10 story hole in WTC 7

[Disbelief]

If it was just that damage at the top 5-6 floors, I might agree. It looks to me like two distinct cylindrical gouges, but it is irregular enough to perhaps be impact damage. Not so with the gash below. It is straight down. It doesn't get wider or narrower. The damage appears to be parallel to the wall. WTC7 was showered with random debris, arriving at an angle, not striaght down. No, it is impossible that perimeter columns caused this.




Can you prove it is impossible?

What is the distance between the WTCs and WTC7? Too far for a column to still be attached yet fall outward like it is hinged?

[FactCheck]

First, the composite isn't perfect and I can't say the different angles and zooms isn't causing the difference. But why wouldn't the columns of WTC 1 and upper level WTC 7 debris from the impact not funnel between the stronger columns and on the weaker floors??? Why in the world would that be odd?

[chipmunk stew]

If it was just that damage at the top 5-6 floors, I might agree. It looks to me like two distinct cylindrical gouges, but it is irregular enough to perhaps be impact damage. Not so with the gash below. It is straight down. It doesn't get wider or narrower. The damage appears to be parallel to the wall. WTC7 was showered with random debris, arriving at an angle, not striaght down. No, it is impossible that perimeter columns caused this.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg
The gash is exactly between two building 7 perimeter columns (suggesting that the debris shower initiated a localized progressive collapse between those two columns.) Why didn't your space beam flash-fry those columns? Your evil space men have remarkably precise aim.



:Dancing_growl: <--evil space man

[jaydeehess]

We agree.

The corner was sagging.

The building was NOT leaning


Would all floors above the bulge sag an equal amount Chris? If not what would it look like?

What would be the effect of this perimeter sag on the core columns Chris?

[rwguinn]

Would all floors above the bulge sag an equal amount Chris? If not what would it look like?

What would be the effect of this perimeter sag on the core columns Chris?
Whoa, Podner:
You are all tangled up in a straw-man Chris has tossed in front of you.
It is my understanding that FDNY put a transit on the corner of WTC 7 because of a visible bulge. The "lean" of the building (rotation off of verticality) under such circumstances, would indeed exist--and FDNY, engineers, and other persons in a position of authority knew that. They were also aware that that situation was pretty well hidden by the exterior walls and smoke.
The bulge, however, was highly discernable, and was a visible, measurable effect of the likelyhood of collapse. That is why the transit was put on it, and how they could determine that the building was going to come down- by extrapolation the movement of the bulge to the tilt of internal, non-visible floors and walls.

[Belz...]

If it was just that damage at the top 5-6 floors, I might agree. It looks to me like two distinct cylindrical gouges, but it is irregular enough to perhaps be impact damage.

Indeed, especially the top part, where you can see some of the facaed appearing ripped.

I don't know how you can see cylinders everywhere you look.

Not so with the gash below. It is straight down. It doesn't get wider or narrower.

Should it ?

The damage appears to be parallel to the wall.

Gravity tends to pull things down; buildings tend to stand straight up.

WTC7 was showered with random debris, arriving at an angle, not striaght down.

A north-south angle, yes, but not particularily at an east-west angle.

No, it is impossible that perimeter columns caused this.

Why ?

[Disbelief]

If it was just that damage at the top 5-6 floors, I might agree. It looks to me like two distinct cylindrical gouges, but it is irregular enough to perhaps be impact damage. Not so with the gash below. It is straight down. It doesn't get wider or narrower. The damage appears to be parallel to the wall. WTC7 was showered with random debris, arriving at an angle, not striaght down. No, it is impossible that perimeter columns caused this.




So, are you theorizing it was a space beam that fired from the top down to make the gash? If so, how do they have such pinpoint control that it can vaporize steel from top to bottom of a 47 story building yet does not damage the ground in front. I would think that something that powerful would continue for some distance into the earth and leave a big hole that would be impossible to explain away.

[FactCheck]

The gash is exactly between two building 7 perimeter columns (suggesting that the debris shower initiated a localized progressive collapse between those two columns.) Why didn't your space beam flash-fry those columns? Your evil space men have remarkably precise aim.



:Dancing_growl: <--evil space man

Actually, the evil space man have either poor aim or has a weird sense of humor. He hit the towers perfectly but also fried some cars on the ground just for the hell of it. Let me guess, it was for an insurance scam by the fire department... Heh!

[Mangoose]

Look at all the photographs of WTC 7.

Can you see the building leaning in any of them ?

Yes, if you look at the Steve Spak DVD, there is a part in which he pans down giving a very detailed look of the SW corner of the building, and it looks like either the building is leaning away from it or there is a big bulge down there going the other way. I'm not sure if it is really leaning or not, but it does look funny. In fact, this quote really does seem to describe how it looks:

"Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way."

It looks weird because it isn't leaning towards the weakened corner (which is what you'd expect) but AWAY from it. Again, I'm not sure if it is really leaning or if the damaged bottom part of the building is making it look like that. I overlapped several frames of this view into a single image, and I'll post it once I have enough posts on the board to post links.

[Christopher7]

Actually, no. You have a short memory.
You said: "How could he not notice and mention a 47 story hole?"
I said that there was a thick column of smoke. I implied that this smoke could have prevented him from seeing the whole thing. It was speculation, but reasonable speculation.
You left out:
Hayden: "...it took a while for that fire to develop."

There was not a thick column of smoke right away IMO.

Speculation yes, reasonable, not so much.


Then you retort "he couldn't see through the smoke, and neither can you". Of course! That's MY whole pointDishonest misquote.

Post #1950 - C7
"I cannot see thru that column of smoke.
neither can you.

I was referring to the smoke in the video taken in the afternoon that obscured floors 15 thru 26.

con·tra1 /ˈkɒntrə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon-truh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–preposition 1. against; in opposition or contrast to: Consider the problems of the teenager contra those of the adult.
–adverb 2. contrariwise; on or to the contrary.

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contra

How is that different from how I used it ?Post #1927 - Belz
"How can you possibly claim, without expertise and contra other peoples expertise, that the physical damage and the fire [dishonest misquote] and the collapse are NOT related ?

My statement

"The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not contribute to the initiating event in the east central part."

is consistent with the statements in the NIST report.
It is not "in opposition or contrast to".

I'm still a little confused. Are you saying that the initiating event wasn't caused by fire and structural damage ? Are you saying that said fires and damages were NOT caused by debris from 1 WTC ? You are easily confused.

My statement [above, in bold] does not mention fires nor does it say the damage was not caused by debris.

You've never seen a building collapse due to fire ? I have.Please
Get serious.
We are talking about the total collapse of a modern steel frame high rise building.
The Windsor Tower was primarily a reinforced concrete frame.
The only similar comparisons are the Meridian Plaza and the Caracus Tower.
Firefighting efforts were ineffective and were abandoned in both buildings.
There was concern that the Meridian Plaza would collapse.
There was NO partial, much total collapse in either building.
Just because knowledgeable people think a building is going to collapse due to fire, it does not mean the building will collapse or that the collapse of WTC 7 was due to fire.

[Christopher7]

I'm not a structural engineer, or even a carpenter. However, I do know that it's common for someone with limited knowledge to overestimate their own expertise. Generally, the more a person learns about a particular discipline, the more humbled they are by it, as they begin to realize that a lifetime is not sufficient to learn everything there is to know about it. For this reason, it's sometimes difficult to tell how much expertise someone has just by talking to them.

However, if they make sweeping statements about how simple and easy to understand the construction of a high-rise building is, I tend to group them into the "limited knowledge" batch.
This doesn't require any expertise, just the ability to use a dictionary.

Column [in wood - post], girder and beam, are terms used in the construction of wood and steel framed buildings because they perform the same function in both.

[Christopher7]

Chris, are you going to troll or are you going to answer direct questions directly...

Why did they put a transit on the building?
Hayden: "Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, we put a transit on it and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse."

A bulge in the SW corner does NOT mean the building is leaning.

Hayden did NOT say the building was leaning.

FEMA did NOT say the building was leaning.

NIST did NOT say the building was leaning.

Why did the FIREMAN (Note the man in the videos red suspender connection on his pants) point to the building and say it was leaning if it wasn't. He was two blocks away and he was looking at WTC 7 thru a lot of smoke.

None of the firefighters who were around or near WTC 7, said that it was leaning.

Why do you cling to this one observation when something as serious as the building leaning would surely have been mentioned by those at the scene?

Note the firemen here with red suspender connections. Show me a photo of someone else other than firemen who would were such a uniform by GZ.

http://www.debunking911.com/3100.jpg
Excellent find. Well done.

If it was leaning they would put a transit on it to monitor it. To see by how much and if it got worse.Because there was a bulge, they put a transit on it to see if the bulge got any bigger.

Are we supposed to believe a 50 ton perimeter column falling at high speed CAN'T create that gash?No

[Christopher7]

Would all floors above the bulge sag an equal amount Chris? If not what would it look like?
I don't know.

What would be the effect of this perimeter sag on the core columns Chris?The weight would be redistributed to the surrounding columns, including core columns 60 and 63.

[Gravy]

A bulge in the SW corner does NOT mean the building is leaning.Tell us, O engineering guru, what does it mean when there's a 3-story bulge in a skyscraper?

Eh?

Because there was a bulge, they put a transit on it to see if the bulge got any bigger.Skyscrapers often bulge when they eat too much of other skyscrapers.

[Rrramon]

Christopher, when you say "No building has ever collapsed due to fire," do you mean to say it is impossible for a building to collapse due to fire? If so, why don't you just say that instead?

[Gravy]

Rrramon, you may not be familiar with the many interesting ideas Chris has about fire, steel, photo analysis, and standards of evidence. Here's a primer:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2347941&postcount=913

[MRC_Hans]

"No building has ever collapsed due to fire"? ...

No building has ever collapsed due to fire ??????????

Are you crazy ???

Wait... don't answer that question :rolleyes:....

Hans :nope:

[Belz...]

You left out:
Hayden: "...it took a while for that fire to develop."

There was not a thick column of smoke right away IMO.

Do you have A.D.D. ? Because we discussed this a short while ago. Did you already forget the huge clouds of dust from 1 WTC's collapse ?

Speculation yes, reasonable, not so much.

Explain why.

Dishonest misquote.

In the real world, it's called a paraphrase.

Post #1950 - C7
"I cannot see thru that column of smoke.
neither can you.

Oh. So it was even WORSE than I had read it. Who cares what YOU could see through the smoke ? The point is that THE HOLE might have been obscured by THE SMOKE. "I" or "He" doesn't change a thing.

My statement

"The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not contribute to the initiating event in the east central part."

is consistent with the statements in the NIST report.
It is not "in opposition or contrast to".

No, it isn't. Because you're making things up. Please explain how the fires started if not due to the falling, flaming debris from 1 WTC. Please explain how the collapse occured if not from structural strain or fire damage.

You are easily confused.

It's not my fault if you're all over the place.

My statement [above, in bold] does not mention fires nor does it say the damage was not caused by debris.

It also doesn't say that George W. Bush isn't controlled by flying pink unicorns, but then who cares ?

Please
Get serious.

I'm dead serious. You seem to think that collapses due to fire are impossible, but cannot explain why.

We are talking about the total collapse of a modern steel frame high rise building.

"Modern" doesn't help you, here. Why would the fact that it's "modern" mean anything ? Why did they install fireproofing on the steel if it wasn't at risk from heat ?

The Windsor Tower was primarily a reinforced concrete frame.
The only similar comparisons are the Meridian Plaza and the Caracus Tower.
Firefighting efforts were ineffective and were abandoned in both buildings.
There was concern that the Meridian Plaza would collapse.
There was NO partial, much total collapse in either building.

Congratulations. You've found two buildings.

Just because knowledgeable people think a building is going to collapse due to fire, it does not mean the building will collapse or that the collapse of WTC 7 was due to fire.

No, indeed. But it is evidence that there were signs of 7 WTC's structural integrity being compromised.

[Belz...]

This doesn't require any expertise, just the ability to use a dictionary.

Column [in wood - post], girder and beam, are terms used in the construction of wood and steel framed buildings because they perform the same function in both.

"Same function" doesn't mean "the same". LEGO blocks can serve the same function, Chris.

A bulge in the SW corner does NOT mean the building is leaning.

Interesting. What do you think it means, then ?

Would all floors above the bulge sag an equal amount Chris? If not what would it look like?
I don't know.

Yes, precisely.

[FactCheck]

Hayden: "Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, we put a transit on it and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse."

A bulge in the SW corner does NOT mean the building is leaning.

Hayden did NOT say the building was leaning.

FEMA did NOT say the building was leaning.

NIST did NOT say the building was leaning.

He was two blocks away and he was looking at WTC 7 thru a lot of smoke.

None of the firefighters who were around or near WTC 7, said that it was leaning.

Why do you cling to this one observation when something as serious as the building leaning would surely have been mentioned by those at the scene?

Excellent find. Well done.

Because there was a bulge, they put a transit on it to see if the bulge got any bigger.

NoExplain how he was looking through smoke and telling someone to SEE through the smoke at the leaning building??? Do people usually tell others to look through things they can't??? Why would he do that???

Explain how someone looking at the building from the north west would see smoke which was on the south side, with the wind blowing to the south east???

Can't you SEE!!! I SEE the building on that video. Why would they have a harder time looking through the smoke if I can see it on a blury video?? I can't tell if it's leaning but I can see smoke isn't covering it.

You see how when you begin to actually answer questions your argument falls apart faster than building 7...

[aggle-rithm]

This doesn't require any expertise, just the ability to use a dictionary.

Column [in wood - post], girder and beam, are terms used in the construction of wood and steel framed buildings because they perform the same function in both.

If all that is required to construct a building like WTC7 is a dictionary, then where were all the high-rise buildings that should have appeared with the advent of the first dictionary?

Could it be that designing and building a structure like this (not to mention understanding its collapse) requires more expertise than you're willing to admit?

[Christopher7]

what does it mean when there's a 3-story bulge in a skyscraper?
The area above the bulge is sagging.

Skyscrapers often bulge when they eat too much of other skyscrapers.:)

[Christopher7]

double post

[Christopher7]

Christopher, when you say "No
building has ever collapsed due to fire," do you mean to say it is impossible for a building to collapse due to fire? If so, why don't you just say that instead?
You left out *"modern steel frame high rise"

There are 2 examples where fires burned out of control for more than 7 hours and there was no partial, much less total collapse.

If you want to live in "Anything's possible land", you are free to do so.

[rwguinn]

You left out *"modern steel frame high rise"

There are 2 examples where fires burned out of control for more than 7 hours and there was no partial, much less total collapse.

If you want to live in "Anything's possible land", you are free to do so.
Links to evidence, please.

[Christopher7]

Rrramon, you may not be familiar with the many interesting ideas Chris has about fire, steel, photo analysis, and standards of evidence. Here's a primer:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2347941&postcount=913
Please read the first sticky in this section, posted by Darat on April 12.

Acceptable and Appropriate Behavior

attack the argument, not the arguer

[HyJinX]

Actually, those arguments attack themselves.

[Disbelief]

You left out *"modern steel frame high rise"

There are 2 examples where fires burned out of control for more than 7 hours and there was no partial, much less total collapse.

If you want to live in "Anything's possible land", you are free to do so.

I know the thread is about WTC7, but do you think that 1 & 2 were CD or because of the planes? Once I know what you think about those buildings, I can relate it to a question about 7.

[FactCheck]

You left out *"modern steel frame high rise"

There are 2 examples where fires burned out of control for more than 7 hours and there was no partial, much less total collapse.

If you want to live in "Anything's possible land", you are free to do so.Hit by another building! Which ones?

There was also a "modern steel frame high rise" on fire for 2 hours and 30 min. where all the steel which wasn't covered in concrete fell. I suspect it took 2.5 hours because it wasn't hit by another building.

Let me know when you stop comparing apples to oranges.

A challenge to conspiracy theorists:

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

2) Which takes up a whole city block

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)

5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you.

Anything less than meeting these six tests is dishonest because it's not comparing apples with apples. Showing a much lighter 4, 5 or even 15 story building which doesn't even take up a city block, and has an old style steel web design leaves out the massive weight the 47 story WTC 7 had bearing down on its south face columns. Yes, this is "moving the bar", back to where it should have started.

It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this were damaged by impacts as they were.

[Rrramon]

Christopher, when you say "No building has ever collapsed due to fire," do you mean to say it is impossible for a building to collapse due to fire? If so, why don't you just say that instead?

You left out *"modern steel frame high rise"

There are 2 examples where fires burned out of control for more than 7 hours and there was no partial, much less total collapse.

If you want to live in "Anything's possible land", you are free to do so.

It wasn't a rhetorical question.

Can I take that as a yes, though?

[Christopher7]

Do you have A.D.D. ? Because we discussed this a short while ago. Did you already forget the huge clouds of dust from 1 WTC's collapse ?
Did you forget that the dust cleared and people went back to GZ in about 15 to 20 minutes?
After the dust cleared, Hayden was able to see that "it took a while for that fire to develop."

In the real world, it's called a paraphrase.A paraphrase is saying the same thing in a different way.
When you changed "I" to "He" you changed the meaning.
That is called a misquote.
Then you used that misquote to imply that i had contradicted myself.
i.e. He [Hayden] couldn't see thru the smoke.
That was intentionally dishonest.

No, it isn't. Because you're making things up. Based on the statements in the NIST report, i concluded that:

"The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not contribute to the initiating event in the east central part."

This statement is consistent with:

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

and

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

My reasoning is:
If the damage to the SW part of WTC 7 contributed to the initiating event, NIST would have included it in their 'Collapse Initiation Scenerios'.

You can cling to 'NIST didn't specifically say that it wasn't a factor' if you like.

Please explain how the fires started if not due to falling, flaming debris from 1 WTC.The fires were due to the falling debris.

Please explain how the collapse occurred if not from structural strain or fire damage.That is a subject for another thread.

You seem to think that collapses due to fire are impossibleNo.

"Modern" doesn't help you, here. Why would the fact that it's "modern" mean anything ? Why did they install fireproofing on the steel if it wasn't at risk from heat ?I included the word "modern" because someone found a 100 year old steel frame building that had partially collapsed due to fire.

Fireproofing: Good point.

No, indeed. But it is evidence that there were signs of 7 WTC's structural integrity being compromised.True

[Christopher7]

It wasn't a rhetorical question.

