camera recording the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ


It critical seconds when Daryl heard a clap of thunder have been edited out of the only two videos that have the sounds of the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=926V_0C3pdQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktiwbkPEYlU&feature=related

How nice, you wish to prove that there are sounds of explosives matching those used by demolitions experts and so you post 4 videos with no sounds of explosives matching sounds of explosives used by demolitions experts and the ones you do post that have sound all have people making comments that they thought the building was going to collapse and there it was collapsing.
Thus the only way you can shoehorn these into your senario of explosive demolitions is to concoct a vast conspiracy to hide the sounds of explosives leaving only a very few eyewitness accounts describing 'explosions'.

Once again then, for you, a lack of evidence equals evidence.
I need more than that Chris, even though I do so dislike GWB, and his administration and even though I have a healthy muistrust of gov't pronouncements.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
That refutes the notion that if a building withstood initial insult then it should remain standing indefinatly as is often stated about the towers. The Egyptian building stood after being built, then it caught fire and collapsed because it was weaker than it should have been designed for. In the case of the WTC buildings they too were weaker than they should have been because either a bloody big and fast aircraft hit them or because a bloody big building rained large, heavy, dense material down on it. Then they caught fire! Oh brother. So now the WTC towers upper floors are the equivalent of after thought floors added on that followed absolutely no building codes or standards? I guess we'll be throwing this lame comparison on to the fail pile with the rest of the third world toy factories and highway overpasses. Keep trying though maybe someday you'll have something but I doubt it.

The towers do indeed resemble that Egyptian building in one way. After the aircraft impact they were no longer as robust as required. That was my point LC, too bad you cannot comprehend that. In both cases then you start with a sturcture that is not as robust as it should be. In that case of the Egyptian building this was due to bad construction practises, in the case of the WTC towers it was due to having a bloody big and fast aircraft ram into them.

Then each building caught fire.


Originally Posted by jaydeehess
The towers collapsed completely because the mass of the upper, falling debris overwhelmed the capacity of lower structural members. Show that occured immediately after initial collapse and one need not calculate it for the entire building. If they want to claim it's a fact they do. Because it just doesn't happen. Ever. That's why it's just a highly speculative theory that can't even be modeled.

Did you have a point there somewhere?
It cannot be modeled because after initial contact and first intact level failure the variables become too large to precisely model. It was not until this century that the three body problem of gravitationally interacting bodies was solved to any great detail. The collisions involved in the tower collapses would be vastly more complicated.
On the other hand you would be correct if you stated that given enough explosives you could replicate the destruction of the towers even without ramming a bloody big and fast aircraft into them.

You could also agrue that if one dropped a bloody big enough mass on the towers that you could replicate the destruction of them.

It seems that the only calculations for either of these was done by Bazant et al using the mass and speed of the upper section as it impacted the lower portion of the building and their calculations do corresspond with the lower floors being completely and utterly incapable of arressting the collapse.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
However in WTC 7 this was not the mechanism that led to global collapse. Instead one or two columns failed giving rise to a local vertical collapse which led to a horizontal progression of failure that prompted global collapse.. If you cannot see why this needs more study than the tower's full collapse then you need professional help. Nice contradiction there. You claim to know exactly how it collapsed without even seeing the NIST report yet and then claim it needs more investigation from NIST. ..

I did not claim or detail "exactly" how WTC 7 collapsed. I simply pointed out what is fairly straightforward if one watches how building 7 collapsed. First the east penthouse structure kinks and sinks into the building followed, a few seconds later, by the screenwall and eastern rooftop structures indicating that the core portion of the building started failing from east to west after the initial failure under the east penthouse. If you characterize that as "exactly" how it collapsed then you need professional help. Hell Chris 7 agrees in that characterization of the progression of collapse and I'd hardly say we agree on much, but that would where the "exactly" part would really come into play.
What needs more study is how a local vertical failure became a horizontal progression of failure. In the towers it started as a vertical failure which impacted the lower portion of the building and propigated all the way down still as a vertical failure.

There is no contradiction.

So what we have for the first time in history is three global collapses to two different designs for two different reasons that have never caused a steel constructed high-rise to suffer complete global collapse before and never will again

That's pretty much correct. Never before in history has a bloody big and fast aircraft rammed a large office tower and never before in history have large parts of a collapsing office tower fallen on another tall office building, none of which had, at any time, effective firefighting measures underway against the major fires in them.

[Christopher7]

It fell down and you characterize the manner in which it collapsed as similar enough to what one might expect of a CD to conclude that it was CD. I would need much more than that.
That's really no different than your point 1)
It fell down and you characterize the manner in which it collapsed as similar enough to what one might expect of a CD to conclude that it was CD. I would need much more than that.How thou dost dance around
"It looked like a CD"
CD's, especially implosions, are as recognizable as a rocket, if ya know what i mean.

No, actually the north face fell in 6-7 seconds, at the very most the north half of the building fell in 6-7 seconds.I beg to differ.

Most of the core area*
The north exterior wall
The west exterior wall including the south west corner
The east exterior wall including the south east corner
and possibly the south wall
[most of the building]
collapsed in about 7 seconds.

*[screenwall and west penthouse - 18 of 24 core columns]

I believe NIST says several times that their senarios are hypotheses, so your point is what?The NIST scenario is just as hypothetical as the CD scenario. [and no where near as parsimonious]
The CD scenario scenario explains the collapse of ALL 24 core columns.
The NIST scenario does not explain the collapse of columns 58,60,61,63,64,66,67,69,70,72,73 and 75.

An odd way of putting it. I would revise your analogy and say that ;
You see it fly
It has wings
Therefore it is a duck.
Touché

How nice, you wish to prove that there are sounds of explosives matching those used by demolitions experts and so you post 4 videos with no sounds of explosives matching sounds of explosives used by demolitions expertsWrong

and the ones you do post that have sound all have people making comments that they thought the building was going to collapse and there it was collapsing.You missed the point, which was:
The critical seconds when the "clap of thunder" would have occurred* are missing from the only two videos with the sound of the collapse.
What a coincidence. There are so many coincidences.

*After the east penthouse started falling and a couple seconds before the rest of the building collapsed.

Thus the only way you can shoehorn these into your senario of explosive demolitions is to concoct a vast conspiracy to hide the sounds of explosives leaving only a very few eyewitness accounts describing 'explosions'. That appears to be the case.

Once again then, for you, a lack of evidence equals evidence.It's like the 17 minute gap in the Nixon tape.
It's evidence of a cover up.

I need more than that Chris, even though I do so dislike GWB, and his administration and even though I have a healthy muistrust of gov't pronouncements.Yet you accept an incomplete hypothesis in a gov't report from an administration known to systematically distort scientific documents. :confused:

[Major_Tom]

Christopher7, you have develpoed quite a lot of ideas in this thread.

It is not easy to read through so many pages. Do you have a website or some link at which you summerize and condense the main issues you have raised into a more readable form?

[GStan]

How thou dost dance around
"It looked like a CD"
CD's, especially implosions, are as recognizable as a rocket, if ya know what i mean.

'Looked like' is not evidence of a CD. The collapse looked like a building whose structural supports failed. Whether the mechanism by which that failure came about is debris and fire or shaped charges, it will still fall in the general direction of DOWN. Gravity takes care of that. Arguing 'looks like' as evidence for a CD is the equivalent of conceding the argument.

I beg to differ.

Most of the core area*
The north exterior wall
The west exterior wall including the south west corner
The east exterior wall including the south east corner
and possibly the south wall
[most of the building]
collapsed in about 7 seconds.

*[screenwall and west penthouse - 18 of 24 core columns]

The building collapsed over seven hours, not seven seconds. Firefighters confirmed early in the afternoon that it was bulging/leaning/creaking/groaning. The building was collapsing all day. Even ignoring that, your argument is still disingenuous. You've conveniently left the penthouses out of your collapse time.

The NIST scenario is just as hypothetical as the CD scenario. [and no where near as parsimonious]
The CD scenario scenario explains the collapse of ALL 24 core columns.
The NIST scenario does not explain the collapse of columns 58,60,61,63,64,66,67,69,70,72,73 and 75.

Touché

Except for the fact that it is known irrefutably that the building was damaged and on fire all day. There is no evidence of any explosives at ground zero, anywhere, at any time. (Except for looks like of course; hang on tight to that rock solid piece of evidence.;))

Wrong

You missed the point, which was:
The critical seconds when the "clap of thunder" would have occurred* are missing from the only two videos with the sound of the collapse.
What a coincidence. There are so many coincidences.

*After the east penthouse started falling and a couple seconds before the rest of the building collapsed.

That appears to be the case.

It's like the 17 minute gap in the Nixon tape.
It's evidence of a cover up.

Yet you accept an incomplete hypothesis in a gov't report from an administration known to systematically distort scientific documents. :confused:

You have been quoting this same government report for more than 100 pages as the gospel for things like the fire progression and damage assessment.

[GStan]

Dupe, deleted

[DGM]

Christopher7, you have develpoed quite a lot of ideas in this thread.

It is not easy to read through so many pages. Do you have a website or some link at which you summerize and condense the main issues you have raised into a more readable form?
Read the first and the last 10 pages. That should get you up to speed.

[jaydeehess]

The NIST scenario is just as hypothetical as the CD scenario. [and no where near as parsimonious]

Parsimonious :

excessively unwilling to spend; "parsimonious thrift relieved by few generous impulses"; "lived in a most penurious manner--denying himself every ...
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Parsimony is the taking of extreme care at arriving at a course of action; or unusual or excessive frugality, extreme economy or stinginess. The word derives from Middle English parcimony, from Latin parsimonia, from parsus, past participle of parcere: to spare.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimonious

Stingy. Although in normal language, this has a negative connotation, when applied to a model or an explanation in economics it tends to be positive, meaning that it relies on as simple a structure as possible.
www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/p.html

Economical or frugal, condensing large number of things into smaller groups
www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~aged885/Glossary/GLOSSARY.htm
NIST is being very unparsimonuous in its investigation of the collapse of WTC 7

The TM however is quite stingy on details. Pretty much anecdotes and handwaving with a smattering of arguement from incredulity and politically motivated accusations;

"It looks like an implosion"
"Some people said they heard explosions"
"Explosives had to be placed somewhere in the building"
"It couldn't have just been fire"
"Don't trust anyone paid by the gov't"

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, you have develpoed quite a lot of ideas in this thread.