Can I take that as a yes, though?
It is not impossible, just unprecednted, and unlikely.

[FactCheck]

It is not impossible, just unprecednted, and unlikely.

Unlikely? Because of all the other buildings built like the WTC 7 which were hit by other buildings and on fire on it's lower floors for over 6 hours? Surely that combination isn't unprecedented...:rolleyes:

[aggle-rithm]

Please read the first sticky in this section, posted by Darat on April 12.

Acceptable and Appropriate Behavior

attack the argument, not the arguer

The best way to keep people from laughing at idiotic comments, I've found, is to keep them to yourself.

[Christopher7]

Links to evidence, please.
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml

Correction:
Two floors and some staircases collapsed in the Caracus Tower fire.
Firefighting efforts were not abandoned, but they were ineffective.
The fires burned out of control and the temperatures were not reduced as the "the fires in WTC 7 were not fought" argument implies.

Note:
Engineers inspected the building after the fire and concluded that it was solid.

[Gravy]

Correction:
Two floors and some staircases collapsed in the Caracus Tower fire.
Firefighting efforts were not abandoned, but they were ineffective.
The fires burned out of control and the temperatures were not reduced as the "the fires in WTC 7 were not fought" argument implies.

Note:
Engineers inspected the building after the fire and concluded that it was solid.

The first paragraph from the Caracas article:
(AP) Military helicopters doused one of Venezuela's tallest buildings with water Sunday, bringing under control a blaze many feared might cause the tower to collapse. Then:
Earlier in the day, officials expressed fears that the building might collapse.

"There is a problem because the building is made of steel. Because of the high temperatures, the structure could collapse," Interior minister Jesse Chacon told President Hugo Chavez during his weekly radio and television show.Chris, what was the disposition of One Meridian Plaza?

ETA: info on the reinforced concrete Caracas tower. Looks like Jesse Chacon's description wasn't quite accurate:

The reinforced concrete structure consists of perimeter columns connected by post-tensioned concrete “macroslabs” that are each 10 feet (3 meters) deep and above the second–floor mezzanine, the 14th, 26th, 38th, and 49th floors. There’s no central core.

Individual floors between the macroslabs have a steel-deck floor supported by steel beams, all protected underneath with spray-on Cafco Blaze Shield DC/F mineral glass fiber wool with cement fireproofing. According to Cafco’s Manny Herrera, the floor was designed to meet U.S. standards for a two-hour fire resistance rating. However, the overall fire compartmentalization of each floor slab was decreased by the addition of several unrated floor panels to provide access to mechanical and plumbing systems.

Five structural bays rest on four lines of columns in each direction supporting the steel deck. In effect, the concrete structure includes five stacked steel buildings, each supported by a macroslab. During the fire, two steel decks partially collapsed; other than that, there was no collapse inside the building. However, deflection in some steel beams was severe. http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=961&URL=Publications/NFPA%20Journal%AE/March%20/%20April%202005/Cover%20Story&cookie%5Ftest=1

[Christopher7]

Unlikely? Because of all the other buildings built like the WTC 7 which were hit by other buildings and on fire on it's lower floors for over 6 hours? Surely that combination isn't unprecedented...:rolleyes:
The debris damage did not contribute to the initiating event.
That is a fallacy perpetrated by self proclaimed 'debunkers'.

There were debris damage and there was an [I]initiating event, but there is no evidence of a connection between the two.
If there were, NIST would have included it in their Collapse Initiation Scenarios.
NIST did NOT say there was a connection.
Why do you ?

[Gravy]

The debris damage did not contribute to the initiating event.
That is a fallacy perpetrated by self proclaimed 'debunkers'.

There were debris damage and there was an [I]initiating event, but there is no evidence of a connection between the two.
If there were, NIST would have included it in their Collapse Initiation Scenarios.
NIST did NOT say there was a connection.
Why do you ?

Chris, would you say that WTC 7 was strengthened, weakened, or unaffected by the damage it sustained?

[FactCheck]

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml

Correction:
Two floors and some staircases collapsed in the Caracus Tower fire.
Firefighting efforts were not abandoned, but they were ineffective.
The fires burned out of control and the temperatures were not reduced as the "the fires in WTC 7 were not fought" argument implies.

Note:
Engineers inspected the building after the fire and concluded that it was solid.Lets see how they meet my apples with apples challenge...

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

Meridian Plaza - yes - 38 stories (Almost, I'll let it pass)
Caracas - Yes - 56 stories

2) Which takes up a whole city block

Meridian Plaza - It looks about half the size in width = .5
Caracas - It looks about half the size in width

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

Meridian Plaza - NO
Caracas - NO

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)

Meridian Plaza - It did not. The fire started on the 22nd floor. That's only 16 floors of weight on it's weakened columns.
Caracas - the fire started on the 34th floor. That's only 22 stories on the effected area.

5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.

Meridian Plaza - it was not
Caracas - it was not

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

Meridian Plaza - Yes
Caracas - Yes



Meridian Plaza = 2.5 out of 6
Caracas = 2.5 out of 6

Still apples and oranges...

[FactCheck]

The Parque Central was a 56 storey government office building in Caracas, Venezuela. The fire started on the 34th floor and climbed to the 47th floor. That's not similar to the WTC 7 because the fires were on the lower levels. The building didn't have a tube in a tube design like any of the WTC buildings either.

The single most important difference are in the columns.

The reinforced concrete structure consists of perimeter columns connected by post-tensioned concrete “macroslabs” that are each 10 feet (3 meters) deep and above the second–floor mezzanine, the 14th, 26th, 38th, and 49th floors. There’s no central core.

Individual floors between the macroslabs have a steel-deck floor supported by steel beams, all protected underneath with spray-on Cafco Blaze Shield DC/F mineral glass fiber wool with cement fireproofing. According to Cafco’s Manny Herrera, the floor was designed to meet U.S. standards for a two-hour fire resistance rating. However, the overall fire compartmentalization of each floor slab was decreased by the addition of several unrated floor panels to provide access to mechanical and plumbing systems.

Five structural bays rest on four lines of columns in each direction supporting the steel deck. In effect, the concrete structure includes five stacked steel buildings, each supported by a macroslab. During the fire, two steel decks partially collapsed; other than that, there was no collapse inside the building. However, deflection in some steel beams was severe.

http://www.debunking911.com/helicopter.gif

The fire was also aggressively fought for a period of time.:

Commanders at the scene decided to bring a 2-inch (63-millimeter) hose line, fed by fire engines at the ground level, all the way up one of the fire stairs. Two portable booster pumps, each flowing 264 gallons per minute (gpm) at 58 psi (1,000 liters per minute [lpm] at 4 bar), were used to provide adequate pressure above the fire floor.

At approximately 1:15 a.m., firefighters working with two 1-inch (38-millimeter) hose lines from different locations above the 34th floor were able to slow the upward movement of the fire considerably. By 3 a.m., a second 2-inch (63-millimeter) hose line, identical to the first one, had been put into service, and firefighters confined the fire to three to four floors above the 34th floor. This approach was successful through the first five or six hours of the fire, when the fire spread vertically at a rate of approximately one floor every three hours. The 27th floor became the main staging area for about 100 firefighters.

At 7 a.m., some of the booster pumps started to malfunction, and the fire regained intensity, spreading vertically at a rate of about one floor per hour until approximately 10 a.m. Around 11 a.m., the fire breeched the fifth macroslab, below the 39th floor, and around noon, the stairwells’ fire enclosure started to fail. Concerned that the building might collapse, the fire chief immediately ordered that interior firefighting operations be abandoned. It should be noted that the CFD only reported minor injuries among its personnel during this risky operation.

The fire continued to move upwards through the afternoon, at a rate of about 2 1/2 floors per hour. Between 2 and 3 p.m., the Venezuelan government began using helicopters with water buckets, commonly used on forest fires, in an unsuccessful attempt to slow the fire down.

The fire eventually burned itself out at 3 a.m. on Monday morning, after spreading and consuming the contents of some 17 floors, more than 24 hours after it began.

Conclusion
Past history and performance shows that this fire could probably have been controlled quickly by a standard wet-pipe sprinkler system and that the fire department’s chances of controlling the fire at, or a few floors above, the floor of fire origin would have increased if the standpipe system had been working. This fire highlights the importance of periodic inspection, testing, and maintenance of fire protection systems, as well as the importance of strictly following manufacturers’ installation instructions.

This incident once again reminds us of the fire safety challenges high-rise buildings present and demonstrates that no fire department, no matter how large, professional, and well-equipped, can effectively control a fire without properly designed passive and functioning active fire protection systems. The CFD performed admirably in an impossible task, and its commanders made difficult decisions that ultimately proved to be the correct ones.

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=961&URL=Publications/NFPA%20Journal®/March%20/%20April%202005/Cover%20Story&cookie%5Ftest=1#d

[Gravy]

2) Which takes up a whole city block

Meridian Plaza - It looks about half the size in width = .5
Caracas - It looks about half the size in widthThe Meridian building's floor plates were 22,400 sq. ft. The Caracas tower had floor plates of 20,450 square feet. The WTC towers and building 7 had floor areas approximately twice the size of those buildings, with correspondingly more fuel available for combustion.

[Christopher7]

The first paragraph from the Caracas article:
The efforts by the military were gutsy by ineffective until the fire broke thru the roof.

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/600/146pmng3.jpg

Chris, what was the disposition of One Meridian Plaza?It was FUBAR but it did not collapse, even though the fires burned out of control for 17 hours.

ETA: info on the reinforced concrete Caracas tower. Looks like Jesse Chacon's description wasn't quite accurate:Do you think that WTC 7 was an inferior design, more likely to collapse in a fire?

[Gravy]

Do you think that WTC 7 was an inferior design, more likely to collapse in a fire?If you wanted a building to survive a serious fire, which would you choose:

An all-steel building that was heavily damaged (with unknown damage to the thermal protection on its steel), containing huge fuel tanks, that bridged a power station, with completely unfought fires; or

A mostly reinforced concrete building of half the floor plan, with 10-foot-thick slabs dividing the building into sections, undamaged, with fires that were fought?

Answer honestly.

[beachnut]

Rrramon, you may not be familiar with the many interesting ideas Chris has about fire, steel, photo analysis, and standards of evidence. Here's a primer:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2347941&postcount=913Classic ideas on the truth movement. What makes someone say those things?

Funny the steel in the Madrid building did not make it past a couple of hours and there was no giant impact from a large aircraft. That is a classic list of truther ideas. I love the PhD peer review papers stuff. Classic stuff. Everyone has their "concrete core" to bear.

[FactCheck]

The Meridian building's floor plates were 22,400 sq. ft. The Caracas tower had floor plates of 20,450 square feet. The WTC towers and building 7 had floor areas approximately twice the size of those buildings, with correspondingly more fuel available for combustion.

That's 2 out of 6... Not looking good Chris. :P

[Christopher7]

Lets see how they meet my apples with apples challenge...


Meridian Plaza = 2.5 out of 6
Caracas = 2.5 out of 6

Still apples and oranges...
Point taken
They are the closest examples that i know of.

Do you think WTC 7 was an inferior design, more likely to collapse due to fire?

[FactCheck]

Christopher7;2548274]The efforts by the military were gutsy by ineffective until the fire broke thru the roof.


Try again, this time READ what we post...

Commanders at the scene decided to bring a 2-inch (63-millimeter) hose line, fed by fire engines at the ground level, all the way up one of the fire stairs. Two portable booster pumps, each flowing 264 gallons per minute (gpm) at 58 psi (1,000 liters per minute [lpm] at 4 bar), were used to provide adequate pressure above the fire floor.

At approximately 1:15 a.m., firefighters working with two 1-inch (38-millimeter) hose lines from different locations above the 34th floor were able to slow the upward movement of the fire considerably. By 3 a.m., a second 2-inch (63-millimeter) hose line, identical to the first one, had been put into service, and firefighters confined the fire to three to four floors above the 34th floor. This approach was successful through the first five or six hours of the fire, when the fire spread vertically at a rate of approximately one floor every three hours. The 27th floor became the main staging area for about 100 firefighters.

At 7 a.m., some of the booster pumps started to malfunction, and the fire regained intensity, spreading vertically at a rate of about one floor per hour until approximately 10 a.m. Around 11 a.m., the fire breeched the fifth macroslab, below the 39th floor, and around noon, the stairwells’ fire enclosure started to fail. Concerned that the building might collapse, the fire chief immediately ordered that interior firefighting operations be abandoned. It should be noted that the CFD only reported minor injuries among its personnel during this risky operation.

The fire continued to move upwards through the afternoon, at a rate of about 2 1/2 floors per hour. Between 2 and 3 p.m., the Venezuelan government began using helicopters with water buckets, commonly used on forest fires, in an unsuccessful attempt to slow the fire down.

Why would they be concerned of collapse in a "Modern Steel Frame skyscraper?" if they are so safe?

The evidence is the exact opposite to your statement. What a shock...:rolleyes:

[FactCheck]

Point taken
They are the closest examples that i know of.

Do you think WTC 7 was an inferior design, more likely to collapse due to fire?Why do you continue to leave out the impact damage?

While NO building was designed to withstand being hit by another building AND being on fire for long, I wouldn't be the first to think WTC 7 was a death trap. This was debated before 9/11. It wasn't even designed to be hit by a 707 WITHOUT fuel yet it stood on fire on multiple floors for 6 hours after being hit so hard multiple floors bulged.

The #6 fuel oil was always a very dangerous part of the building. So yes, THAT building was worse than most skyscrapers. But I don't blame the designers. How in the WORLD would they know someone would fly airliners into another building and that building would hit number 7.

With what I know today I wouldn't have built that building over the substation. That answer your question?

[Christopher7]

If you wanted a building to survive a serious fire, which would you choose:

An all-steel building that was heavily damaged (with unknown damage to the thermal protection on its steel), containing huge fuel tanks, that bridged a power station, with completely unfought fires; or

A mostly reinforced concrete building of half the floor plan, with 10-foot-thick slabs dividing the building into sections, undamaged, with fires that were fought?

Answer honestly.
After viewing the photographs of the two buildings in question, i would call it a toss up.

In building #1, the fires were far less severe and mostly in the south west part of the building.

The major debris damage was limited to the south west facade.

The fuel tanks were in the west half of the building.

I would expect a partial collapse at the SW corner but not a collapse
beginning at the other end of the building.

The fires in building #2 burned 10 hours longer and completely gutted much of the upper floors.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8092/648pmdw1.jpg

You didn't answer my question.
Answer honestly.
Do you think that WTC 7 was an inferior design, more likely to collapse in a fire?

[Christopher7]

Why would they be concerned of collapse in a "Modern Steel Frame skyscraper?" if they are so safe?
In all three cases, they thought the building might collapse.

The possibility is there, so one must plan for the worst.

The Meridian Plaza and the Caracus Tower did not collapse even though they burned out of control more than 10 hours longer than WTC 7.

Firefighting efforts did not lower the temperature of the fires that were out of reach.

[Gravy]

After viewing the photographs of the two buildings in question, i would call it a toss up.
...You didn't answer my question.
Answer honestly.
Do you think that WTC 7 was an inferior design, more likely to collapse in a fire?Talk about a no-brainer. I'll take the half-sized undamaged concrete building with the firefighters for 200, Alex.

[Unfit4Command]

In all three cases, they thought the building might collapse.

The possibility is there, so one must plan for the worst.

The Meridian Plaza and the Caracus Tower did not collapse even though they burned out of control more than 10 hours longer than WTC 7.

Firefighting efforts did not lower the temperature of the fires that were out of reach.

After looking at what each one of the three buildings went through, which do you think was in the biggest danger of collapsing?

The heavily damaged, burning, creaking, bulging, leaning building? Or the buildings that burned for several hours longer?

[Mangoose]

Okay, I think I can post pictures now. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, you get a really good closeup top-down view of the SW corner of the WTC7 in the Spak video. I've layered several frames of this together; the frames are of varying sizes because of Spak's zooming. I'm not too good with Photoshop so perhaps someone could do a better job than me; I could post the individual frames here if someone else wants to try their hand at it.

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/6321/bldg7compositetc9.jpg

I'd really like to hear what you all make of what is going on here. Something looks pretty odd here.

[Gravy]

I'd really like to hear what you all make of what is going on here. Something looks pretty odd here.What do you think is odd? (Looks like a bulge there, which would be understandable because there was a bulge there, but misalignment of the photos may add to that effect.)

[Christopher7]

Why do you continue to leave out the impact damage?Because the debris damage to the SW part of
wtc 7 did not contribute to the initiating event, that led to the global collapse.
NIST did not say that the debris damage contributed to the collapse.
Why do you keep insisting that it did?
[see post #1885]

While NO building was designed to withstand being hit by another building AND being on fire for long, I wouldn't be the first to think WTC 7 was a death trap. This was debated before 9/11. It wasn't even designed to be hit by a 707 WITHOUT fuel yet it stood on fire on multiple floors for 6 hours after being hit so hard multiple floors bulged.There was NO debris damage in the area of the initiating event.
[see post #1884]

The #6 fuel oil was always a very dangerous part of the building. So yes, THAT building was worse than most skyscrapers. But I don't blame the designers. How in the WORLD would they know someone would fly airliners into another building and that building would hit number 7.
There were NO diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
[see post # 1884]

With what I know today I wouldn't have built that building over the substation. That answer your question?Do you think the designers were so incompetent that they didn't properly design WTC 7 to allow for this?

[Mangoose]

I think you're right, I just realized on the video there is a slight roll of the camera to the right towards the bottom, I bet that is what gives it the funny look. I'm still surprised that the photos still fit together as well as they did.

[Christopher7]

Talk about a no-brainer. I'll take the half-sized undamaged concrete building with the firefighters for 200, Alex.
So you think WTC 7 was so poorly designed that the failure of one core column led to the total collapse in about 15 seconds.

You keep talking about the firefighters as if that made a difference.

What is your reason for implying that the lack of firefighting was a factor the collapse of WTC 7?

[Christopher7]

After looking at what each one of the three buildings went through, which do you think was in the biggest danger of collapsing?

The heavily damaged, burning, creaking, bulging, leaning building? Or the buildings that burned for several hours longer?
You keep talking about the damage as if it contributed to the collapse.