It is not easy to read through so many pages. Do you have a website or some link at which you summerize and condense the main issues you have raised into a more readable form?
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/forum/45287/

[Christopher7]

Parsimonious :

excessively unwilling to spend; "parsimonious thrift relieved by few generous impulses"; "lived in a most penurious manner--denying himself every ...
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
<snip>
Economical or frugal, condensing large number of things into smaller groups
www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~aged885/Glossary/GLOSSARY.htm (http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/%7Eaged885/Glossary/GLOSSARY.htm)
NIST is being very unparsimonuous in its investigation of the collapse of WTC 7
That was sarcasm. Par(simonious) posts:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2613056#post2613056

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2614115#post2614115

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2615162#post2615162
Perhaps this stems from you not having understood the term “parsimonious (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html),” which is why I have linked to a definition of it for you. Generosity, or the lack thereof, in the prosaic sense at least, has nothing to do with it. I am saying that, irrespective of whether or not it is supported by evidence, it is still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2617320#post2617320
I’ll try a forth time: Irrespective of whether or not it is supported by evidence, it is still by far and away the most parsimonious (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html) explanation. Don’t you think?

[Jonnyclueless]

While we're at it, can someone summarize the physical evidence for a controlled demolition?

[DGM]

While we're at it, can someone summarize the physical evidence for a controlled demolition?
Here you go:













:)

[Christopher7]

'Looked like' is not evidence of a CD.Yes it is.

The collapse looked like a building whose structural supports failed.It looked like a CD. The core columns failed first, it fell mostly straight down and it landed mostly in it's own footprint. The only known cause of this type of global collapse is CD.

Whether the mechanism by which that failure came about is debris and fire or shaped charges, it will still fall in the general direction of DOWN.If the debris damage were a factor, WTC 7 would have fallen to the south west.

Fires could NOT cause all the core columns to fail.

NIST doesn't even have a hypothesis for the failure of columns 58,59,60,61,63,64,66,67,69,70,72,73 and 75.


The building collapsed over seven hours, not seven seconds. Firefighters confirmed early in the afternoon that it was bulging/leaning/creaking/groaning. The building was collapsing all day. Even ignoring that, your argument is still disingenuous. You've conveniently left the penthouses out of your collapse time.Wrong
There were NO reports of collapses after the initial debris damage.

There were reports of creaking and bulging at the south west corner.
A guy who works nearby and a firefighter several blocks away thought WTC 7 was leaning.
No one at the scene reported that WTC 7 was leaning.
Fema and NIST did not say WTC 7 was leaning.
WTC 7 was NOT leaning.


Except for the fact that it is known irrefutably that the building was damaged and on fire all day.They did not burn in the same place all day.

Using photographs and firefighters statements, NIST compiled a chronology of the fires in the east half of WTC 7.

NIST L 22–26
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12 burned west to east across the south side
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on floors 11 and 12 at SE corner, progressing north
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg
About 3:00 p.m.
Fires on floors 7 and 12 along the north face
The fire on floor 12 spread in both directions, eventually reaching the NE corner
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/3849/copyofnorthfacekj6.png

Sometime later, fires on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out by this time.
[NIST did not publish this photo]


The fires on floors 7 and 12 appeared on the north side about 3:00 p.m. [second picture above]
In the third picture, there are no fires on floors 9 and 11, so it was taken before 4:45.
The fire on floor 7 had burned out.
The fire on floor 8 appeared sometime after 3:00 p.m. and had burned out the offices on the right.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out the area to the east end and 20 windows to the west of where it had first appeared.
The fire on floor 13 appeared sometime after 3:00 p.m. and it had already burned out much of the east end.

The fires did NOT burn more than about an hour in any location.

[Jonnyclueless]

Here you go:













:)


No really, what about the list of physical evidence that supports a CD? Did NIST say anything about finding any evidence of a CD?

[twinstead]

No really, what about the list of physical evidence that supports a CD? Did NIST say anything about finding any evidence of a CD?

Well, according to Chris NIST didn't mention that the building was 'leaning', so it wasn't. So, NIST didn't say anything about finding any evidence of CD, so I can only assume there WASN'T.

There ya go

[Christopher7]

While we're at it, can someone summarize the physical evidence for a controlled demolition?There are no pieces of framing that can be positively identified as being from WTC 7 because the physical evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

New York Penal Law Section 215.40 - Tampering With Physical Evidence.

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0215.40_215.40.html

§ 215.40 Tampering with physical evidence. A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when:
1. With intent that it be used or introduced in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, he (a) knowingly makes, devises or prepares false physical evidence, or (b) produces or offers such evidence at such a proceeding knowing it to be false; or
2. Believing that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, or by employing force, intimidation or deception against any person. Tampering with physical evidence is a class E felony.


An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.

The only way to determine how the Trade Towers and building 7 collapsed is to examine the physical evidence.

[Drs_Res]

Been done. NO cd. It was fire and damage from the planes hitting them. WTC7 fell due to damage from the tower falling on it and outfought fires.

It's really pretty simple if you have no agenda other than the truth about what happened.

[Christopher7]

Been done. NO cd. It was fire and damage from the planes hitting them. WTC7 fell due to damage from the tower falling on it and outfought fires.You are entitled to your opinion but NIST has NOT explained how the Trade Towers and WTC 7 collapsed.

[Jonnyclueless]

But I am confused. So there IS physical evidence of a CD? Did NIST say anything about finding evidence of a CD? Can someone list that evidence?