NIST made no such claim.

Why do you?

[njslim]

Commanders at the scene decided to bring a 2-inch (63-millimeter) hose line, fed by fire engines at the ground level, all the way up one of the fire stairs. Two portable booster pumps, each flowing 264 gallons per minute (gpm) at 58 psi (1,000 liters per minute [lpm] at 4 bar), were used to provide adequate pressure above the fire floor.


The line size is actually a 2 1/2" (63mm) - according to FDNY rule of thumb
a line this size should be able to control an area of 2500 sq ft (50 x50)
Area of each floor is over 20,000 sq ft, 10x the size one line could handle
With the fire load of modern buildings which are mostly synthetic materials
with a higher BTU values (12000-16000 btu/lb vs 8000btu for organics) it
is extremely difficult to extinguish a well involved fire in a high raise

[Belz...]

Did you forget that the dust cleared and people went back to GZ in about 15 to 20 minutes?
After the dust cleared, Hayden was able to see that "it took a while for that fire to develop."

I think you're reaching, here.

A paraphrase is saying the same thing in a different way.

Exactly. I was too lazy to look it up.

When you changed "I" to "He" you changed the meaning.

No I didn't. In both cases you implied that the fact that neither me nor either you or "he" could see through the smoke. In doing so, no matter if you said one or the other, you proved my point, not yours.

That is called a misquote.

Yes, a mistake on my part. I really read "he".

Then you used that misquote to imply that i had contradicted myself.

You did.

That was intentionally dishonest.

No, it wasn't. Why would I do that ? The end result is the same, in both cases. Lying wouldn't help me one way or another.

Based on the statements in the NIST report, i concluded that:

"The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not contribute to the initiating event in the east central part."

You didn't conclude that. You're just copy-pasting.

This statement is consistent with:

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

We've been through this, already. And I guess this means you think that structural damage and fire can't spread through a building.

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

And yet you quote that...

My reasoning is:
If the damage to the SW part of WTC 7 contributed to the initiating event, NIST would have included it in their 'Collapse Initiation Scenerios'.

Well, then. Perhaps you can tell me what NIST thinks led to the initiating event, then ?

You can cling to 'NIST didn't specifically say that it wasn't a factor' if you like.

Strawman.

The fires were due to the falling debris.

Good. Does fire spread ?

That is a subject for another thread.

Not really. It's a single answer I'm looking for, not a derail.

I included the word "modern" because someone found a 100 year old steel frame building that had partially collapsed due to fire.

And somehow you seem to think that "old design" = "poor design". It's been pointed out that older buildings with different constructions (and therefore less office space) could have survived the incident.

Fireproofing: Good point.

So you concede that modern high-rise buildings CAN collapse due to fire ?

[Belz...]

The debris damage did not contribute to the initiating event.

Well that's what we're trying to determine, isn't it:

Debris -> Fire. You admitted so yourself.

Fire -> Collapse. You admit this is possible, as well.

Where's the problem ?

[MRC_Hans]

Because the debris damage to the SW part of
wtc 7 did not contribute to the initiating event, that led to the global collapse.
NIST did not say that the debris damage contributed to the collapse.
Why do you keep insisting that it did?
[see post #1885]

I have asked before, and maybe you have answered, this thread is moving a bit fast for me, but what exactly do you mean by the initiating event?

The collapse of WTC7 was, no matter how you think it happened, a long chain of events, starting with the decision to build it in the first place.

What exactly is your criterion for labelling one specific event between the planning of the building and it's collapse as the "initiating event"??

[QUOTE]
There was NO debris damage in the area of the initiating event.
[see post #1884]

There were NO diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
[see post # 1884]


How do you know.

Do you think the designers were so incompetent that they didn't properly design WTC 7 to allow for this?

Designing buildings is something you do on paper. You can't test how it will react to every conceivable crisis. You can only make calculations. Sometimes reality does not follow your calculations. That does not necessarily imply incompetence. The sequence:

- Building damaged by falling debris (a high-rise building damaged by debris falling on it).

- Heavy, diesel fuel-stoked fires.

- Lack of water pressure for fire-fighting.

- Firefighters already engaged in a near-by major disaster.

... Is not likely to have been high on the list of danger scenarios previous to 911.

Chris, you are busy discussing probabilities for this. We can do that, but then we also have to discuss the probability of a government planning a immensely complex, extremely risky mass-murder operation.

Hans

[Belz...]

The collapse of WTC7 was, no matter how you think it happened, a long chain of events, starting with the decision to build it in the first place.

What exactly is your criterion for labelling one specific event between the planning of the building and it's collapse as the "initiating event"??

Simple. Chris thinks that by defining "initiating" event in a certain way he will make the "official story" so unlikely that CD will have to become the default conclusion. It's a false dichotomy, of course, and redefining terms is also a fallacy.

Designing buildings is something you do on paper.

The CTers think that when designing buildings, you build a scale model using chicken wire, and then submit it to the more gruesome conditions one can possibly imagine. When they don't collapse, they build the real thing.

... Is not likely to have been high on the list of danger scenarios previous to 911.

But they KNEW when they built the WTC towers!!!!1111

Chris, you are busy discussing probabilities for this. We can do that, but then we also have to discuss the probability of a government planning a immensely complex, extremely risky mass-murder operation.

No, please don't.

[Unfit4Command]

You keep talking about the damage as if it contributed to the collapse.

NIST made no such claim.

Why do you?

Did the structural damage that caused the building to lean and bulge over several floors help the buildings integrity? The damage may not have caused the "initiating event" but it certainly didn't help the situation.

Like Gravy said before, did the damage make the building stronger, do nothing, or cause it to weaken?

You really need to quit treating an interim report as if it's the final.

[Belz...]

What are you talking about, Unfit ? Chris said it himself: there will be NO CHANGES in the final report!! So now he can safely treat the interim report as such!

[Unfit4Command]

What are you talking about, Unfit ? Chris said it himself: there will be NO CHANGES in the final report!! So now he can safely treat the interim report as such!

Oooohhhh, that makes sense.

[FactCheck]

Because the debris damage to the SW part of
wtc 7 did not contribute to the initiating event, that led to the global collapse.

Round and round we go...

You must be purposely conflating the initiating event of the fires and weakening of the structure with the initiating event of the final moments of WTC 7's demise. This is quote mining and an insult to my intelligence. I suggest you stop insulting peoples intelligence and begin reading all replies to you after your 1886 post.

Do you think the designers were so incompetent that they didn't properly design WTC 7 to allow for this? Show me where designers are trained in designing buildings around substations and which will one day be hit by another building...

Why in the world do you jump to "Incompetent" when I never suggested such a thing. You asked me a personal question and I gave you a personal answer. I would not have designed the building around a substation with what I know now. Don't quote mine or read into it any more than what I wrote.

[Belz...]

Oooohhhh, that makes sense.

No, it doesn't.

[Christopher7]

...the debris damage to the SW part of wtc 7 did not contribute to the initiating event, that led to the global collapse.
NIST did not say that the debris damage contributed to the collapse.
Why do you keep insisting that it did?
[see post #1885]

I have asked before, and maybe you have answered, this thread is moving a bit fast for me, but what exactly do you mean by the initiating event?
Please read post #1884 on pg 48 and click on the links provided.

The initiating event is a term used by NIST. It referes to the beginning of the collapse.

In post #1884, there are quotes from FEMA and NIST reports that clearly state:

*There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Designing buildings is something you do on paper. You can't test how it will react to every conceivable crisis. You can only make calculations. Sometimes reality does not follow your calculations. That does not necessarily imply incompetence. The sequence:

- Building damaged by falling debris (a high-rise building damaged by debris falling on it).

- Heavy, diesel fuel-stoked fires.Once you read post #1884, you will know *[see above]

Chris, you are busy discussing probabilities for this. We can do that, but then we also have to discuss the probability of a government planning a immensely complex, extremely risky mass-murder operation.

HansThis thread does get sidetracked with probabilities but the point and the proof are contained in posts #1883, 1884 and 1885.

Please read them carefully before asking me to explain what i have already explained.

This thread is about debris damage and fires in WTC 7.

Chris

[rwguinn]

Please read post #1884 on pg 48 and click on the links provided.

The initiating event is a term used by NIST. It referes to the beginning of the collapse.

In post #1884, there are quotes from FEMA and NIST reports that clearly state:

*There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Once you read post #1884, you will know *[see above]

This thread does get sidetracked with probabilities but the point and the proof are contained in posts #1883, 1884 and 1885.

Please read them carefully before asking me to explain what i have already explained.

This thread is about debris damage and fires in WTC 7.

Chris

Ah.
I see. The loading of 5000 lb of fertilizer into the 1/2 ton pickup truck, plus the addition of the driver and a tank of gas did not cause the axle failure. The intiating event was the tiny piece of paper the cop handed the driver for being overweight.
only the strawm that broke the camel's back is significant. All the others are just window dressing?
I see.
woo

[Unfit4Command]

No, it doesn't.

I was being sarcastic :)

[Belz...]

I was being sarcastic :)

So was I. :D

[Belz...]

The initiating event is a term used by NIST. It referes to the beginning of the collapse.

*There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Which, in turn, doesn't support your statement that the debris damage and fires, diesel or otherwise, had nothing to do with the initiating event.

Could you site the actual page where NIST says that ?

[Christopher7]

Which, in turn, doesn't support your statement that the debris damage and fires, diesel or otherwise, had nothing to do with the initiating event.
You keep misquoting and misstating what i have said.
The total lack of evidence for debris damage or diesel fires in the area of the initiating event supports my statement. Saying that it doesn't is absurd.
Further, i have presented evidence that there was no fire in the north east generator room.
I presented evidence that there was no serious damage to the east half of WTC 7 up to the 16th floor.

Could you site the actual page where NIST says that ?All the page numbers are listed in post #1884 which you have not read yet.
Please do so before posting again.

After all, posts #1883,1884 and 1885 are what this thread is about.

How can you understand what i am saying or engage intelligently in this discussion if you don't know the facts?

Most of the facts i have quoted from the FEMA and NIST reports will not change in the final report.
The location of the fuel tanks, pumps and supply pipes will not change.
The progression of the fires in the east half of WTC 7 will not change.
Reports of serious debris damage to the east half of WTC 7, up to the 16th floor will not change.
There is a remote possibility that some serious damage to the east half of WTC 7, above the 16th floor, was missed in the original two year investigation.

[Belz...]

You keep misquoting and misstating what i have said.

No, I don't. "Diesel or otherwise" is something I added to make sure you couldn't squirm out of this one and claim "ah, diesel fires, yes, but there were other types of fire in WTC 7."

The total lack of evidence for debris damage or diesel fires in the area of the initiating event supports my statement.

No, it doesn't. You'd like to think so, though.

There was no DEBRIS damage near the area of the initiating event. There was no DIESEL fires near the area of the initiating event. Assuming both these statements are true, the following could also be true:

1) Debris damage caused fires in the building (your admission)
2) Debris damage caused further damage by shifting loads to other parts of the building, including the area of the initiating event.
3) The non-diesel fires spread to the area of the initating event and caused further damage there.
4) The combined damages from the load transfers and fires caused the building to collapse.

Your claim is basically that 2) is impossible, for some reason, and that at least one of 3) or 4) is false. But that doesn't follow from your NIST quote.

Further, i have presented evidence that there was no fire in the north east generator room.

No diesel fire, yes.

I presented evidence that there was no serious damage to the east half of WTC 7 up to the 16th floor.

No external damage, yes.

All the page numbers are listed in post #1884 which you have not read yet.
Please do so before posting again.

After all, posts #1883,1884 and 1885 are what this thread is about.

Okay, but you have to read posts #371, #633, #1120 and #1554.

How can you understand what i am saying or engage intelligently in this discussion if you don't know the facts?

I was wondering that, myself.

Most of the facts i have quoted from the FEMA and NIST reports [B]will not change in the final report.

Speculation.

There is a remote possibility that some serious damage to the east half of WTC 7, above the 16th floor, was missed in the original two year investigation.

How remote ?

[aggle-rithm]

The efforts by the military were gutsy by ineffective until the fire broke thru the roof.

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/600/146pmng3.jpg

It was FUBAR but it did not collapse, even though the fires burned out of control for 17 hours.

Do you think that WTC 7 was an inferior design, more likely to collapse in a fire?

If your sole criteria is resistance to fire, then yes, it was. It was sufficient to meet fire codes, however. No one could have anticipated that the building would catch fire while the entire infrastructure around it was in a shambles.

[Christopher7]

No, I don't. "Diesel or otherwise" is something I added to make sure you couldn't squirm out of this one and claim "ah, diesel fires, yes, but there were other types of fire in WTC 7."
Adding something is misstating.
In post #1884 i listed the progression of the fires in the area of the initiating event.
You really should read post #1884 before making incorrect, uninformed statements like the one above.

There was no DEBRIS damage near the area of the initiating event. There was no DIESEL fires near the area of the initiating event. Assuming both these statements are true, the following could also be true:

1) Debris damage caused fires in the building (your admission)
2) Debris damage caused further damage by shifting loads to other parts of the building, including the area of the initiating event.
3) The non-diesel fires spread to the area of the initating event and caused further damage there.
4) The combined damages from the load transfers and fires caused the building to collapse.
1) True
2) What part of;

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed the loads around the severed and damaged areas."

don't you understand?

This is a no brainer, yet you just can't grasp the concept.

3) Yes, except for the word 'further'.
There was NO debris damage to the area of the initiating event.

4) False. The loads were transferred to the surrounding columns, NOT to the other end of the building!

No diesel fire, yes.

No external damage, yes.Thank you

Okay, but you have to read posts #371, #633, #1120 and #1554.Fair enough. I will read them and respond.

[Christopher7]

If your sole criteria is resistance to fire, then yes, it was. It was sufficient to meet fire codes, however. No one could have anticipated that the building would catch fire while the entire infrastructure around it was in a shambles.
The entire infrastructure?
No
The south west face of WTC 7 was heavily damaged, but the east half was not.
The west face was damaged at the south corner.
The north and east faces were not damaged at all.

[Newtons Bit]

So you think WTC 7 was so poorly designed that the failure of one core column led to the total collapse in about 15 seconds.


Normal structures (in the US) were not required by code to resist the effects of the loss of even a single column before 9/11. Alot of designers went ahead and used some crude methods to make sure there wouldn't be a collapse if there was a loss of a single column, but this doesn't mean they designed it right or looked at every single column. WTC1&2 were obviously designed to resist the loss of a single column, but they didn't design it that way because of terrorism or blast concerns, but more likely redundancy based on how little knowledge of engineering they had at the time.

For example, compare the 13th edition of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction to the 7th edition (published in the sixties). It's barbaric what was in the 7th edition. Likewise compare the reinforced concrete codes, ACI 318-05 to one from the 60's. The 60's had little tiny pamphlet compared to the book that the 05 version is.

This doesn't mean they were BAD engineers, many of them are probably better engineers than I currently am right now, however they are no were close to as knowledgeable as the senior engineers I work with. They simply didn't have the same tools and expierence that we have today.

[fezzic]

The entire infrastructure?
No
The south west face of WTC 7 was heavily damaged, but the east half was not.
The west face was damaged at the south corner.
The north and east faces were not damaged at all.

I think aggle was referring to the fire fighting infrastructure, primarily the water mains, in that response. Maybe a poor choice of words since the fire fighters were present but had no water to fight the fires. In any case, if aggle meant the building I would presume he would have wrote "structure" not infrastructure.

[tsig]

Tell us, O engineering guru, what does it mean when there's a 3-story bulge in a skyscraper?

Eh?

Skyscrapers often bulge when they eat too much of other skyscrapers.

It may have been pregnant

[Newtons Bit]

It may have been pregnant

Do these girders make me look fat?

[Christopher7]

Ah.
I see. The loading of 5000 lb of fertilizer into the 1/2 ton pickup truck, plus the addition of the driver and a tank of gas did not cause the axle failure. The intiating event was the tiny piece of paper the cop handed the driver for being overweight.
only the strawm that broke the camel's back is significant. All the others are just window dressing?
I see.
woo
The problem is, the 5,000 lbs of fertilizer was in the bed of the pickup truck but the front axel broke.

woo

[Gravy]

The problem is, the 5,000 lbs of fertilizer was in the bed of the pickup truck but the front axel broke.
That once happened to my 1/2 ton pickup, although the load was less than 1/2 ton. So there you go.

[Unfit4Command]

What was used to demolish WTC 7 in your opinion, Chris? Bombs/explosives, thermite? What do you believe it was? Just curious.

If you already answered these questions in this thread, I apologize, I haven't been keeping up with all of the posts since its creation.

[Christopher7]

Normal structures (in the US) were not required by code to resist the effects of the loss of even a single column before 9/11. Alot of designers went ahead and used some crude methods to make sure there wouldn't be a collapse if there was a loss of a single column, but this doesn't mean they designed it right or looked at every single column. WTC1&2 were obviously designed to resist the loss of a single column, but they didn't design it that way because of terrorism or blast concerns, but more likely redundancy based on how little knowledge of engineering they had at the time.

For example, compare the 13th edition of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction to the 7th edition (published in the sixties). It's barbaric what was in the 7th edition. Likewise compare the reinforced concrete codes, ACI 318-05 to one from the 60's. The 60's had little tiny pamphlet compared to the book that the 05 version is.

This doesn't mean they were BAD engineers, many of them are probably better engineers than I currently am right now, however they are no were close to as knowledgeable as the senior engineers I work with. They simply didn't have the same tools and expierence that we have today.
Interesting point

A lot of redundancy was built into WTC 7 to allow for remodeling.

Loss of a column may or may not have been considered but planning for office fires no doubt was.

This is one area where the 80 boxes of documents may shed more light on the possibility of office fires causing the collapse of WTC 7.

It's the 1 column pulling 5 columns sideways that i find bloody ridiculous, but that's above my pay grade. [as they say]

Bottom line, i don't think that fires burned long enough in any area to cause a major failure nor do i believe any fire induced failure could cause WTC 7 to implode the way it did.

[Christopher7]

That once happened to my 1/2 ton pickup, although the load was less than 1/2 ton. So there you go.
:D ;)

[Christopher7]

What was used to demolish WTC 7 in your opinion, Chris? Bombs/explosives, thermite? What do you believe it was? Just curious.

If you already answered these questions in this thread, I apologize, I haven't been keeping up with all of the posts since its creation.
I haven't answered that question on this thread.

The "Christopher7 --- C7 & C4" thread is for debate on CD.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498320#post2498320

[Newtons Bit]

Current International Building Code regulates fire-protection to have a rating of at the most 4 hours on structural systems. This basically means that the structural element has to perform it's normal duty for 4 hours before collapsing. That's supposed to give enough time for firefighters to get into the building and put out whatever fires may be raging. After those 4 hours, the buildings aren't rated to survive and the likelihood of someone doing a model to see what the effects of that fire would be (in the 60's and 70's!) is absurd. Due to these collapses, most engineering codes are going to include provisions that require engineers to model structures for actual fire-resistance, rather than just saying "For this type of element you need to have a 2hr rated passive fire-protection system".

[rwguinn]

The problem is, the 5,000 lbs of fertilizer was in the bed of the pickup truck but the front axel broke.

woo

I bow to your superior knowledge of load paths.
The fact that at least 1/2 the bed is forward of the rear axle doesn't seem to have crossed your mind--or has been deemed irrelevant...
as are the driver and the little piece of paper the cop handed him.

[Belz...]

Adding something is misstating.

You obviously have problems reading my posts. I didn't QUOTE you. I said FIRES, and added "diesel or otherwise" to make my point clear. That you don't understand that doesn't change anything.

You really should read post #1884 before making incorrect, uninformed statements like the one above.

I've read it, many times already. And nothing in it shows what I've been asking from you.

2) What part of;

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed the loads around the severed and damaged areas."

don't you understand?

This is a no brainer, yet you just can't grasp the concept.

Which is basically 2). I guess you're in agreement with it, then.

3) Yes, except for the word 'further'.
There was NO debris damage to the area of the [I]initiating event.

Irrelevant because of 2).

4) False. The loads were transferred to the surrounding columns, NOT to the other end of the building!

Oh ? I wasn't aware that load transfer had to stop somewhere specific. Or do you think "around" means "right next" ?

Fair enough. I will read them and respond.

<Giggle.>

[aggle-rithm]

I think aggle was referring to the fire fighting infrastructure, primarily the water mains, in that response. Maybe a poor choice of words since the fire fighters were present but had no water to fight the fires. In any case, if aggle meant the building I would presume he would have wrote "structure" not infrastructure.

Exactly right.

It's assumed in designing a building to withstand fire that it will be possible for emergency crews to fight the fire.

[aggle-rithm]

The problem is, the 5,000 lbs of fertilizer was in the bed of the pickup truck but the front axel broke.

woo

Quite possible, if the front axle is substantially less able to handle a load than the rear axle (as it often is). Damage like this follows the path of least resistance. It is oblivious to human credulity about what SHOULD happen.

[rwguinn]

Quite possible, if the front axle is substantially less able to handle a load than the rear axle (as it often is). Damage like this follows the path of least resistance. It is oblivious to human credulity about what SHOULD happen.

And you, sir, Liberal or conservative, twoofer or OCT'er, engineer or not, recieve my first sporadic "Sees beyond his own nose award"*.
Well done!:D



* These awards willbe made arbitrarily and capricously whenever I feel someone has actually seen past his own immediate concern and graspec the point being made.
Someday, I may even win the award myself--not a likely event, but anything is possible.:o

[aggle-rithm]

And you, sir, Liberal or conservative, twoofer or OCT'er, engineer or not, recieve my first sporadic "Sees beyond his own nose award"*.
Well done!:D



For the record, I'm a Liberal/Conservative neo-Nazi with Communist leanings who does not believe 9/11 was an inside job, but believes that Dustin Hoffman dreamed up the Holocaust in 1986 and that the Moon landings were filmed in my uncle's back yard.

;)

[rwguinn]

For the record, I'm a Liberal/Conservative neo-Nazi with Communist leanings who does not believe 9/11 was an inside job, but believes that Dustin Hoffman dreamed up the Holocaust in 1986 and that the Moon landings were filmed in my uncle's back yard.

;)

Ah--great minds think alike and all that. I am no longer alone in my ideology...:D

[Christopher7]

Current International Building Code regulates fire-protection to have a rating of at the most 4 hours on structural systems. This basically means that the structural element has to perform it's normal duty for 4 hours before collapsing. That's supposed to give enough time for firefighters to get into the building and put out whatever fires may be raging. After those 4 hours, the buildings aren't rated to survive and the likelihood of someone doing a model to see what the effects of that fire would be (in the 60's and 70's!) is absurd. Due to these collapses, most engineering codes are going to include provisions that require engineers to model structures for actual fire-resistance, rather than just saying "For this type of element you need to have a 2hr rated passive fire-protection system".
Around 3:00 p.m., fires were observed on floors 7 and 12 along the north face.

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

The office fires burned less than 2 hours is any particular area.

[aggle-rithm]

Around 3:00 p.m., fires were observed on floors 7 and 12 along the north face.

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

The office fires burned less than 2 hours is any particular area.

Do fires only burn when they are observed?

[Christopher7]

I bow to your superior knowledge of load paths.
The fact that at least 1/2 the bed is forward of the rear axle doesn't seem to have crossed your mind--or has been deemed irrelevant...
as are the driver and the little piece of paper the cop handed him.
This the problem with silly similes. They do not accurately reflect the actual situation.

Some people here can't grasp the concept that gravity pulls things straight down, not sideways.

When a support column is severed, the load is transferred to the surrounding columns which support the extra weight.

Since the surrounding columns supported the extra weight, there was no additional load to columns beyond the surrounding columns.

[rwguinn]

This the problem with silly similes. They do not accurately reflect the actual situation.

Some people here can't grasp the concept that gravity pulls things straight down, not sideways.

When a support column is severed, the load is transferred to the surrounding columns which support the extra weight.

Since the surrounding columns supported the extra weight, there was no additional load to columns beyond the surrounding columns.

oooohhh-kay. Sure.
Do me a favor, will ya.
Please let us know the location of every deck, music stand, building of any type, vehicle of any type, desk, and printer stand you have had a hand in designing/building is.
That way, at least we can avoid getting hurt. Your knowledge of statics is really, really bad.
IF it were engraved on the head of a pin, there would be room for the bible on there too. Both Testaments. This, you have demonstrated. It is a fact. This is not a personal attack. You simply lack the knowledge required to discuss the situation. That is a curable situation. Go take some classes. Then we can talk

[Newtons Bit]

He would be right if everything was simply supported rwquin, which isn't the case. Them moment connections sure do make the maths hard!

[Christopher7]

Which is basically 2). I guess you're in agreement with it, then.
No

Oh ? I wasn't aware that load transfer had to stop somewhere specific. Or do you think "around" means "right next" ?Yes
Since the columns "right next to" the severed columns supported the additional weight, as they were designed to do, there was no weight to be bourn by columns further away.

Do you think NIST ment "the other end of the building" when they said
"the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas"

[Newtons Bit]

Christopher7, continous beam action is developed across columns that have fixed-moment connections such as the WTC. The load will be transfered not only to the nearest column, but also to a lesser degree the ones further away. If a cantilevered beam is developed, an upwards load will actually develop in the columns furthest away from the damage. Because of how the beams and columns connection (moment-frame), the load is literally transfered to a larger portion of the building than just the immediate columns next to the damaged one.

Had you taken just the basic classes in engineering, you would understand how and why this happens. Your failure to understand it is just another example of how someone who knows how to frame "column and girder" wood structures together knows absoluetly nothing about real engineering.

[Belz...]

No

So you don't agree that:

2) Debris damage caused further damage by shifting loads to other parts of the building, including the area of the initiating event.

doesn't follow from your NIST quote ? That's amazing.

Since the columns "right next to" the severed columns supported the additional weight, as they were designed to do, there was no weight to be bourn by columns further away.

You don't know that. You're just speculating, like I'm doing.

Do you think NIST ment "the other end of the building" when they said
"the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas"

I think they were not as specific about it as you'd like to think.

[twinstead]

Christopher7, continous beam action is developed across columns that have fixed-moment connections such as the WTC. The load will be transfered not only to the nearest column, but also to a lesser degree the ones further away. If a cantilevered beam is developed, an upwards load will actually develop in the columns furthest away from the damage. Because of how the beams and columns connection (moment-frame), the load is literally transfered to a larger portion of the building than just the immediate columns next to the damaged one.

Had you taken just the basic classes in engineering, you would understand how and why this happens. Your failure to understand it is just another example of how someone who knows how to frame "column and girder" wood structures together knows absoluetly nothing about real engineering.

Very nice explanation. Also, sadly, knowing Chris, a total waste of time.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, continous beam action is developed across columns that have fixed-moment connections such as the WTC. If a cantilevered beam is developed, an upwards load will actually develop in the columns furthest away from the damage.
Wrong
The upward load will be the greatest on the adjoining column, and to a lesser degree, on the columns further away.
The load would 'taken up' by each column in turn.

Because of how the beams and columns connection (moment-frame), the load is literally transferred to a larger portion of the building than just the immediate columns next to the damaged one.
The load is bourn entirely by the adjoining columns.
If the adjoining column bends, weight will be transfered to the next coulmn, otherwise, it will not.
As you just stated; if anything, a cantilever action is created by the moment frame connections.

Had you taken just the basic classes in engineering, you would understand how and why this happens. Your failure to understand it is just another example of how someone who knows how to frame "column and girder" wood structures together knows absoluetly nothing about real engineering.Your arrogance and condescending attitude are not justified.

This is not rocket science.

I have real world experience with removing support studs and the cantilever effect.

The simple principles [underlying law] of physics apply when building with wood or steel.

[twinstead]

Chris. You are wrong. Don't accuse people of being arrogant when they explain to you why. It is you who is being arrogant by telling the world's structural engineers they are wrong.

[rwguinn]

Chris. You are wrong. Don't accuse people of being arrogant when they explain to you why. It is you who is being arrogant by telling the world's structural engineers they are wrong.

After all-we only do Structural analysis for a living. Chris is an expert, since he uses "common sense"

[rwguinn]

He would be right if everything was simply supported rwquin, which isn't the case. Them moment connections sure do make the maths hard!
Statically indetermininate structures are the fun part! Redundancy Uber Alles!

You'd think the guy never confronted a see-saw...

[Christopher7]

Chris. You are wrong. Don't accuse people of being arrogant when they explain to you why. It is you who is being arrogant by telling the world's structural engineers they are wrong.
Excuse me.

I am in agreement with the engineers at NIST.

You are the ones who are saying that the debris damage to the south west perimeter frame had an effect on the east end of WTC 7, when they said that the loads were redistributed to the columns around the severed and damaged areas.

Around does not mean 'far away from'. Look it up.

[twinstead]

Excuse me.

I am in agreement with the engineers at NIST.

You are the ones who are saying that the debris damage to the south west perimeter frame had an effect on the east end of WTC 7, when they said that the loads were redistributed to the columns around the severed and damaged areas.


But the engineers at NIST don't think the building was brought down by explosives. You do. How can you say you agree with them?

[Newtons Bit]

Of course they did Christopher7, the columns furthest away from the damage actually experienced a net loss in total load delivered to them.

Take a continuous beam that bears on three columns equal 10ft apart with a uniform load of 100lb/ft. Your common sense tells you that the center column should take a load of 1000lb and the outside columns should receive 500lb. How does the load change when one removes one outside column?

Your common sense probably doesn't tell you that the center column now takes the total 2000lb and the outside column that is remaining supports 0 load. It is, however, what happens in reality, if one knew anything about statics. This is similar to what I'm trying to explain above.

If the backspan is shorter than the front span that cantilevers over, than a net tension load is developed on the rear column. Now that I think about it, this is common sense. You don't need a college education to figure this out. rqguinn's see-saw analogy is dead-on.

I have real world experience with telling your bosses boss what to do.

[Christopher7]

But the engineers at NIST don't think the building was brought down by explosives. You do. How can you say you agree with them?
You don't know what the people at NIST think.

Only the "official position" of the management.

Even if we do disagree on that point, it has nothing to do with the redistribution of loads in WTC 7.

I agree with the NIST engineers that the loads were redistributed around the severed and damaged areas.

[Christopher7]

the columns furthest away from the damage actually experienced a net loss in total load delivered to them.

I have real world experience with telling your bosses boss what to do.
Of course you do.

Why don't you tell the engineers at NIST about "the cantilever effect", they seem to have missed this important point?

Tell them how the columns furthest away from the damage were affected.

[Belz...]

Excuse me.

I am in agreement with the engineers at NIST.

Of course, specifically because you can quote-mine to support your already-reached conclusion.

Otherwise, would you mind adressing my last post to you ?

[chipmunk stew]

I agree with the NIST engineers that the loads were redistributed around the severed and damaged areas.
Huh. Now I see why you keep bringing that quote up. See, I read it as equivalent to: "...the loads around the severed and damaged areas were redistributed..." not "...the loads were redistributed to nearby columns..."

Maybe my interpretation is wrong though. I honestly don't know.

[twinstead]

You don't know what the people at NIST think.

Only the "official position" of the management.

Even if we do disagree on that point, it has nothing to do with the redistribution of loads in WTC 7.

I agree with the NIST engineers that the loads were redistributed around the severed and damaged areas.

You can be as pedantic as you want, no problem. You are arguing minutiae and quote mining in the extreme. You are also implying that individual NIST engineers perhaps may suspect foul play even if the official explanation does not.

I'll wager that these NIST engineers understand the dynamics of the collapse MUCH better than you. Perhaps if it is SO obvious that the official explanation is impossible one of them might come forward and mention that fact, huh?

What is your explanation for the fact that none have?

[Christopher7]

Of course, specifically because you can quote-mine to support your already-reached conclusion.

Otherwise, would you mind adressing my last post to you ?
When making a point, it is necessary to quote the facts that support that point.

You can call this quote mining or cherry picking if you like.

Actually, i did not know until recently that NIST had said:

"the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

This is a clear and unambiguous statement.

Around means "something surrounds a place or object or is situated on all sides of it".

It does NOT mean "The other end of the building"


Why can't you just accept that instead of clinging to
"they didn't specifically rule it out"
and trying to infer the debris damage contributed to the initiating event. It did not.

[twinstead]

When making a point, it is necessary to quote the facts that support that point.

Word to the wise. Perhaps you could practice what you preach. Spending 4 pages defining what 'around' means doesn't help much.

what you need to do is support your theory that the building was brought down by CD. What you need to do is provide facts for why CD is the ONLY way the building could have collapsed.

While you are at it, perhaps you could explain why if what you think is SO evident, are there not any qualified people coming out against the official story.

[rwguinn]

When making a point, it is necessary to quote the facts that support that point.

You can call this quote mining or cherry picking if you like.

Actually, i did not know until recently that NIST had said:

"the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

This is a clear and unambiguous statement.

Around means "something surrounds a place or object or is situated on all sides of it".

It does NOT mean "The other end of the building"


Why can't you just accept that instead of clinging to
"they didn't specifically rule it out"
and trying to infer the debris damage contributed to the initiating event. It did not.
Nice try.
When we say the loads were "redistributed around the severed and damaged areas", we mean just that. The load paths were destroyed, and new ones formed. The damage was bypassed, and loads redistributed based on damage location, available load paths and loading conditions. It is not inconcievable that some potential load paths physically near the damage were then damaged by the load transfer, being unable to take the load themselves, yielding until the rest of the structure was able to support it.
When we plan a trip, and say "We need to go around Colorado", that means we may go as far South as Las Cruces,NM, or as far North as Havre, MT. It doesn't necessarily mean Cheyenne or Colorado Springs. It all depends on our final destination and starting point. ETA--and available, usable, highways and weather conditions.

[Christopher7]

Nice try.
When we say the loads were "redistributed around the severed and damaged areas", we mean just that. The load paths were destroyed, and new ones formed. The damage was bypassed, and loads redistributed based on damage location, available load paths and loading conditions. It is not inconcievable that some potential load paths physically near the damage were then damaged by the load transfer, being unable to take the load themselves, yielding until the rest of the structure was able to support it.
You seem to think you know more about it than the engineers at NIST.

This load path stuff is a figment of your imagination.

NIST said The debris damage DID NOT cause the collapse and that the

loads were redistributed around the severed and damaged areas.

They did not say there were further collapses. You are making this s*it up as you go. Give it up.

The people at NIST are a lot smarter, more educated and more informed than you.

They made no mention of load paths, or any other of the gibberish terms and scenarios you guys have come up with.

You just can't admit that the debris damage did not contribute to the initiating event.

The damage was to the south west part of the building.

The collapse started in the east central part of the building.

Why do you claim there is a connection when NIST did not say there was ?

You do NOT know better than the experts at NIST!

[cloudshipsrule]

The damage to the south west part of the building WOULD have played a role in the way the building ultimately collapsed even if not part of the initiating events.

[rwguinn]

You seem to think you know more about it than the engineers at NIST.

This load path stuff is a figment of your imagination.
No--just as much. It is what I do, and have done for a living for 35 years.
Go look up my qualifications

NIST said The debris damage DID NOT cause the collapse and that the

loads were redistributed around the severed and damaged areas.

They did not say there were further collapses. You are making this s*it up as you go. Give it up.

The people at NIST are a lot smarter, more educated and more informed than you.

They made no mention of load paths, or any other of the gibberish terms and scenarios you guys have come up with.

You just can't admit that the debris damage did not contribute to the initiating event.

The damage was to the south west part of the building.

The collapse started in the east central part of the building.

Why do you claim there is a connection when NIST did not say there was ?

You do NOT know better than the experts at NIST!

No, just as much.
Whereas you know absolutely nothing. About anything.

[Belz...]

"the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

This is a clear and unambiguous statement.

Actually, it's very ambiguous. "Around" isn't a specific place.

Around means "something surrounds a place or object or is situated on all sides of it".

It does NOT mean "The other end of the building"

Again, you're trying to make them say something they didn't say. If I say I walked "around" my house, does that mean I was within arm's length of it at all times ?

Why can't you just accept that instead of clinging to
"they didn't specifically rule it out"

Because your either mistaken or dishonest in the way you quote the report.

and trying to infer the debris damage contributed to the initiating event. It did not.