[jaydeehess]

That was sarcasm. Par(simonious) posts:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2613056#post2613056

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2614115#post2614115

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2615162#post2615162
Perhaps this stems from you not having understood the term “parsimonious (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html),” which is why I have linked to a definition of it for you. Generosity, or the lack thereof, in the prosaic sense at least, has nothing to do with it. I am saying that, irrespective of whether or not it is supported by evidence, it is still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2617320#post2617320
I’ll try a forth time: Irrespective of whether or not it is supported by evidence, it is still by far and away the most parsimonious (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html) explanation. Don’t you think?

Ahhh, parsimonious in not adding complexity in an unneccessary fashion.

In that way , yes, the damage/fire hypothisis is parsimonius.

Your contention of CD most certainly adds a level of complexity that goes well beyond any evidence for its requirement to be. You have no physical evidence of a CD except for , in your mind, the fact that there is a lack of physical evidence to support the contention of CD. This means you not only violate Occam's principle but also employ a circular arguement.

I have seen it argued that CD is the most logical explanation because it is the least complex explanation. That reminds me of two things; first it is invoking magic as the obviosly simple solution given that no one saw the planting of the explosives. A slight of hand , if you will. Second, it is not unlike the creationist arguement that a Creator who simply called into being all things is much simpler than the complex theory of evolution. Its only simple because a proponent of such a theory chooses to ignore the complexity involved in postulating an omnipotent being, or the placing of unseen explosives for some unknown reason.

Chris, who, exactly, is guilty of tampering with evidence?

[Christopher7]

There are no pieces of framing that can be positively identified as being from WTC 7 because the physical evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.But I am confused. So there IS physical evidence of a CD? Did NIST say anything about finding evidence of a CD? Can someone list that evidence?What part of "no" don't you understand?

What part of "illegal" don't you understand?

[Christopher7]

You have no physical evidence of a CDbecause the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed.

Chris, who, exactly, is guilty of tampering with evidence?Whoever ordered the physical evidence to be removed and/or destroyed.

[Jonnyclueless]

So the proof of a controlled demolition is the lack of existence of proof? Chris is saying the evidence was illegally removed with the implication that he knows it showed a CD. How does he know this?

I have to ask why Chris doesn't bring up a lawsuit against this crime if it was illegal.

And again, despite this, Chris knows it was a CD. So where is the physical evidence he uses to back up this claim?

[Christopher7]

So the proof of a controlled demolition is the lack of existence of proof?No

Chris knows it was a CD. So where is the physical evidence he uses to back up this claim?It was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

[Drs_Res]

How quickly was it removed? Was it inspected before it was removed? Where is the lawsuit / legal case about the removal?
Who planted the non-existent explosives that no mics or video cameras picked up?

[Christopher7]

How quickly was it removed? Was it inspected before it was removed? Where is the lawsuit / legal case about the removal?
You know the answers to those questions.

Who planted the non-existent explosives that no mics or video cameras picked up?Subject shift.

There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

[PhantomWolf]

There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

First... wow is this thread still going?

Second. Evidence Christopher7?

The 600 NYPD and 55 FBI repsonse teams might sort of disagree with you. Are they all lying and breaking the law when they claim to have investigated all the materials coming to the storage areas?

What about NYPD Detective first grade Hal Sherman who says

At Ground Zero the CSU is responsible for photographing the site, recovering physical evidence, documenting body parts and any other physical evidence like weapons or a wallet, manning the temporary morgue at the site (as well as the city morgue up on 28th Street), inspecting debris that leaves the site, and inspecting debris as it gets sifted out at Staten Island. ...All evidence is documented– airplane parts were essential to the beginning investigation, but now they look for hair, fibers, glass particles, semen, ballistics. ...We ID every part. Pillars and beams are swiped for hair, tissue and blood, evaporated body evidence. We have two police officers with mortuary degrees, and they are either in the medical examiner's office or the police lab, because you must be a sworn police officer to take evidence.

Is he lying or are you wrong?

[Drs_Res]

You know the answers to those questions.

Actually, I don't. I do not follow every thread on this sub-forum, so why don't you inform me? Just a link or two.

Subject shift.

There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

How does that relate to the lack of explosions recorded?

These would have been VERY loud, especially since prepping the building beforehand to weaken the structure was impossible. Since it was not possible to prep the building, the explosives used to cut the supports would have to have been very powerful, more powerful than what you would use to bring it down if you did pre weaken it.

So where is the Seismic and audio evidence? It does not exist. And looking at steel won't make it show up somehow.

[Christopher7]

The 600 NYPD and 55 FBI repsonse teams might sort of disagree with you. Are they all lying and breaking the law when they claim to have investigated all the materials coming to the storage areas?
What about NYPD Detective first grade Hal Sherman who says:

"At Ground Zero the CSU is responsible for photographing the site, recovering physical evidence, documenting body parts and any other physical evidence like weapons or a wallet, manning the temporary morgue at the site (as well as the city morgue up on 28th Street), inspecting debris that leaves the site, and inspecting debris as it gets sifted out at Staten Island. ...All evidence is documented– airplane parts were essential to the beginning investigation, but now they look for hair, fibers, glass particles, semen, ballistics. ...We ID every part. Pillars and beams are swiped for hair, tissue and blood, evaporated body evidence. We have two police officers with mortuary degrees, and they are either in the medical examiner's office or the police lab, because you must be a sworn police officer to take evidence.
Is he lying or are you wrong?Neither
He was describing the search and recovery of human remains and identifying personal effects.

They were NOT inspecting steel.

There were no bodies to be recovered at the WTC 7 site so that debris was probably not sifted for human remains.