You keep repeating that. I've shown that NIST doesn't say it didn't, unlike what you're claiming. They said there wasn't debris damage IN the area of the initiating event, not that the former didn't lead to the latter.

[rwguinn]

Actually, it's very ambiguous. "Around" isn't a specific place.



Again, you're trying to make them say something they didn't say. If I say I walked "around" my house, does that mean I was within arm's length of it at all times ?



Because your either mistaken or dishonest in the way you quote the report.



You keep repeating that. I've shown that NIST doesn't say it didn't, unlike what you're claiming. They said there wasn't debris damage IN the area of the initiating event, not that the former didn't lead to the latter.

What everybody, and Christopher7 is hung up on is the term "Initiating event".
The intiating event was 2 airplanes crashing into the 2 towers. NIST refers to the initiating event specifically as that event that immediately preceded the total collapse. Trnaslated into layman's terms, it was "The straw that broke the camel's back"
A series of events led up to the final collapse, not a single happening. Go get a dry stick, say, 3/8 to 1/2 inch around (or square) grab the ends, clamp one end to a sturdy bench, and add weight to the other end, gradually. There will be a series cof cracks, snaps, and assorted noises, and the stick will bend a lot. At some point, one of the weights you add will cause catastrophic failure in the stick. It will be sudden, and probably unexpected at the time. The last weight was NIST's "Initiating event". Does that mean the events before (adding other weights) had nothing to do with the failure? Only a fool would argue that this is true.
Steel acts the same way--yopu apply load, apply load, and keep applying load, untill suddenly the whole thing gives. The actual collapse was a long, slow process. It's progress was visible to everyone by the bulge described by NYFD---they even had a transit on it.
The building was collapsing the minute the chunks of the tall tower hit it.

[Newtons Bit]

Hehehehe... load paths is gibberish. That's funny.

[Christopher7]

Please remember your Membership agreement and remain civil and polite.

No, just as much.
Whereas you know absolutely nothing. About anything.I know what is in the NIST report.
The statements are clear.
"A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendreel action of the perimeter moment frame"

They made it perfectly clear to anyone, not in denial, that the damage to the perimeter frame did not contribute to the initiating event.

[Christopher7]

The damage to the south west part of the building WOULD have played a role in the way the building ultimately collapsed even if not part of the initiating events.
Yes
It would have played a role in how the south west part of WTC 7 collapsed.

[Christopher7]

Actually, it's very ambiguous. "Around" isn't a specific place.
Only to someone in denial

If you think "around" includes the other end of the building, you are:
A) lying to yourself
B) lying to me
C) in need of a remedial reading course


Because your either mistaken or dishonest in the way you quote the report.No, read it, quote it, point out where i am mistaken or dishonest.
Talk's cheap.
Put up or shut up.

You keep repeating that. I've shown that NIST doesn't say it didn't, unlike what you're claiming. They said there wasn't debris damage IN the area of the initiating event, not that the former didn't lead to the latter.For a person desperately looking for a reason to deny the obvious, anything other than a specific statement that the Debris damage did not contribute to the initiating event, is enough reason to say that did.

[twinstead]

Talk is cheap, especially when not using your real name.
Give your real name and qualifications.
Put up or shut up.

I know what is in the NIST report.
The statements are clear.
"A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendreel action of the perimeter moment frame"

They made it perfectly clear to anyone, not in denial, that the damage to the perimeter frame did not contribute to the initiating event.

Yet nobody has come forward expressing doubt that that the official story expresses anything but reality. You can't be so dense as to believe that any disagreement with the NIST engineers is tacit agreement that the building could not have collapsed with anything else but CD.

You are hitching your wagon upon a star that disproves your entire premise.

Good luck with that.

[Christopher7]

Hehehehe... load paths is gibberish. That's funny.
Funny NIST didn't mention it.

They have a lot more data and expertise than you do.

[twinstead]

Funny NIST didn't mention it.

They have a lot more data and expertise than you do.


And a hell of a lot more data and expertise than you as well. In fact, your attempt at interpreting what NIST says is pathetic.

[Newtons Bit]

Load paths is a CONCEPT, Christopher7. It's the same concept used to determine that the load travels AROUND damaged area. A Layman thinks that the load just travels through adjacent columns. Engineers know that it's a hellau more complex than that.

[Christopher7]

Load paths is a CONCEPT, Christopher7. It's the same concept used to determine that the load travels AROUND damaged area. A Layman thinks that the load just travels through adjacent columns. Engineers know that it's a hellau more complex than that.
The loads were transferred to the surrounding columns via the moment frame.

They did not "find a path" to the area of the initiating event.

You don't know squat. Stop blowin' smoke.

[rwguinn]

Load paths is a CONCEPT, Christopher7. It's the same concept used to determine that the load travels AROUND damaged area. A Layman thinks that the load just travels through adjacent columns. Engineers know that it's a hellau more complex than that.

I should know as little as you, NB..:D

[Christopher7]

And a hell of a lot more data and expertise than you as well.
That's why i quote them.

In fact, your attempt at interpreting what NIST says is pathetic."If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

You say pathetic, i say prophetic.

Let's call the whole thing off.

[Newtons Bit]

You're right, I don't know anything. I'm just someone who does that stuff for a living. There's absoluetly no way that the debris damage contributed to the collapse. And since the fire CAUSED by the debris obviously can't hurt steel, I can come to no other conclusion that the building must have been brought down with controlled demolition or thermite or magical energy beams of nuclear space dust.

Right.

[Christopher7]

You're right, I don't know anything.
Right

I'm just someone who does that stuff for a living.Wrong

There's absoluetly no way that the debris damage contributed to the collapse.Right

And since the fire CAUSED by the debris obviously can't hurt steelWrong

I can come to no other conclusion that the building must have been brought down with controlled demolitionRight

or thermite or magical energy beams of nuclear space dust.

Right.Wrong

[Civilized Worm]

OK then Christopher, what does Newtons Bit do for a living?

[Christopher7]

OK then Christopher, what does Newtons Bit do for a living?
Anyone can claim to be anything, using an assumed name.

The load will be transferred not only to the nearest column, but also to a lesser degree the ones further away.
Only if the nearest column bends.

If a cantilevered beam is developed, an upwards load will actually develop in the columns furthest from the damage.
Not so.

The load will be bourn by the column acting as the fulcrum.

Only if, and to the extent, the fulcrum column bends, will a negative load be transferred to the next column.

The weight pushing down on the beams [on the other side of the fulcrum point] is greater than the weight of the hanging floors in the damaged areas.

If you had 1 person sitting on one side of a see-saw and several people sitting on the other side, the person sitting on the far end would not be affected one way or the other by the 1 person.

This is not complicated as NB would have us believe.

His claim that the 'cantilever' effect would produce a negative load on the columns furthest away is incorrect.

[Newtons Bit]

Here's an idea Christopher, go out into your wood shop, grab a 2x4 and nail one end to the top of your sawhorse and let another end hang a couple feet off the other end. Put all your weight on the free end and see what happens. You may want to weight the sawhorse.

Unless you weigh 50 lbs, that nail probably just popped out. You just created an upwards force by using a fulcrum. Now tell me, does your 2x4 have to BEND to pull that nail out?

Edit: As far as your see-saw analogy goes, by adding that one person way out on the end of the beam, you did increase the load on the fulcrum. However the weight that the large group of people on the ground just decreased by adding that person. Suppose that person waaay out at the end of the beam, hanging all alone, is a column. It's UP in the air. Thank you for proving my analogy.

[jaydeehess]

Seems to me I have been trying to tell C7 that the missing columns would be creating a cantilever system out of the flooring that would be pulling the central columns towards the missing perimeter columns for some time now.

Taking NB's illustration above one needs only to note that the sawhorse may well tip over before the nail pops unless, as he says, you weigh the sawhorse down or nail it to the floor.

[Christopher7]

Here's an idea Christopher, go out into your wood shop, grab a 2x4 and nail one end to the top of your sawhorse .....................

Thank you for proving my analogy.
You left out some factors in your proposed experiment and analysis.

Let's look at the actual situation.

NIST said the loads were redistributed around the severed and damaged areas.

Around means, next to, not far away from.

Any cantilever effect would have to transfer loads thru several moment frame areas.

The weight pushing down on the next column would more than offset any cantilever effect from hanging floor sections.

The experts at NIST made no mention of the cantilever effect, load paths or lateral forces.

It's all just speculation by people here who claim to know engineering.


Your claim that the cantilever effect could put an upwards load on the columns furthest from the damage is wrong.

There's too much framework in between.


If NIST thought the debris damage to the SW perimeter frame had an effect on the area of the initiating event, they would have said so.

[Christopher7]

Seems to me I have been trying to tell C7 that the missing columns would be creating a cantilever system out of the flooring that would be pulling the central columns towards the missing perimeter columns for some time now.
I have been reminding you that the loads would be bourn by the entire building thru the moment frame where every column connects to floors throughout the building.

The pull would be the greatest on the surrounding columns and less to columns further away.

The effect to columns in the east part of WTC 7 would be negligible.

[Christopher7]

I should know as little as you, NB..:D
No worries mate.

[Belz...]

Only to someone in denial

If you think "around" includes the other end of the building, you are:
A) lying to yourself
B) lying to me
C) in need of a remedial reading course

Since A and B are impossible, here's what I say to C :

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/around

There are 33 definitions of this word. Please tell me which one you think the NIST used, and why you think it's not one of the 32 others.

No, read it, quote it, point out where i am mistaken or dishonest.
Talk's cheap.
Put up or shut up.

I've done that already. You're trying to add meaning to words and sentences to fit your preconceived theory. Tell you what ? Why don't we stop beating around the bush with this silly semantics thread and get right to the point: start a thread about controlled demolitions at 7 WTC and we'll debate YOUR theory, not some incomplete report.

For a person desperately looking for a reason to deny the obvious, anything other than a specific statement that the Debris damage did not contribute to the initiating event, is enough reason to say that did.

Personal attack aside, do you deny that saying that there was no debris or diesel fire damage AT that area says nothing about the former causing the latter ?

[Belz...]

Anyone can claim to be anything, using an assumed name.

Yes, some can even claim to know more than the people on site, the firefighters, the experts, etc.

The pull would be the greatest on the surrounding columns and less to columns further away.

Would it, now ?

Oh, and by the way:

"I'm slaming the SOB who coerced them into publishing that insipid piece of misleading dribble." (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2226444&postcount=38)

[Miragememories]

Here are 40 distinguished leaders and experts sounding-off in short quotes about their misgivings with the 9/11 commission and the questions that are still smoldering [NB: Don’t miss the concluding quote]...

Summarized from www.patriotsquestion911.com (http://www.patriotsquestion911.com)


Senator Max Cleland - Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003:
"I, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye... It is a national scandal... this White House wants to cover [9/11] up."

Senator Mark Dayton - Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services and Homeland Security:
"[NORAD] lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission...the most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence"

Congressman Ron Paul - Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee:
“The [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation"

Congressman Curt Weldon:
"[9/11 Commission] there's something very sinister going on here... something desperately wrong... This involved what is right now the covering up of information that led to the deaths of 3,000 people"

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney - Member of the House Armed Services Committee:
“The [9/11] Commission ran up against obstruction by the administration and non-cooperation from government agencies... the errors and omissions immediately jumped out at us"

Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh:
"[9/11 Commission findings] raise serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself"

Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, PhD:
"Distinguished national and international scientists and scholars present massive evidence that the 9/11 Commission Report is a hoax and that the 9/11 "terrorist attack" has been manipulated to serve a hegemonic agenda in the Middle East... We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false"

Assistant Secretary of Housing, Catherine Austin Fitts:
"The official story could not possibly have happened... It’s not possible. It’s not operationally feasible... The Commission was a whitewash. "

U.S. Army Intelligence officer, Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice, John Loftus:
"The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence"

Foreign Service Officer, George Kenney:
"I cannot believe, much as I might like to, the standard account of 9/11"

Foreign Service Officer, J. Michael Springman:
"Fifteen of the nineteen people who allegedly flew airplanes into buildings in the United States got their visas from the same CIA Consulate at Jeddah"

Deputy Attorney General, State of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, Esquire:
"The official story of what actually took place on 0/11 is a lie. "

Major General U.S. Army, Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Albert Stubblebine [his specialty – analyzing satellite photos]:
"I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole. So what did hit the Pentagon?’”

Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center:
"I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate."

Col. Robert Bowman, U.S. Air Force, Director of Advanced Space Programs, PhD Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering:
"The official 9/11 story is impossible .. There is a cover up... high levels of our government don't want us to know what happened... highly placed individuals in the administration...Dick Cheney...the very kindest thing we can say about George W Bush...is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder."

Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force, aircraft accident investigator:
"I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident... The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from view .. with all the evidence readilty available at the pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged .. the most heinous conspiracy in outr country's history."

Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army:
[Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001] "When you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile."

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force, fighter pilot, commercial pilot flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777s. Had previously flown Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC:
"The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple...[Regarding Flight 77]"The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles... The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77"

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force, Office of the Secretary of Defense, staff of the Director of the National Security Agency:
"It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics...There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked Pentagon, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage one would expect from the impact of a large airliner... this visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ' missile ' ... I saw nothing of significance at the point of contact ~ no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon .. all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected was not evident .. the same is true with regard to the damage we expected .. but I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 0r 40 minutes, with the roof remaining relatively straight .. The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would have expected if a missile had struck the Pentagon "

Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, Barbara Honegger, MS:
"The US military, not al Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to also plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC 1 and WTC 2, and in WTC 7, which brought down all three buildings on 9/11...A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, high−speed 270−degree dive towards the Pentagon that Air Traffic Controllers on 9/11 were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the "Friendly" signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti−aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building...Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response system"

Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army, U.S. Army Intelligence Officer:
"I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. ... [A]nomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers' names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC 1 and 2...and WTC7...not hit by an airplane...the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon"

Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army, Intelligence officer:
"I view the 911 event ...as a matter that implies either...A) passive participation by the Bush White House through a deliberate stand-down or active execution of a plot by rogue elements of government, starting with the White House itself, in creating a spectacle of destruction that would lead the United States into an invasion of the Middle East"

Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President’s Daily Brief, U.S. Army Intelligence Officer, Raymond L. McGovern:
"I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke...just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11...making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11...that’s certainly an impeachable offense...But compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited."

National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, William Christison:
"there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them...this all was totally an inside job. I have since decided that... at least some elements in this US government had contributed in some way or other to causing 9/11 to happen or at least allowing it to happen... The reason that the two towers in New York actually collapsed and fell all the way to the ground was controlled explosions rather than just being hit by two airplanes. All of the characteristics of these demolitions show that they almost had to have been controlled explosions... I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all... It's a monstrous crime."

U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer, case officer CIA. Robert David Steele:
"I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others...This is, without question, the most important modern reference on state-sponsored terrorism, and also the reference that most pointedly suggests that select rogue elements within the US Government, most likely led by Dick Cheney with the assistance of George Tenet, Buzzy Kronguard, and others close to the Wall Street gangs, are the most guilty of state-sponsored terrorism...I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that as far as I'm concerned means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition."

CIA Case Officer, Specialist in the Middle East, Directorate of Operations, Awarded Career Intelligence Medal, Robert Baer:
[Regarding the opinion there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. Government], "There is that possibility, the evidence points at it."

Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the federal Aviation Administration. Team leader of the FAA's Red (Terrorism) Team in the Federal Air Marshall program, Coast Guard officer, Bogdan Dzakovic:
"At worst, I think the 9/11 Commission Report is treasonous."

Minister of Justice, West Germany, Horst Ehmke, PhD:
"Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with four hijacked planes without the support of a secret service."

State Secretary, Federal Ministry of Defense, West Germany, Andreas von Buelow, PhD:
"The official story is so inadequate and far-fetched that there must be another one...This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry."

President of Italy, Francesco Cossiga:
"[9/11] could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel."

General Leonid Ivashov, Chief of Staff, Russian armed forces, Ministry of Defense:
"Only secret services and their current chiefs – or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations – have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation [9/11] of such magnitude...Osama bin Laden and "Al Qaeda" cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders."

Foreign Minister of Egypt, Mohamed Hassanein Heikal:
"Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation [9/11] of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaida as if it was Nazi Germany or the communist party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance for years: every telephone call was monitored and al-Qaida has been penetrated by American intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, Saudi intelligence, Egyptian intelligence. They could not have kept secret an operation that required such a degree of organisation and sophistication."

Chief of Staff, Pakistani Army, General Mirza Aslam Beg:
"The information which is now coming up, goes to prove that involvement by the ‘rogue elements’ of the U.S. military and intelligence organization is getting more obvious. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda definitely do not have the knowhow and the capability to launch such operations involving such high precision coordination, based on information and expertise."

European Parliament, Committee on Security and Defense, Giulietto Chiesa:
"Billions of people were given only one explanation....which is entirely false....everyone who dares to question it is treated as if he was a fool."

French Army Intelligence and artillery officer, Col. Pierre-Henri Bunel, Expert in the effects of artillery weapons and explosives:
"Image of the impact on the Pentagon is very instructive as to the nature of the explosion. ... It corresponds to a detonation of an explosive with high energetic power. The explosion does not correspond to a deflagration of kerosene...suggests a single engine flying vehicle much smaller in size than an airliner...resembles the effects of anti-concrete hollow charges that I have been able to observe on a number of battlefields...lead me therefore to think that the detonation that struck the building was that of a high-powered hollow charge used to destroy hardened buildings and carried by an aerial vehicle, a missile."

Safety Engineer and accident Analyst, National Safety Technology Authority, Finland, Heikki Kurttila, PhD: "Conclusion: The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account. ... The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."

Counter-Terrorism Officer, MI5 (Britain), David Shayler:
"The available evidence indicates that people in key positions in the FBI, the State Department, the CIA and so on were not loyal to the Constitution; that they saw an opportunity in plans laid down by genuine Islamic terrorists to carry out an operation that would shock the world and would therefore justify U.S. adventurism in the middle East, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean, Former Governor of New Jersey:
"FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue...We, to this day, don't know why NORAD told us what they told us...It was just so far from the truth."

Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Homeland Security Advisory Council:
"we got started late; we had a very short time frame...we did not have enough money...We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. ... So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."

9/11 Commissioner, Timothy J. Roemer, PhD, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
"That panel members so distrusted testimony from Pentagon officials that they referred their concerns to the Pentagon's inspector general...We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting."

Senior Counsel, 9/11 Commission, John J. Farmer, Jr., Former Attorney General, NJ, Former Commissioner of the State Commission of Investigations:
[Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public] - "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described...The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years."

MM posted for Christopher7

[Belz...]

Those people should band together a make a new report, if they know so much.

[Dave Rogers]

Here are 40 distinguished leaders and experts sounding-off in short quotes about their misgivings with the 9/11 commission and the questions that are still smoldering [NB: Don’t miss the concluding quote]...

Of your 40 quotes, 21 are general 9/11 denier statements based on well-debunked assumptions that don't even mention the 9/11 Commission, 2 look more or less irrelevant and 4 are either ambiguous or so far removed from their context that it's impossible to tell their meaning. Of the remaining thirteen, six tell of the difficulties that the 9/11 Commission had in uncovering the full story, suggesting that they were seriously trying to get at the truth, and the other seven suggest that the 9/11 Commission was set up as a deliberate whitewash that never even tried to uncover the truth. Which one of these two mutually exclusive scenarios are your quotes supposed to support?

Dave

[twinstead]

Those people should band together a make a new report, if they know so much.

Well, those people have their concerns, don't they? When you separate the wheat from the chaff and eliminate those who have trouble with the commission's findings but don't suspect foul play, and eliminate pure opinion, conjecture, and political bias the list really isn't as impressive as MM would like it to be, however, but yea, I agree; I would like to see an official competing report from these people outlining in detail their issues if they feel so strongly about it.

[Belz...]

Indeed, most of the content of MM's post are either conjecture, arguments from incredulity or comments about things that don't support the MIHOP argument. At best, it's a LIHOP-supporting post.

[Newtons Bit]

This is a frame:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1632946378b9c47795.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5462)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1632946378bc283410.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5463)

This is a building frame's deflection (at 5x magnification)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1632946378be0664bc.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5464)

This is what happens when a column is removed.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1632946378bf2ebb6f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5465)

Are there any questions?

[Belz...]

Newton, you are obviously a shill. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that only the area "around" the beam you remove will be affected. That far beam should be straight !!!!111eleventyone

[Christopher7]

This is a frame:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1632946378b9c47795.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1632946378bc283410.jpg

This is a building frame's deflection (at 5x magnification)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1632946378be0664bc.jpg

This is what happens when a column is removed.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1632946378bf2ebb6f.jpg

Are there any questions?
Your stick drawings do not represent the framework of WTC 7.

There were 28 columns on the south side, not 3.

In the real world, the columns around the severed and damaged areas did not bend.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3880/sfacegraphic3np6.jpg

http://img460.imageshack.us/img460/3262/wtc7roofdamagepn6.jpg

[Christopher7]

Since A and B are impossible, here's what I say to C :

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/around

There are 33 definitions of this word. Please tell me which one you think the NIST used, and why you think it's not one of the 32 others.
NIST meant next to because the loads would be transferred to the columns next to the severed or damaged columns. These columns would either support the additional loads or fail and pass the load to the next column.
Loads cannot be transferred to columns far away unless all the intervening columns fail.

I've done that already. You're trying to add meaning to words and sentences to fit your preconceived theory.No, you are trying to say around means something other than next to in the statement:

"...the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

Tell you what ? Why don't we stop beating around the bush with this silly semantics thread and get right to the point: start a thread about controlled demolitions at 7 WTC and we'll debate YOUR theory, not some incomplete report.There is a thread for the CD debate.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498320#post2498320

Personal attack aside, do you deny that saying that there was no debris or diesel fire damage AT that area says nothing about the former causing the latter ?No.
The debris may have caused diesel fuel fires in the west part of WTC 7.

[cloudshipsrule]

"...the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

C7, is it your belief that NIST means loads were redistributed to columns 'next to' the damaged areas when they say 'around'?

In the real world, their use of the word 'around' means 'bypassing'.

Rewritten for your understanding: The loads were redistributed, BYPASSING the severed and damaged areas.

That doesn't mean it had to be columns RIGHT BESIDE the damaged areas. Load redistribution isn't necessarily uniform. It depends on the extent of the damage and the design of the building. NO ONE knows the exact damage, and thus, NO ONE knows exactly which columns carried greater loads after damaged columns failed.

[Belz...]

NIST meant next to because the loads would be transferred to the columns next to the severed or damaged columns. These columns would either support the additional loads or fail and pass the load to the next column.

Circular reasoning. Your contention that the additional load would only bear on the adjacent columns to those damaged is in question, here. How can you claim that NIST couldn't possibly mean anything else ?

You do NOT know better than the experts at NIST!

Loads cannot be transferred to columns far away unless all the intervening columns fail.

Well, I'm no structural engineer, but that sounds like nonsense, to me. Could you explain, in layman's terms, why, if the columns far away bear some of the building's load, they will not be affected if other columns, which are presumably sharing that load, fail ?

No.
The debris may have caused diesel fuel fires in the west part of WTC 7.

Do fires spread, Chris ?

[Christopher7]

C7, is it your belief that NIST means loads were redistributed to columns 'next to' the damaged areas when they say 'around'?
Yes

In the real world, their use of the word 'around' means 'bypassing'.
Rewritten for your understanding: The loads were redistributed, BYPASSING the severed and damaged areas. Yes

That doesn't mean it had to be columns RIGHT BESIDE the damaged areas.Yes it does. The loads cannot bypass an undamaged column.

Load redistribution isn't necessarily uniform. It depends on the extent of the damage and the design of the building. NO ONE knows the exact damage, and thus, NO ONE knows exactly which columns carried greater loads after damaged columns failed.We don't know exactly which columns were involved but common sense tells anyone not in denial that the loads once held up by the severed columns would be held up by the columns next to it.

[Belz...]

Yes it does. The loads cannot bypass an undamaged column.

Tell me, chris, if five columns bear a load, like this:

-------------------
|___|___|___|___|

And you remove the second from the left, can you tell me how much of that load each of the remaining columns bears ? You seem to think that only the 1st and 3rd would get an increase. I'm wondering why you think that. Anyone who actually knows the answer can freely chime in and tell me the answer, given hypothetical loads.

[Newtons Bit]

You should probably say whether or not those are simple shear connections or moment connections, Belz.

I've disproved him on just about every aspect of his "column behavior" B.S. I think we just need to concede the fact that he's a troll now.

Those pictures I posted by the way, are from RISA-3D. Not just hand sketches I invented.

[Christopher7]

You should probably say whether or not those are simple shear connections or moment connections, Belz.

I've disproved him on just about every aspect of his "column behavior" B.S.On the contrary, my good sir, your claim that the cantilever effect could put an upwards load on the columns furthest from the damage is Bloody Silly.

NIST said "loads were redistributed around the severed and damaged areas."

You're trying to say that the loads were somehow transferred to the area of the initiating event.

This viewpoint ignores all the columns and framing members in between. These would have taken up any loads that somehow got past the columns next to the severed columns.

Those pictures I posted by the way, are from RISA-3D. Not just hand sketches I invented.So what? They're still stick drawings that don't represent WTC 7.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/5929/stickdrawing1xc6.jpg

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/486/stickdrawing2gj0.jpg


This is what actually happened.
The columns around the severed columns DID NOT BEND as indicated in the stick drawing.

http://img460.imageshack.us/img460/3262/wtc7roofdamagepn6.jpg

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3880/sfacegraphic3np6.jpg

[Christopher7]

Yet nobody has come forward expressing doubt that that the official story expresses anything but reality.
Many qualified people have come forward.

They have been ignored or slandered by MSM and people here.

Post #2148 lists 40 of them.

Here are some more:

http://www.pogo.org/m/hsp/hsp-911commission-040913.pdf


Please stop making such patently false statements.

[chipmunk stew]

The fact is, your argument is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity, which is not enough to dismiss the hypothesis developed by NIST.
Correct
Thank you for acknowledging that. As far as I'm concerned, then, there's nothing more to discuss with you until the report is finalized.

55 pages, based (by admission) on nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity?!?

Chris...what are you doing? Go enjoy the Spring weather. Wait until the final report is released.

[Christopher7]

55 pages, based (by admission) on nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity?!?
That statement was in reference to my personal disbelief that fire brought down WTC 7.

Chris...what are you doing?Pointing out that:

There was no 60 to 80 foot wide, by 30 to 40 foot deep gouge,
floor 10 to the ground, in the middle of WTC 7.

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

There is no evidence of debris damage in the area of the initiating event.

The debris damage to the south west face of WTC 7 did not weaken columns in the area of the initiating event.


These things are not going to change in the final report.

Live in the here and now, not in what you hope tomorrow will bring in the final report.

[rwguinn]

That statement was in reference to my personal disbelief that fire brought down WTC 7.

Pointing out that:

There was no 60 to 80 foot wide, by 30 to 40 foot deep gouge,
floor 10 to the ground, in the middle of WTC 7.

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

There is no evidence of debris damage in the area of the initiating event.

The debris damage to the south west face of WTC 7 did not weaken columns in the area of the initiating event.


These things are not going to change in the final report.

Live in the here and now, not in what you hope tomorrow will bring in the final report.

{ray stevens mode]
There is none so blind
as he who will not see
You must open up your eyes...[/ray stevens mode]

[Belz...]

Gee, Chris, would you mind answering these (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2568132&postcount=2158) posts (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2569611&postcount=2160) ?

[Christopher7]

Circular reasoning. Your contention that the additional load would only bear on the adjacent columns to those damaged is in question, here. How can you claim that NIST couldn't possibly mean anything else ?
In order for weight to be transferred to columns beyond the columns next to the severed columns, the columns next to the severed columns must bend or fail.
To put it another way, the columns next to the severed columns will bear the weight or fail and pass it on.

You do NOT know better than the experts at NIST!I don't claim to know better than NIST but you seem to think you do.

You insist that around the severed and damaged columns means the other end of the building.

Well, I'm no structural engineer, but that sounds like nonsense, to me. Could you explain, in layman's terms, why, if the columns far away bear some of the building's load, they will not be affected if other columns, which are presumably sharing that load, fail ?The columns in the area of the initiating event were NOT sharing loads with the columns on the SW face of WTC 7.
Each column is holding up the weight in its own area.

Do fires spread, Chris ?Either you did not read or you did not understand the "Fire on floor 12" section of post #1884 on pg 48.

"About 3:00 p.m., it reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions."

[Christopher7]

{ray stevens mode]
There is none so blind
as he who will not see
You must open up your eyes...[/ray stevens mode]
You should follow your own advice and read posts #1883, 1884 and 1885.

The quotes from the FEMA and NIST reports that confirm those 4 statements are there for you to see.

[Miragememories]

I agree Christopher.

I would like to hear Belz actually provide a thoughtful response to your remarks.

This would be new ground ie. unfamiliar territory, but I'm sure we would all benefit from his profound analysis.

MM

[Christopher7]

Tell me, chris, if five columns bear a load, like this:

-------------------
|___|___|___|___|

And you remove the second from the left, can you tell me how much of that load each of the remaining columns bears ? You seem to think that only the 1st and 3rd would get an increase. I'm wondering why you think that.
That's correct.
The load from the 2nd column will be bourn by the 1st and 3rd columns.
The 3rd column will bear the load or fail and pass it on to the 4th column,

[Miragememories]

That's correct.
The load from the 2nd column will be bourn by the 1st and 3rd columns.
The 3rd column will bear the load or fail and pass it on to the 4th column,

Gravity is a difficult concept for some people.

Another difficulty is accepting that people you trust are not always going to act in your best interests.

People in power always place THEIR interests first. If they align with yours..great..if they don't, well too f**king bad!

WTC7 was a controlled demolition!

It's obvious to all, accept those who are naive enough to believe that people with power won't allow themselves to be corrupted by that power.

Ever hear of a fool's paradise Belz?

Time to jump from the gravy train.

MM

[twinstead]

Gravity is a difficult concept for some people.

Another difficulty is accepting that people you trust are not always going to act in your best interests.

People in power always place THEIR interests first. If they align with yours..great..if they don't, well too f**king bad!

WTC7 was a controlled demolition!

It's obvious to all, accept those who are naive enough to believe that people with power won't allow themselves to be corrupted by that power.

Ever hear of a fool's paradise Belz?

Time to jump from the gravy train.

MM

BS. You are NOT qualified to judge that the WT7 was a controlled demolition, no more so than a plumber who declares that the pain I have in my chest is a heart problem.

You can declare over and over and over again, but you will be wrong over and over and over again. The evidence does NOT support your conclusion. Experts do NOT support your conclusion. You are ideologically biased so nobody with half a brain would support your conclusion without independent verification.

To make a long story short, you don't know what the heck you are talking about, and no rational person should be under any obligation to believe a word you say.

You have a problem with that? Then PROVE YOUR POSITION. So far, you have nothing.

[Newtons Bit]

It's pointless twinstead, they're trolls. Just let the thread die.


That's correct.
The load from the 2nd column will be bourn by the 1st and 3rd columns.
The 3rd column will bear the load or fail and pass it on to the 4th column,


I proved this wrong by posting a finite-element model showing exactly what happens when one column fails. He says that model doesn't represent the WTC. Which is true. And I'm certainly not going to model the whole building. I did that model in 15 minutes during my lunch break. The proof that a non-adjacent column during a column failure event is effected is staring him right in the face in pictorial form. And he still doesn't get it.

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/486/stickdrawing2gj0.jpg

I wonder if he thinks I drew that in photoshop?

Just let the thread die.

[Christopher7]

I proved this wrong by posting a finite-element model showing exactly what happens when one column fails. He says that model doesn't represent the WTC. Which is true. And I'm certainly not going to model the whole building. I did that model in 15 minutes during my lunch break. The proof that a non-adjacent column during a column failure event is effected is staring him right in the face in pictorial form. And he still doesn't get it.

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/486/stickdrawing2gj0.jpg

I wonder if he thinks I drew that in photoshop?
It's still a bloody stick drawing with 3 columns.

Try something more realistic like 14 south facade columns and 18 core columns.

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/4191/wtc7fl8edit2ak2.png

Did you look at the photos of what actually happened ?

The perimeter columns next to the severed columns did not bend because they are attached to all the other columns thru the moment frame connections at every floor.
The core columns are attached to other core columns in the same manner.

[Belz...]

I would like to hear Belz actually provide a thoughtful response to your remarks.

Exactly what about my contentions was thoughtless ?

This would be new ground ie. unfamiliar territory, but I'm sure we would all benefit from his profound analysis.

Someone else is already doing a "profound" analysis, but you have already decided that their conclusions will be wrong.

Gravity is a difficult concept for some people.

More so for some than others.

Another difficulty is accepting that people you trust are not always going to act in your best interests.

Which, in an of itself, is NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

People in power always place THEIR interests first. If they align with yours..great..if they don't, well too f**king bad!

Yes, that has a tendency to happen. Now that we agree on that, do you have actual evidence that it happened the way you claim it happened ?

WTC7 was a controlled demolition!

It's obvious to all, accept those who are naive enough to believe that people with power won't allow themselves to be corrupted by that power.

To "all" except the majority ? Were you just now trying to make an argument from popularity and failing monstrously at even a fallacy ? Boy, you're bad at this.

Ever hear of a fool's paradise Belz?

Your basement ?

Time to jump from the gravy train.

Who's "gravy" ?

[Belz...]

In order for weight to be transferred to columns beyond the columns next to the severed columns, the columns next to the severed columns must bend or fail.

I don't see why.

I don't claim to know better than NIST but you seem to think you do.

Then we are both mistaken.

You insist that around the severed and damaged columns means the other end of the building.

Strawman. I never said that. And you look silly for battling that dummy.

What I said, is that "around" is an imprecise term unless you can show which of the 33 definitions of the word was used. No assumptions, please.

That's correct.
The load from the 2nd column will be bourn by the 1st and 3rd columns.
The 3rd column will bear the load or fail and pass it on to the 4th column,

See ? This is what I don't understand about your argument. Not knowing anything about loads, I'd say that the weigth of the horizontal member would be distributed among the remaining columns, which means that ALL FOUR of the remaining columns, not only 1 and 3, would bear added load; though I suspect it wouldn't be an equal share, now that there is a big hole where 2 used to be.

I'd like to hear your thoughts about that, and rguinn's or Architect's thoughts as well. Someone who knows this stuff, anyway.

[rwguinn]

I don't see why.



Then we are both mistaken.



Strawman. I never said that. And you look silly for battling that dummy.

What I said, is that "around" is an imprecise term unless you can show which of the 33 definitions of the word was used. No assumptions, please.



See ? This is what I don't understand about your argument. Not knowing anything about loads, I'd say that the weigth of the horizontal member would be distributed among the remaining columns, which means that ALL FOUR of the remaining columns, not only 1 and 3, would bear added load; though I suspect it wouldn't be an equal share, now that there is a big hole where 2 used to be.

I'd like to hear your thoughts about that, and rguinn's or Architect's thoughts as well. Someone who knows this stuff, anyway.
Newton's bit is doing good. With complex, moment-carrying load paths, hand analysis and "common sense" will not give a correct answer. NB showed a couple of FEM's that give the correct situation, but Christopher7 has not a clue, and thus rejects it.

[Belz...]

Baleeted.

[Miragememories]

... nobody with half a brain would support your conclusion ..

Well I guess that explains why you take the position you do.

MM

[twinstead]

Well I guess that explains why you take the position you do.

MM

Well, actually, it's because the vast preponderance of evidence supports my position, but you can believe whatever you want.

[Arus808]

Tell me, chris, if five columns bear a load, like this:

-------------------
|___|___|___|___|

And you remove the second from the left, can you tell me how much of that load each of the remaining columns bears ? You seem to think that only the 1st and 3rd would get an increase. I'm wondering why you think that. Anyone who actually knows the answer can freely chime in and tell me the answer, given hypothetical loads.

wow, i learned what happened in situations like that back in 8th grade when we were building a stage for a play we were doing, and one of us forgot to nail in a post securely.