Furthermore, it isn't the people doing the work committing the crime, it's the persons who ordered the illegal removal of the physical evidence of what caused the collapse.

[jaydeehess]

There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.


It would be nice if you would tell us why neither you, or S.Jones, or A.Jones, or Griffin or someone else, has bothered to file suit if it is so very obvious that such an illegal act took place.

Let me guess, it would not stand up in a court of law, right? It would not because the evil government would take orders from the secret government to make sure that the decision went against the petitioner, and not because the suit would have no merit, right?

[Christopher7]

How quickly was it removed? Was it inspected before it was removed? Where is the lawsuit / legal case about the removal?
You know the answers to those questions.
Actually, I don't. I do not follow every thread on this sub-forum, so why don't you inform me? Just a link or two.Subject shift.
The question was:
While we're at it, can someone summarize the physical evidence for a controlled demolition?

There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

You cannot admit, nor can you deny, that the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed, so you . .
How does that relate to the lack of explosions recorded?. . subject shift, . .
Since it was not possible to prep the building, . . . . . subject shift, . .
So where is the Seismic and audio evidence? It does not exist. And looking at steel won't make it show up somehow. . . subject shift.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

It would be nice if you would tell us why neither you, or S.Jones, or A.Jones, or Griffin or someone else, has bothered to file suit if it is so very obvious that such an illegal act took place.You cannot admit, nor can you deny, that the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed, so you . . . subject shift.

[Jonnyclueless]

So your evidence of a CD again, is the evidence that ou don't have and the reason it is evidence is BECAUSE you don't have it. Is that correct?

[PhantomWolf]

There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

So when FEMA claims that 151 engineers made 63 trips over the space of 53 days and searched through unsorted piles of steel for pieces from the WTC 1 and WTC 2 impact areas and from WTC 5 and WTC 7 checking for:

• Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7.
• Connections from WTC 1, 2, and 7, such as seat connections, single shear plates, and column splices.
• Bolts from WTC 1, 2, and 7 that were exposed to fire, fractured, and/or that appeared undamaged.

They were lying because all the WTC 7 steel was gone? And that when three follow up trips were made 8 months later they are lying because it was all gone?

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

You cannot admit, nor can you deny, that the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed, so you . . . subject shift.
Are you saying that all the steel was removed without the blessing of the FBI? That would be the only way it would have been illegal to remove it. (unless someone else partitioned a court to have it saved)

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.
Originally Posted by jaydeehess
It would be nice if you would tell us why neither you, or S.Jones, or A.Jones, or Griffin or someone else, has bothered to file suit if it is so very obvious that such an illegal act took place
You cannot admit, nor can you deny, that the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed, so you . . . subject shift.

I certainly can deny that there was any illegality involved. However you did not answer the question I asked. That is, if this was a patently illegal act then why no action concerning it from S.Jones, A.Jones, Griffin, Gage, Fetzer (I thought of the last two after my above post) , or you?

As pointed out by Phantomwolf and DGM the ruins were inspected and the disposal of the steel sanctioned by the FBI. I do not know directly and personally that the FBI sanctioned it but that agency has not laid any charges concerning this which certainly suggests that they saw nothing amiss.

It is similar to the "CIT" claiming that Lloyd England planted evidence of the accepted flight path of Flight 77. That would be evidence tampering, yet they have done nothing at all to bring this man to justice.

[jaydeehess]

The question was:
Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless
While we're at it, can someone summarize the physical evidence for a controlled demolition?

[B][SIZE=3]There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.


So the answer to Johnny's question is that the list constitutes an empty set.

[Jonnyclueless]

Ah, so what Christopher is telling us is that there is no evidence of a controlled demolition. I would have to say that I agree with him on this point.

[Christopher7]

So your evidence of a CD again, is the evidence that ou don't have and the reason it is evidence is BECAUSE you don't have it. Is that correct?No, i am saying there is no physical evidence of CD or anything else because the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed.

[Pardalis]

Thread started on january 3rd, 2007.

It keeps going, and going...

[Jonnyclueless]

No, i am saying there is no physical evidence of CD or anything else because the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed.

So there is no evidence of a CD. Got it. You can go back to pretending that FEMA didn't examine the debris now.

[Christopher7]

So when FEMA claims that 151 engineers made 63 trips over the space of 53 days and searched through unsorted piles of steel for pieces from the WTC 1 and WTC 2 impact areas and from WTC 5 and WTC 7 checking for:

• Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7.
• Connections from WTC 1, 2, and 7, such as seat connections, single shear plates, and column splices.
• Bolts from WTC 1, 2, and 7 that were exposed to fire, fractured, and/or that appeared undamaged.

They were lying because all the WTC 7 steel was gone? And that when three follow up trips were made 8 months later they are lying because it was all gone?No
They did not find any pieces that could be positively identified as being from WTC 7 because the steel from WTC 7 was illegally removed from the site an mixed with the steel from the Trade Towers.

NIST Executive Summary
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf

page 2 E.1
"the steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described
based solely on data from the literature, because no steel from the building was recovered."

page 9 E.6

No steel was recovered from WTC 7

[Christopher7]

Ah, so what Christopher is telling us is that there is no evidence of a controlled demolition. I would have to say that I agree with him on this point.There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F.

We are both in the same boat, NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

[funk de fino]

No
They did not find any pieces that could be positively identified as being from WTC 7 because the steel from WTC 7 was illegally removed from the site an mixed with the steel from the Trade Towers.