[Newtons Bit]

Against my better judgement, I'm going to spend another half hour here. Someone put the wrong date on a food order and I ended up getting free food. :)

Let's take the sample problem that Belz proposed of five columns and the second one from the left is removed. I've got a little model here showing exactly what happens. This is all dependant upon the stiffness of the individual elements. If the beams are relatively unstiff (A w8x10 for example), the force from the column will force that beam into catenary action (think a steel rope) and it will pull, not bear on its supports. The stiffer the beam is, the less tugging will occur. I'm using W30x99 and fixed supports everywhere. Fixed supports basically mean that at the connection, there is zero rotation regardless of the load at that connection. This is a gross over-exaggeration of what happens in reality. I'm also going to put a couple of stories above the frame to show what Vierendeel truss action is.

First, the problem:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_16329463f7497a3a36.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5581)

The joint reactions: (x, y and z are in kips, mx, my and mz are moment, or torque, in kip*ft)

X Y Z MX MY MZ
1 N1 0 300 0 0 0 0
1 N2 0 300 0 0 0 0
1 N3 0 300 0 0 0 0
1 N4 0 300 0 0 0 0
1 N5 0 300 0 0 0 0
1 Totals: 0 1500 0
1 COG (ft): X: 40 Y: 24 Z: 0

Now let's remove that column. The deflection is shown at 5x magnification and it's minor (really stiff beams!)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_16329463f74b202f77.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5582)

According to Christopher7, the columns above N1 and N3 should equally share the load from above N2 and that should be that. The resultant according to him should be:


X Y Z MX MY MZ
1 N1 0 450 0 0 0 0
1 N2 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 N3 0 450 0 0 0 0
1 N4 0 300 0 0 0 0
1 N5 0 300 0 0 0 0
1 Totals: 0 1500 0
1 COG (ft): X: 40 Y: 24 Z: 0

Suprisingly enough, it's not! The real reactions are:


X Y Z MX MY MZ
1 N1 14.257 431.843 0 0 0 -50.096
1 N2 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 N3 -11.516 513.333 0 0 0 50.121
1 N4 -.739 246.38 0 0 0 8.199
1 N5 -2.002 308.444 0 0 0 13.148
1 Totals: 0 1500 0

Some might argue that it's close. And it kind of is, but it's very, very different. The last column of the table is bending moments that just caused those columns to fail. Before we removed the second column, the interaction equation for every column was 0.573 (1 or greater means that is has failed). After the column is removed, the two adjacent columns are now 1.37. This is due to the bending induced into the columns. 4 and 5 are close to failure, and if I had picked the sizes/loads differently, they would have failed as well. This is an example of 1) the resultant is NOT just gravity loads. And 2) the whole structure is affected.

The above is an example of Vierendeel action. It's rather neat. Without moment connections, the beams next to the columns that fail have a habit of accelerating.

[Belz...]

wow, i learned what happened in situations like that back in 8th grade when we were building a stage for a play we were doing, and one of us forgot to nail in a post securely.

We're talking about Chris, here, Arus. 8th graders actually learn new stuff.

[Christopher7]

I don't see why.
The moment frame connections at every floor kept the adjacent columns from bending.
The photographs of the area show that the adjoining columns did not bend.
The additional loads cannot 'skip' the adjacent columns.

NIST Apx. L pg 36

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. Progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel of the perimeter moment frame which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"

The report then talks about possible damage to core columns and fires in the area of the initiating event.

pg 37

" I2.1 South facade damaged
> I3.1 Perimeter moment frame redistributes loads around damage
> I4.1 Local failure only"

PG 41

"If a group of perimeter columns failed, the perimeter framing above this area would have redistributed its loads, due to the redundancy of the moment frame."

pg 42

" Initiating event scenarios from I4.4 to I4.6
> V1.1 Any perimeter column fails
> V2.1 Collapse does not progress vertically"

The report makes no further mention of the damage to the south face.

They site core damage and fires as the possible causes of the initiating event.

They ruled out perimeter column damage as contributing to the initiating event.

Only devout deniers still insist that there is a connection.


See ? This is what I don't understand about your argument. Not knowing anything about loads, I'd say that the weigth of the horizontal member would be distributed among the remaining columns, which means that ALL FOUR of the remaining columns, not only 1 and 3, would bear added load; though I suspect it wouldn't be an equal share, now that there is a big hole where 2 used to be.
The horizontal members went from column to column. They were not continuous.
The columns were continuous
If column 3 did not compress or bend, how could the load be transferred to column 4 or 5 ?

[Newtons Bit]

They ruled out perimeter column damage as contributing to the initiating event.

Only devout deniers still insist that there is a connection.


1) No one here, or at NIST, said that the structural damage caused by debris CAUSED the collapse. It did however contribute, possibly insignificantly, but it did have an effect.


The horizontal members went from column to column. They were not continuous.
The columns were continuous
If column 3 did not compress or bend, how could the load be transferred to column 4 or 5 ?


2) In a moment frame system, the beams behave continuous through their connections. This is due to the fact that there is zero (or almost zero) change in rotation of the connection on both sides. The connection is designed to be stronger and stiffer than the actual beam itself. This is why moment frames are so good at resisting collapse: the beams act continuous. You've been proven wrong over and over again on your fake knowledge of structural engineering. Give it up.

[Christopher7]

1) No one here, or at NIST, said that the structural damage caused by debris CAUSED the collapse. It did however contribute, possibly insignificantly, but it did have an effect.
We have finally found some common ground.

The debris damage to the south west face of WTC 7 put some stress on the entire building but it did not have a significant effect in the area of the initiating event.
i.e. It did not weaken the columns, girders or beams in the area of the initiating event.

2) In a moment frame system, the beams behave continuous through their connections. This is due to the fact that there is zero (or almost zero) change in rotation of the connection on both sides. The connection is designed to be stronger and stiffer than the actual beam itself. This is why moment frames are so good at resisting collapse: the beams act continuous.Again, we agree on these points.
Since the moment frame areas don't rotate, there is no significant cantilever effect.
Since columns don't stretch [or compress], there's no way a beam could put a negative [or positive] load on the column furthest away as you said in post #2103

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2557330#post2557330

Any load would be taken up by the column next to the severed column and what little got past the moment frame at every floor [almost zero rotation],
would have been taken up by the next column.

You've been proven wrong over and over again on your fake knowledge of structural engineering. Give it up.Talk to yourself much?

[Belz...]

The moment frame connections at every floor kept the adjacent columns from bending.
The photographs of the area show that the adjoining columns did not bend.
The additional loads cannot 'skip' the adjacent columns.

Then perhaps you can provide and annotate said photographs ?

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

Again, I think you're confusing what they mean by "initiating event". Or are you saying that NIST claims that 1 WTC's collapse didn't cause 7 WTC's collapse ?

The report makes no further mention of the damage to the south face.

Let's not forget that it is a preliminary report, however. And if you're going to say that this won't change, then why are they still working on it ?

They site core damage and fires as the possible causes of the initiating event.

They ruled out perimeter column damage as contributing to the initiating event.

Only devout deniers still insist that there is a connection.

Of course there is a connection, since the same event that caused the perimeter damage caused the core damage.

If column 3 did not compress or bend, how could the load be transferred to column 4 or 5 ?

Beats me, that's why I asked the question. However, I suspect it's not as simple as that.

[Belz...]

1) No one here, or at NIST, said that the structural damage caused by debris CAUSED the collapse. It did however contribute, possibly insignificantly, but it did have an effect.

Obviously, since the physical damage most likely caused the fires.

[Architect]

Chris

Is it not rather telling that you've proven unable to respond the NB's actual structural calcs? Why don't you analyse the figures to the same extend and then we'll interrogate them for you?

Or are you unable to to do so? What are your structural engineering qualifications?

[Newtons Bit]

Since the moment frame areas don't rotate, there is no significant cantilever effect.
Since columns don't stretch [or compress], there's no way a beam could put a negative [or positive] load on the column furthest away as you said in post #2103


The columns compress at a ratio of exactly 1% of their total length over 29000 ksi. Though this is only true to the first 0.2%, and then the column has basically failed. This is a very simple engineering concept that you'd get in your first year of an undergrad program.

The frame areas DO rotate. You don't get this concept either, albeit this one is more complicated. There is always a roughly 90 degree angle (in this case) between the column and the beam. This does not mean that there is not rotation from base at this point. The stiffness of moment frames are judged by a ratio of the stiffness of the beams and the stiffness of columns. I provided a very stiff moment frame. The rotation of the column and beam assembly would be much more pronounced if there were less stiff columns.



Any load would be taken up by the column next to the severed column and what little got past the moment frame at every floor [almost zero rotation],
would have been taken up by the next column.


Brilliant! Your powers of completly ignoring mathmatical proof is supernatural! Take a look at the actual structural analysis of the frame question that was posed to you. Before the collapse, each column had a reaction of 300k. After one column is removed, a non-adjacent columns had it's load REDUCED to 246. The net effect of the collapse of that column resulted in a negative load applied to a column not immediately adjacent to the collapsed column. You keep asserting that this cannot happen. I've proven otherwise with a mathmatical model.

Second, there are also LATERAL loads present. The removal of that one column causes a compression and/or tension load to form IN THE BEAMS. This also according to you is impossible.


Again, we agree on these points.

We may now, but we certainly didn't a few posts ago.

The horizontal members went from column to column. They were not continuous.

Flip-flop much when it suits your purpose? You're willing to change your mind on the continuouty of the beams through the columns but not on the other engineering concepts I've outlined for you? You trust me on one issue but not on another. That's very interesting.

[rwguinn]

Snip good stuff-go back and read it!>



Brilliant! Your powers of completly ignoring mathmatical proof is supernatural! Take a look at the actual structural analysis of the frame question that was posed to you. Before the collapse, each column had a reaction of 300k. After one column is removed, a non-adjacent columns had it's load REDUCED to 246. The net effect of the collapse of that column resulted in a negative load applied to a column not immediately adjacent to the collapsed column. You keep asserting that this cannot happen. I've proven otherwise with a mathmatical model.

Second, there are also LATERAL loads present. The removal of that one column causes a compression and/or tension load to form IN THE BEAMS. This also according to you is impossible.
you will never, ever, get a truffer to admit that gravitational forces can cause anything but vertical forces and/or deflections. Not even if you build an inverted "L" out of PVC, stick it in the ground, and hang a weight on the end of the "L". Has to be explosives or something making it move sideways.



We may now, but we certainly didn't a few posts ago.

Flip-flop much when it suits your purpose? You're willing to change your mind on the continuouty of the beams through the columns but not on the other engineering concepts I've outlined for you? You trust me on one issue but not on another. That's very interesting.
Remember--thos "load path thingies" are figments of the collective imagination of competent engineers. Youare just making stuff up as you go, aren't you!:D :D

[Christopher7]

Then perhaps you can provide and annotate said photographs ?
Here are the photographs of what actually happened to the columns to the east of the severed columns.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3880/sfacegraphic3np6.jpg

http://img460.imageshack.us/img460/3262/wtc7roofdamagepn6.jpg

The columns did not fail or bend significantly.



Again, I think you're confusing what they mean by "initiating event". Or are you saying that NIST claims that 1 WTC's collapse didn't cause 7 WTC's collapse ?NIST defines the initiating event as the beginning of the collapse on pg 36 of Apx. L

"Within each phase of the collapse shown in figure L-25, the initiating event, vertical progression, horizontal progression, and global collapse, ........"

Let's not forget that it is a preliminary report, however. And if you're going to say that this won't change, then why are they still working on it ?
The hypothesis may change but the facts will not.

Of course there is a connection, since the same event that caused the perimeter damage caused the core damage.
What core damage?

NIST Apx. L pg 50

"The extent of damage ........ of core framing is not known"

Beats me, that's why I asked the question. However, I suspect it's not as simple as that.I will address that in my reply to NB this evening.

The debris no doubt caused the fires but the debris damage did not weaken the columns, girders and beams in the area of the initiating event.



NB: Do you think the debris damage to the south west face of WTC 7 had a significant effect on the area of the initiating event?

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1337/areaofinitiatingeventli5.png

[Bindamel]

you will never, ever, get a truffer to admit that gravitational forces can cause anything but vertical forces and/or deflections. Not even if you build an inverted "L" out of PVC, stick it in the ground, and hang a weight on the end of the "L". Has to be explosives or something making it move sideways.


And yet, WTC 1 and 2 were controlled demolitions because the top didn't fall sideways.

:mgbanghead

[rwguinn]

And yet, WTC 1 and 2 were controlled demolitions because the top didn't fall sideways.

:mgbanghead

"A foolish consistency is the sign of a weak mind"

Kin ah borry that there brick wall of yourn, please...
:mgbanghead
thanks. IT feels so much better when you stop...

[Architect]

So, Chris, where are your structural calculations then?

:gasp:

[Christopher7]

The columns compress at a ratio of exactly 1% of their total length over 29000 ksi. Though this is only true to the first 0.2%, and then the column has basically failed. This is a very simple engineering concept that you'd get in your first year of an undergrad program.
That's nice, so what?
The perimeter columns next to the severed columns did not fail.

The frame areas DO rotate. There is always a roughly 90 degree angle (in this case) between the column and the beam. This does not mean that there is not rotation from base at this point. The stiffness of moment frames are judged by a ratio of the stiffness of the beams and the stiffness of columns. I provided a very stiff moment frame. The rotation of the column and beam assembly would be much more pronounced if there were less stiff columns.Sounds like you don't know the actual strength of the columns or moment frames in WTC 7.

Take a look at the actual structural analysis of the frame question that was posed to you. Before the collapse, each column had a reaction of 300k. After one column is removed, a non-adjacent columns had it's load REDUCED to 246. The net effect of the collapse of that column resulted in a negative load applied to a column not immediately adjacent to the collapsed column. You keep asserting that this cannot happen.Wrong, please stop misquoting me.

In post #2103 you said:
"If a cantilevered beam is developed, an upward load will actually develop in the columns furthest away from the damage"

In post #2106 i replied:
"The upward load will be the greatest on the adjoining column, and to a lesser degree, on the columns further away. The load would be taken up by each column in turn."

Second, there are also LATERAL loads present. The removal of that one column causes a compression and/or tension load to form IN THE BEAMS. This also according to you is impossible.Wrong again. Show me where i said that.


Flip-flop much when it suits your purpose? You're willing to change your mind on the continuouty of the beams through the columns but not on the other engineering concepts I've outlined for you? You trust me on one issue but not on another. That's very interesting.What makes you think i trust you on anything?

In your tables, column 1 got 432 kips and column 3 got 513

column 4 got 246 [due to the cantilever effect i presume]

column 5 got 308 or just 2.7% more than its normal load.

Beyond column 5 the effects of the severed column would be negligible.

[Architect]

Where are those calcs, Chris?

Having problems doing real structures?

[Belz...]

Here are the photographs of what actually happened to the columns to the east of the severed columns.

The columns did not fail or bend significantly.

Well, it's a good thing you can see them through all that smoke. But since I lack X-Ray vision, I'm not sure what I see except a big vertical hole.

NIST defines the initiating event as the beginning of the collapse on pg 36 of Apx. L

That I know. What they state, however, by your own admission, is that there was no debris damage or diesel fires in the area of that initiating event. We can agree on that. What seems like a non sequitur is you concluding that one didn't have anything to do with the other.

The hypothesis may change but the facts will not.

Excellent.

What core damage?

"The extent of damage ........ of core framing is not known"

YOU'RE the one who mentioned it. Keep up.

The debris no doubt caused the fires but the debris damage did not weaken the columns, girders and beams in the area of the initiating event.

That's because you think the load can't spread further than the immediate adjacent columns. It seems you are wrong on that.

NB: Do you think the debris damage to the south west face of WTC 7 had a significant effect on the area of the initiating event?

As a layman, I would assume that any damage to the structure weakens the whole.

[Christopher7]

Well, it's a good thing you can see them through all that smoke. But since I lack X-Ray vision, I'm not sure what I see except a big vertical hole.
Much of the area east of the damaged area is clearly visible thru the smoke. The columns held.

That I know. What they [NIST] state, however, by your own admission, is that

there was no debris damage or diesel fires in the area of that initiating event.
We can agree on that.[brackets & bolding mine]

Thank you

What seems like a non sequitur is you concluding that one didn't have anything to do with the other.You can say there was a connection because the debris started the fires but you cannot say that the debris damage to the south west face of WTC 7 had any significant effect on the area of the initiating event.

YOU'RE the one who mentioned it. Keep up.Whatever ejected the elevator cars into the hallway may have damaged a core column on the 8th floor.
There were no reports of damage to the core column area by the firefighters who were searching the building for people that couldn't get out. They did report damage to the south facade on the 8th floor.

That's because you think the load can't spread further than the immediate adjacent columns. It seems you are wrong on that.
NB pointed out that there could have been a negative load to columns adjoining the columns next to the severed columns but no one has shown how a positive load could be transferred to columns beyond the columns next to the severed columns.

Perhaps Architect could provide some calculations to show how this would be possible.

NIST's assessment was that the loads were redistributed around [next to] the damaged areas. As a carpenter, i understand how this works. I have seen nothing to suggest that loads were transferred to the area of the in initiating event or that the debris damage somehow weakened the framework in the area of the initiating event.

As a layman, I would assume that any damage to the structure weakens the whole.Damage to the south west face of WTC 7 put stress on the whole building but it did not weaken the framework in the area of the initiating event.
The stress was the greatest around the damaged areas and progressively less further away.

[Newtons Bit]

That's nice, so what?
The perimeter columns next to the severed columns did not fail.



You can't actually tell. If they failed due to ineleastic buckling, the actual visible deflection would be minimal. The column would resist a certain force and then after that it would just continually deflect with the same load unless the force was relieved by other columns.


Wrong, please stop misquoting me.


#2086
It's the 1 column pulling 5 columns sideways that i find bloody ridiculous, but that's above my pay grade. [as they say]

#2099
Some people here can't grasp the concept that gravity pulls things straight down, not sideways.


Is lateral force not sideways? The actual lateral force in my simple model was 15,000 pounds. This is not insignificant.

NB pointed out that there could have been a negative load to columns adjoining the columns next to the severed columns but no one has shown how a positive load could be transferred to columns beyond the columns next to the severed columns.

Lateral loads and moment transfer will effect that other side. The upwards load could be a big deal in a light breeze. The entire floor plate could act as a massive cantilever if enough columns in the right place fail.