NIST Executive Summary
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf

page 2 E.1
"the steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described
based solely on data from the literature, because no steel from the building was recovered."

page 9 E.6

No steel was recovered from WTC 7


There was none available for this study. This does not mean none was recovered and searched/studied by FEMA earlier.

Did you notice also in the NIST link, which never seems to be quoted by truther bots.

In addition to the NIST analysis, an outside contractor made an independent study of the recovered steel elements. In general, the observations concerning local failure mechanisms by the contractor agreed with those that NIST found.

Why is that?

Also, care to answer this post you missed earlier?

Are you saying that all the steel was removed without the blessing of the FBI? That would be the only way it would have been illegal to remove it. (unless someone else partitioned a court to have it saved)

[Christopher7]

I certainly can deny that there was any illegality involved.Here's the law again:
New York Penal Law Section 215.40 - Tampering With Physical Evidence.

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal...40_215.40.html (http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0215.40_215.40.html)

§ 215.40 Tampering with physical evidence. A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when:
1. With intent that it be used or introduced in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, he (a) knowingly makes, devises or prepares false physical evidence, or (b) produces or offers such evidence at such a proceeding knowing it to be false; or
2. Believing that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, or by employing force, intimidation or deception against any person. Tampering with physical evidence is a class E felony.


An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.



However you did not answer the question I asked. That is, if this was a patently illegal act then why no action concerning it from S.Jones, A.Jones, Griffin, Gage, Fetze , or you? Subject shift. Give it up, i ain't goin' for it.

[beachnut]

Fire burned all day after building was hit by debris, zero firefighting, no water for sprinklers, TONS of fuel. Do you think the building is going to survive? There are examples of buildings that were put out before falling and they were totaled by fire. The list is long of fire destroying buildings. Someone's lack of experience is producing post after post exposing lack of knowledge on fire and structures.

What does it matter if we called in an air strike to put 7 out of its misery? WTC7 has to be the biggest failure of tying any plot to anything rational in 9/11 truth's arsenal of false information! It is like connecting dots, but you have zero dots. Are there any logical people in 9/11 truth?

There was damage to WTC7, you can see stuff flying into it from the towers.

[Christopher7]

There was none available for this study. This does not mean none was recovered and searched/studied by FEMA earlier.FEMA found and photographed a W14 column from WTC 7.
Pg 12:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf

And a structural steel member with unusual erosion patterns, that appeared to be from WTC 7.
Pg 1: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

However;
NIST had access to the FEMA data and determined that neither of the 2 pieces that FEMA had collected could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7.
NISTNCSTAR1-3B: Pg 27[on pg counter]

The volunteers searched through unsorted piles of steel and other debris for pieces from the WTC buildings, specifically searching for (McAllister 2002):
• Badly burned pieces from WTC 7;
NISTNCSTAR1-3B: Pg 31[on pg counter]
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

Originally Posted by NIST (? ? ?)
In addition to the NIST analysis, an outside contractor made an independent study of the recovered steel elements. In general, the observations concerning local failure mechanisms by the contractor agreed with those that NIST found. Did you notice also in the NIST link, which never seems to be quoted by truther bots.
URL please


Also, care to answer this post you missed earlier?I sited the NY state law, i don't know the federal statute. Do you?
Does the FBI have to sign off on the removal of evidence?

[Christopher7]

Fire burned all day after building was hit by debris, zero firefighting, no water for sprinklers, TONS of fuel. You keep talking in generalities.
The fires did NOT burn all day in the AIE. They burned on 4 floors at different times and moved around leaving burned out areas.

Do you think the building is going to survive?There have been larger, longer lasting fires in high rise buildings without any collapse at all.

There are examples of buildings that were put out before falling and they were totaled by fire.There has never been a COLLAPSE in a high rise building despite much larger fires.
[Windsor Towers was a unique hybrid, primarily reinforced concrete frame with very lightweight exterior columns on the upper 10 floors]


There was damage to WTC7, you can see stuff flying into it from the towers. The debris damage was not a significant factor in the initiating event.

[funk de fino]

FEMA found and photographed a W14 column from WTC 7.
Pg 12:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf

And a structural steel member with unusual erosion patterns, that appeared to be from WTC 7.
Pg 1: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

However;
NIST had access to the FEMA data and determined that neither of the 2 pieces that FEMA had collected could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7.
NISTNCSTAR1-3B: Pg 27[on pg counter]

The volunteers searched through unsorted piles of steel and other debris for pieces from the WTC buildings, specifically searching for (McAllister 2002):
• Badly burned pieces from WTC 7;
NISTNCSTAR1-3B: Pg 31[on pg counter]
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

So, there was steel recovered from WTC7. It was just not used or available for the NIST study you posted. Why would that have been?

URL please

Don't be dense Chris, it is in your own link. Try reading complete studies instead of cherry picking them. My point is proved.


I sited the NY state law, i don't know the federal statute. Do you?
Does the FBI have to sign off on the removal of evidence?

What type of crime was it and who had jurisdiction?

You tell me if they have to sign off, you are the one claiming something illegal was done. If they do have to sign off on it you have to show they did not before you claim anything.

[funk de fino]

You keep talking in generalities.
The fires did NOT burn all day in the AIE. They burned on 4 floors at different times and moved around leaving burned out areas.

He is correct. The fires in the building lasted all day, until it collapsed.

There have been larger, longer lasting fires in high rise buildings without any collapse at all.

Source for larger fires?

There has never been a COLLAPSE in a high rise building despite much larger fires.

Source for larger fires?

[Windsor Towers was a unique hybrid, primarily reinforced concrete frame with very lightweight exterior columns on the upper 10 floors]

fire weakens steel

The debris damage was not a significant factor in the initiating event.

That is not what NIST latest hypothesis for WTC7 says. You have been shown this recently, by myself, so you are either lying or are being stupid. Which is it Chris?

[funk de fino]

This is what NIST say about what happened that day in the latest release.

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Come on Chris, I really do not believe you have made the same mistake again so you must be deliberately misleading or lying?

[DGM]

Chris:
What's an "official proceeding" in the context of the NY state penal law that you posted? How would that apply to how your claiming that the steel was removed illegally? Did the FBI know the steel was removed?

[Christopher7]

So, there was steel recovered from WTC7. It was just not used or available for the NIST study you posted. Why would that have been?NIST obviously had access or they would not have been able to say it could not be unambiguously identified as coming from WTC 7.

The original point here is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed.


Don't be dense Chris, it is in your own link. Try reading complete studies instead of cherry picking them. My point is proved.Don't be evasive, i've posted many links.
From what source did that quote come from?
I would like to know, who was this outside contractor that made an independent study and what specifically did he verify?

What type of crime was it and who had jurisdiction?The law does not say that there had to be a crime, only that:
"certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction.

An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.

You tell me if they have to sign off, you are the one claiming something illegal was done. If they do have to sign off on it you have to show they did not before you claim anything.The FBI does not need to sign off on a violation of state law.
The FBI investigates federal crimes. I don't know the federal statute that would apply here so i don't know if they would have to sign off.

Once again, the point here is:

There is no physical evidence of CE or DD/F because the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed.

[DGM]

Chris:
What criminal investigation was the steel (the steel itself) involved in? Could you state the case please.

[Christopher7]

Chris:
What's an "official proceeding" in the context of the NY state penal law that you posted? How would that apply to how your claiming that the steel was removed illegally? An investigation into how these buildings collapsed was essential to prevent anything like that from happening again.
An official investigation was launched and therefore, the destruction of the physical evidence was a felony under NY state law.

[DGM]

An investigation into how these buildings collapsed was essential to prevent anything like that from happening again.
An official investigation was launched and therefore, the destruction of the physical evidence was a felony under NY state law.
THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. How does a penal code apply?

Why don't you trot over to NY state and show just cause to the DA. Then maybe you would have a leg to stand on.

[Christopher7]

Chris:
What criminal investigation was the steel (the steel itself) involved in? Could you state the case please.See post . . . . . i'll post it again:

The law does not say that there had to be a crime, only that:

"certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction.

An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.

[DGM]

See post . . . . . i'll post it again:

The law does not say that there had to be a crime, only that:

"certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction.

An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.
Chris:
So by your reasoning it's a felony to throw anything away in the state of NY. The "penal code" covers actions involving the state. Do you see the state of NY complaining about this? They're the ones that have to follow up on this. All you got to do is convince them then your in (just cause). Go for it.

[funk de fino]

NIST obviously had access or they would not have been able to say it could not be unambiguously identified as coming from WTC 7.

The original point here is

You lied or were mistaken when you said they had no steel from WTC7 cause it had been destroyed.

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed.

Prove it

Don't be evasive, i've posted many links.
From what source did that quote come from?
I would like to know, who was this outside contractor that made an independent study and what specifically did he verify?

Your own link to the NIST Executive study. Try reading them first. Not very clever looking now are you?

The law does not say that there had to be a crime, only that:
"certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction.

So, they took it away, it was inspected and then it was destroyed. Who gave the orders for this to be done?

An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.

What type of proceeding?

The FBI does not need to sign off on a violation of state law.
The FBI investigates federal crimes. I don't know the federal statute that would apply here so i don't know if they would have to sign off.

Who was in charge of the federal investigation? Were the investigations carried out under state law?


Once again, the point here is:

You cannot prove it was illegal to move and destroy the steel and you cannot even say when it was all destroyed.

(a) "Official proceeding" means a proceeding heard before a legislative, judicial, administrative, or other governmental agency or official authorized to hear evidence under oath, including a referee, prosecuting attorney, hearing examiner, commissioner, notary, or other person taking testimony or deposition in that proceeding.

[funk de fino]

Post # 4477 Chris

retract your schoolboy error please

(or admit you lied)

[jaydeehess]

An investigation into how these buildings collapsed was essential to prevent anything like that from happening again.
An official investigation was launched and therefore, the destruction of the physical evidence was a felony under NY state law.

Ok, so you say its not a Federal responsibility even though the case involves aircraft hijacking. Fine, then one must also note that no law enforcement or justice agency anywhere in the USA has brought forth a case against anyone involved in the supposedly illegal act of removing the WTC 7 steel.

Further to that no citizen has brought forth a complaint about this supposed egregious act. Instead, in similar fashion to the actions of the so-called CIT and their contentions of evidence tampering, this gets argued about on internet forums.

As laughable as it was, even Morgan Reynolds asked for and got, his day in court re: planted evidence of planes into the towers.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by C7
The debris damage was not a significant factor in the initiating event.

This is what NIST say about what happened that day in the latest release.
Originally Posted by NIST, Dec 18, 2007
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Come on Chris, I really do not believe you have made the same mistake again so you must be deliberately misleading or lying?Wrong again.

There was NO debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.
[columns 79, 80 or 81]

They are talking about debris [floors] falling as a result of fires.

The core columns were 2 stories high with splices 3' above the odd numbered floors.
Several floors would have to collapse around a column before it would fail.

[Christopher7]

Ok, so you say its not a Federal responsibility even though the case involves aircraft hijacking.Wrong, i said:
"I don't know the federal statute that would apply here so i don't know if they [FBI] would have to sign off."

[Christopher7]

Rember, the POINT here is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was destroyed.

The 2 pieces that FEMA found were not enough to determine anything about a collapse due to DD/F.
NIST said they could not be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7 anyway.

[DGM]

Rember, the POINT here is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was destroyed.

The 2 pieces that FEMA found were not enough to determine anything about a collapse due to DD/F.
NIST said they could not be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7 anyway.
I take it you are dropping the felony charges?:rolleyes:

[Christopher7]

I take it you are dropping the felony charges?:rolleyes:No, but that is another issue.
I sited the law:
"certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction.

The removal and destruction of the physical evidence was a felony IMO.
If you disagree, then so be it.

Rember, the POINT here is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was destroyed.

[Christopher7]

This puts both theories on how WTC 7 collapsed on an equal footing.

The ONLY evidence to support either theory is:
the pictures, videos and witness statements.

[LashL]

There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

Wrong.

The question was:


There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

You cannot admit, nor can you deny, that the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed, so you . .
. . subject shift, . .
. . subject shift, . .
. . subject shift.


Wrong.

No, i am saying there is no physical evidence of CD or anything else because the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed.


Wrong.

No
They did not find any pieces that could be positively identified as being from WTC 7 because the steel from WTC 7 was illegally removed from the site an mixed with the steel from the Trade Towers.

Wrong.

Here's the law again:
New York Penal Law Section 215.40 - Tampering With Physical Evidence.

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal...40_215.40.html (http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0215.40_215.40.html)

§ 215.40 Tampering with physical evidence. A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when:
1. With intent that it be used or introduced in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, he (a) knowingly makes, devises or prepares false physical evidence, or (b) produces or offers such evidence at such a proceeding knowing it to be false; or
2. Believing that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, or by employing force, intimidation or deception against any person. Tampering with physical evidence is a class E felony.


An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.



The original point here is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed.


Wrong.



An investigation into how these buildings collapsed was essential to prevent anything like that from happening again.
An official investigation was launched and therefore, the destruction of the physical evidence was a felony under NY state law.

Wrong.

See post . . . . . i'll post it again:

The law does not say that there had to be a crime, only that:

"certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction.

An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.


Wrong.

No, but that is another issue.
I sited the law:
"certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction.

The removal and destruction of the physical evidence was a felony IMO.

Ahh, after at least a dozen assertions that it was certain, now it's suddenly "in your opinion", I see. And you're still wrong.

If you disagree, then so be it.


Oh, I do.

I love it when someone who knows absolutely nothing about the law makes repeated, absolutely certain, intractable assertions purporting to interpret the law.

Especially when they, like you, Christopher7, are wrong. :rolleyes:

[jhunter1163]

Before you start attempting to rebut Lash, Chris, I feel I must remind you that she is a lawyer. Rebut at your own risk.

[Christopher7]

Oh, I love it when someone who knows absolutely nothing about the law makes repeated, absolutely certain, intractable assertions purporting to interpret the law.
Especially when they, like you, Christopher7, are wrong. :rolleyes:You are entitled to your opinion, however, you are ignoring to POINT, which is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was destroyed.

This puts both theories of how WTC 7 collapsed on an equal footing.

The ONLY evidence to support either theory is:
the pictures, videos and witness statements.

[Jonnyclueless]

So no evidence of a CD eh? Maybe they illegally removed the evidence of a fire and damaged induced collapse! oh my!

So we have tons of footage showing tons of debris hitting WTC, we have tons of footage of fires in the WTC 7, we have pictures and footage of gashes and damage that extend the entire height of the side of WTC 7, we have firefighters who talk about the building leaning and creaking.

Do we have any such evidence of bombs? Pictures of the bombs perhaps? Pictures or video of someone placing these bombs maybe? Anything other than assuming an explosion must be a bomb? Anything that isn't assumption at all?

[LashL]

You are entitled to your opinion, however, you are ignoring to POINT, which is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was destroyed.



No, Chris. I am addressing the erroneous POINT that you asserted at least a dozen times, i.e., that the steel was destroyed illegally, and the erroneous POINT you asserted repeatedly, i.e., that the removal and eventual destruction of the steel constituted a felony.

You repeated these erroneous assertions over and over again, and you are quite wrong. I would suggest that you retract your repeated assertions of illegality and felonious actions.

[LashL]

I don't know the federal statute that would apply here...


Gee, maybe you should look it up before you go around accusing people of committing felonies.

[Jonnyclueless]

The reason for Chris's confusion is that he like others seem to think that NIST is doing some kind of criminal investigation and thus the removal impedes a criminal investigation. Of course this is nonsense. There wasn't really much question about how the building came to fell so after FEMA did some looking at it, the removed it as per usual. No one was running around thinking "We have to figure out how this happened", it was a no brainer. Then take into account the many different departments in such a large city and there shouldn't be much trouble with things not being communicated. It is a shame that the steel got removed for the sake of research and safety. But it was NOT a crime scene in the sense Chris is trying to base his claim on.