As a carpenter, i understand how this works.
Then you should have been able to point out everything that I proved in my models before it happened. Unfortunately you claimed many many things that were proven wrong. I guess we all know how a carpenter understands structures now.

[Architect]

Perhaps Architect could provide some calculations to show how this would be possible.


I'll take that half-arsed attempt at a witty reply as confirmation that you cannot, in fact, post any structural calculations which come close to those put up by NB already.

[Newtons Bit]

I haven't put up calculations Architect, I put up the results of a model that did calculations for me :D

It would take about 5 hours to do that model by hand. And that's assuming that three hours in I don't realize I didn't carry a negative through and have to start all over again.

[rwguinn]

I haven't put up calculations Architect, I put up the results of a model that did calculations for me :D

It would take about 5 hours to do that model by hand. And that's assuming that three hours in I don't realize I didn't carry a negative through and have to start all over again.
or forgot and used the Left Hand rule...
What did you use? ANSYS? ALGOR? COSMOS? ProE? I don't recognize the format. It doesn't matter--they all do pretty much the same thing. Just curious...

[Newtons Bit]

It's RISA. Finite-Element, but quick. It's fairly limited in the dynamic and inelastic regions, but for just figuring which force goes where, it's good.

[rwguinn]

It's RISA. Finite-Element, but quick. It's fairly limited in the dynamic and inelastic regions, but for just figuring which force goes where, it's good.

I'll look into it. I've been looking for a decent cross between rigid-body statics and indeterminate elastic loads program. Does it do stress, or does it just give enough data for MC/I calc's?

[e^n]

This is why I need to find myself a book on mechanical engineering, I was never a great student but I am capable of doing the maths and understanding the concepts behind it.

That would be a laugh wouldn't it, putting myself through university to get a structural engineering qualification purely to debunk LC :)

[Newtons Bit]

You could self-teach. Assuming that you have a decent background in calculus and diferential equations, you'll need the following books:


Statics (http://www.amazon.com/Vector-Mechanics-Engineers-Statics-Access/dp/0073209252/ref=sr_1_6/104-2515002-6204740?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178851966&sr=1-6)
Mechanics of Materials (http://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Materials-Ferdinand-P-Beer/dp/0073107956/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-2515002-6204740?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178851845&sr=8-2)
Dynamics (http://www.amazon.com/Vector-Mechanics-Engineers-Dynamics-Ferdinand/dp/0072930799/ref=pd_bbs_3/104-2515002-6204740?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178852044&sr=1-3)

Those three will get you the basic concepts. You'll then need a bit more:
Steel Design (http://www.amazon.com/Steel-Structures-Design-Behavior-4th/dp/0673997863/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-2515002-6204740?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178852087&sr=1-2)
Concrete Design (http://www.amazon.com/Reinforced-Concrete-Mechanics-Design-Engineering/dp/0131429949/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-2515002-6204740?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178852122&sr=1-2)

Along with those two, you'll want to get the new AISC Manual of Steel Construction (13th edition) as well as an ACI 318-05 and the PCA notes that go with it for concrete.

You'll also want a book on solving indeterminate frames and maybe a book on Finite Element just as a reference as to how it used to be done, though I don't have any of those to recommend. Finite Elements completly changed the whole engineering world and made computer models possible.

I hope you have about 2 years of paid time off stored up =]

[rwguinn]

You could self-teach. Assuming that you have a decent background in calculus and diferential equations, you'll need the following books:


Statics (http://www.amazon.com/Vector-Mechanics-Engineers-Statics-Access/dp/0073209252/ref=sr_1_6/104-2515002-6204740?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178851966&sr=1-6)
Mechanics of Materials (http://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Materials-Ferdinand-P-Beer/dp/0073107956/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-2515002-6204740?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178851845&sr=8-2)
Dynamics (http://www.amazon.com/Vector-Mechanics-Engineers-Dynamics-Ferdinand/dp/0072930799/ref=pd_bbs_3/104-2515002-6204740?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178852044&sr=1-3)

You ought to be able to find copies of Beer and Johnston (Vector Mechanics for Engineers:Statics and Vector Mechanics for Engineers: Dynamics) from back in the 70's (Copyright is 1962 on mine). They give you basics, which, despite the contentions of some, have not changed significantly in decades...:D

For mechaince of materials, I have Beyers & Snyder Engineering Mechanics of Deformable Bodies.
I also recommend a decent Kinematics reference... Wish I had one. (decent one, that is)

Those three will get you the basic concepts. You'll then need a bit more:
Steel Design (http://www.amazon.com/Steel-Structures-Design-Behavior-4th/dp/0673997863/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-2515002-6204740?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178852087&sr=1-2)
Concrete Design (http://www.amazon.com/Reinforced-Concrete-Mechanics-Design-Engineering/dp/0131429949/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-2515002-6204740?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178852122&sr=1-2)

Along with those two, you'll want to get the new AISC Manual of Steel Construction (13th edition) as well as an ACI 318-05 and the PCA notes that go with it for concrete.

You'll also want a book on solving indeterminate frames and maybe a book on Finite Element just as a reference as to how it used to be done, though I don't have any of those to recommend. Finite Elements completly changed the whole engineering world and made computer models possible.

I hope you have about 2 years of paid time off stored up =]

I also recommend Jan Tuma's Engineering Mathematics Handbook as a reference. You can pick up a copy on Ebay for like $10 or less, if you don't insist on the latest edition. Mine is 3rd edition.
If you have some of the background, the PE Review manuals are very good for looking things up. Check with NSPE for your favorite specialty..

[Newtons Bit]

rwguinn is old school. Do you have any codes dating back from that era as well? :D

[e^n]

You could self-teach. Assuming that you have a decent background in calculus and diferential equations, you'll need the following books:

I hope you have about 2 years of paid time off stored up =]

Thanks for the book links, I'm actually from the UK but I will find them over here and add them to my wishlist. I have a reasonable background in calculus and I am planning on re-reading some textbooks to get me back up to scratch on differential equations (and bloody integration). Currently reading Horowitz and Hall, The Art of Electronics.

As for my paid time off, oh how I would love to have nothing to do all day but read textbooks. Still I'm young and there's plenty of time to go to university if my hopes of contracting come about :)

I appreciate the advice, both of you.

[Newtons Bit]

I'll look into it. I've been looking for a decent cross between rigid-body statics and indeterminate elastic loads program. Does it do stress, or does it just give enough data for MC/I calc's?

It's full blown stress analysis. There's different modules which will do just about anything, including floor plates, though the base model is mostly just line elements with all the usual degrees of freedom (the three moments, deflections, etc)

It doesn't do single angle (or other non-symmetric shapes) in bending which is annoying. My office has only one program that will do that and it's a mathcad spreadsheet.

[Gravy]

As a carpenter, i understand how this works. As a believer in nonsense, you decided that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition before you knew it had huge fires, before you knew it had sustained massive damage, and before you knew NIST had issued an interim report on the building in 2004. Your decision was based solely on watching a video. Remember? You said that you had enough evidence to convict Cheney et al based on the 4 1/2-minute video you saw. You have shown yourself to be immune to reason. You are making the same damn mistakes over and over, and you are harping on the same damn assumptions over and over, despite knowing that an investigation into these issues has continued for the past 2 1/2 years. Why are you behaving this way?

[Christopher7]

C7 "The columns held."

You can't actually tell. If they failed due to ineleastic buckling, the actual visible deflection would be minimal. The column would resist a certain force and then after that it would just continually deflect with the same load unless the force was relieved by other columns.
NIST said:

"Progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame."

The photos show that the adjacent columns held.

The point here is:

The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not weaken or have a significant effect on the area of the initiating event.


Is lateral force not sideways? The actual lateral force in my simple model was 15,000 pounds. This is not insignificant.In a 47 story building weighing over a million pounds it is insignificant.
There was a lot of building between that lateral force and the area of the initiating event.

Lateral loads and moment transfer will effect that other side. The upwards load could be a big deal in a light breeze. The entire floor plate could act as a massive cantilever if enough columns in the right place fail.Please, the adjoining column had the weight of 30 or 40 stories above the area of the cantilever effect.


C7 "as a carpenter, i understand how this works."
Then you should have been able to point out everything that I proved in my models before it happened.I agreed with you that a cantilever effect could occur but i disagreed on how far that effect could be transferred.

I said it would be the greatest on the adjoining column, and to a lesser degree, on the columns further away. [#2106]

You said it could cause a negative load in the column furthest away from the damage. [#2103]

Your model shows that the negative load was only to the adjoining column (4).

Column 5 had a small positive load.

We were both wrong, but you were wronger. :)

Any cantilever effect would not have affected the area of the initiating event.

[Christopher7]

I'll take that half-arsed attempt at a witty reply as confirmation that you cannot, in fact, post any structural calculations which come close to those put up by NB already.
I have stated several times that i am a carpenter, not an engineer.

NB provided the calculations that show:

No significant loads would be transferred beyond the second column from the severed column.

[Christopher7]

, you decided that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition before you knew it had huge fires, before you knew it had sustained massive damage, and before you knew NIST had issued an interim report on the building in 2004. Your decision was based solely on watching a video. Remember?
Yes


you are harping on the same damn assumptions over and over, despite knowing that an investigation into these issues has continued for the past 2 1/2 years.I am 'harping' about new things i have learned while debating this very important issue.

While answering some well thought out questions by jaydeehess, i found statements in the NIST reports that clearly state:

There is NO evidence of diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the [I]initiating event.

[see post #1884 pg 48]Why are you behaving this way?
Recently, chipmunk stew and Belz agreed.

Some people here and in the gallery are willing to accept that the above statement is true because it says so in the NIST report, others, not so much.

[Christopher7]

The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not weaken or have a significant effect on the area of the initiating event.


NIST Apx. L pg 36

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. Progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel of the perimeter moment frame which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"

The report then talks about possible damage to core columns and fires in the area of the initiating event.

pg 37

" I2.1 South facade damaged
> I3.1 Perimeter moment frame redistributes loads around damage
> I4.1 Local failure only"

PG 41

"If a group of perimeter columns failed, the perimeter framing above this area would have redistributed its loads, due to the redundancy of the moment frame."

pg 42

" Initiating event scenarios from I4.4 to I4.6
> V1.1 Any perimeter column fails
> V2.1 Collapse does not progress vertically"

The report makes no further mention of the damage to the south face.

They site core damage and fires as the possible causes of the initiating event.

[Belz...]

Much of the area east of the damaged area is clearly visible thru the smoke. The columns held.

I wasn't aware the columns were visible from the outside.

Thank you

You're most welcome.

You can say there was a connection because the debris started the fires

Thank you. This admission invalidates your point and proves mine. So, there was no debris damage or diesel fire at the initiating point; but the debris damage caused the fires.

Although it's implied, are you saying that these fires brought down the building ? If so, I believe this thread is over.

Perhaps Architect could provide some calculations to show how this would be possible.

I'd like to see this, too.

NIST's assessment was that the loads were redistributed around [next to] the damaged areas.

You're playing semantics again. You still haven't told me how you choose this definition of "around" as over the other 32.

Damage to the south west face of WTC 7 put stress on the whole building but it did not weaken the framework in the area of the initiating event.

Isn't stress a weakening factor, one way or the other ?

[rwguinn]

rwguinn is old school. Do you have any codes dating back from that era as well? :D

Nah--I tossed them out along with the Phlogisten utilization manuals years ago...

[Newtons Bit]

Isn't stress a weakening factor, one way or the other ?

For a column not subject to buckling (which just about all are), stress is merely the force acting on that column divided by the cross-sectional area of that column. We like to measure that in ksi (kips per square inch). When a column reaches a stress equal to it's yield stress, it's usually considered "failed". Strength is a measurement of how much capacity to take stress is left in a member.

If there is adequate redundancy in the building, you probably couldn't even tell with the naked eye that a column had failed. It will take a load equal to approximately the yield stress times it's gross cross-sectional area and then stop taking additional load. The stiffness of the frame that it is in will redistribute the load into other columns (with more of the moment and lateral load problems as I addressed before). If the frame is very stiff, you won't notice a sizeable deflection in the column.

What Christopher7 doesn't understand about my model, is that it might be showing a progressive collapse. The columns that had an interaction equation greater than 1 failed, however the program I use doesn't take into account post-yield behavior.

Engineers don't really worry about what happens after a collapse is iniatited. We worry almost exclusively on preventing that collapse. Once the collapse starts, we might as well right the whole building off. The only thing we do with collapse on a normal basis, is to verify that the first thing to fail in the structure is ductile. I.e. making a connection stronger than the beam so that the connection doesn't suddenly shear off. This allows people to see the failing beam and get out of dodge.

[rwguinn]

I wasn't aware the columns were visible from the outside.



Intuition



Thank you. This admission invalidates your point and proves mine. So, there was no debris damage or diesel fire at the initiating point; but the debris damage caused the fires.

Although it's implied, are you saying that these fires brought down the building ? If so, I believe this thread is over..
It was, long ago. Like a Zombie, chris just doesn'tknow it yet







I'd like to see this, too..

NewtonsBit did it, wheter any twoofer wants to admit it or not.







You're playing semantics again. You still haven't told me how you choose this definition of "around" as over the other 32..

through circular reasoning, as usual. If you can't chase your own tail, where is the fun






Isn't stress a weakening factor, one way or the other ?

Nope. Stress is a result of the load.
You don't put mechanical parts under stress--you put a strain on them by applying a load. Stress is the measure of that.
Just another area where Chris is talking out of his nether regions, without a clue.

A hint, Christopher7--If you can't even use the correct terminology, all we can do is laugh and point.

[Christopher7]

I wasn't aware the columns were visible from the outside.
They are obvious is the Spak photo with graphics and the version i posted.

Thank you. This admission invalidates your point and proves mine. So, there was no debris damage or diesel fire at the initiating point; but the debris damage caused the fires.OMG i stuck my foot in it, didn't i ?
Allow me to rephrase that.
The debris caused the fires but there is no confirmation that the fires caused the collapse.

You're playing semantics again. You still haven't told me how you choose this definition of "around" as over the other 32.Who's playing with semantics?
I interpret around to mean surrounding or next to because of the way they used it in the sentence.
What definition do you choose and why?

Isn't stress a weakening factor, one way or the other ?The amount of stress to the area of the initiating event was negligible.
If it were significant, NIST would have said so.

[rwguinn]

<<snip>>
Who's playing with semantics?
I interpret around to mean surrounding or next to because of the way they used it in the sentence.
What definition do you choose and why?

In the strictest of terms, "Around" means some way other than "Through". You are way too specific.

<<The amount of stress to the area of the initiating event was negligible.
If it were significant, NIST would have said so.

Still don't understand anything at all about stress,strain, loads, and the relationships between them, do you ,Chris?

[Gravy]

There is NO evidence of diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event.Your argument gets weaker with repetition. Next time try building it out of brick, rather than straw.

[Christopher7]

Your argument gets weaker with repetition. Next time try building it out of brick, rather than straw.
It's built on solid rock.

Those who have actually read post #1884 know that the statement is a summary of the statements made by NIST.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2506097#post2506097

chipmunk stew and Belz have actually studied the evidence, why don't you?

[rwguinn]

In the strictest of terms, "Around" means some way other than "Through". You are way too specific.



Still don't understand anything at all about stress,strain, loads, and the relationships between them, do you ,Chris?

care to comment, Christopher7?

[Christopher7]

care to comment, Christopher7?
Around; core meaning:
surrounds a place or is situated on all sides of it

In the sentence;

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

around means on all sides of it.

Loads would be transferred to the columns next to the severed or damaged columns.

NB's generalized model shows that loads will not transfer very far.
Column 4 had a significant negative load and column 5 had a small positive load. Beyond that, loads would be negligible.

The lateral stresses would be transferred to the entire building thru hundreds of moment frames.

You are trying to imply that the debris damage to the south west part of WTC 7, weakened and/or had a significant effect on the area of the initiating event. It did not.
If it were a factor, NIST would have said so. They did not.

[Newtons Bit]

NB's generalized model shows that loads will not transfer very far.
Column 4 had a significant negative load and column 5 had a small positive load. Beyond that, loads would be negligible.

The lateral stresses would be transferred to the entire building thru hundreds of moment frames.


1) You're not thinking 3D.

2) You use the word moment frame, but you have no idea what it means. I built a best case model, a VERY stiff moment frame. The moment frames in the WTC7 are not necessarily the same.

3) You keep using words like "stress" and have no idea what it means. Stress is not transfered to other parts of the building. FORCES are. They're two very different things. Stress is a function of a force based on the dimension of the member a force is acting on and the direction of the force based on it's position along that member.

4) There were not hundreds of moment frames, the long side of the building had 15 frames. Its construction was very different than WTC1&2 which had perimeter columns at 3'-4" o.c.

[Christopher7]

1) You're not thinking 3D.

2) You use the word moment frame, but you have no idea what it means. I built a best case model, a VERY stiff moment frame. The moment frames in the WTC7 are not necessarily the same.

3) You keep using words like "stress" and have no idea what it means. Stress is not transfered to other parts of the building. FORCES are. They're two very different things. Stress is a function of a force based on the dimension of the member a force is acting on and the direction of the force based on it's position along that member.

4) There were not hundreds of moment frames, the long side of the building had 15 frames. Its construction was very different than WTC1&2 which had perimeter columns at 3'-4" o.c.
You ignored the issue completely.

The damage to the south west face had no significant effect on the area of the initiating event.

[Newtons Bit]

You ignored the issue completely.

The damage to the south west face had no significant effect on the area of the initiating event.


You're ignoring the fact you don't know anything about what you're talking about. You use the word significant, but to be able to properly use that term you need to be at least passingly familiar with the subject. You've proven to everyone who's had the misfortune of following this thread that you do not have any grasp of structural engineering. This is not a slight on your character, knowledge of this requires years and years of study, which you have not had.

Without running a full-scale model, even I can't tell you if the damage had a significant effect. But that's exactly the point. I know enough to know that this is an exceptionally complicated problem, and that you can't whisk an educated guess out of the air without performing a good 100 hours worth of engineering analysis. And even then, it's still just a guess.

[twinstead]

The damage to the south west face had no significant effect on the area of the initiating event.


Why do you always trot that same sentence out as if it is some sublime statement that answers any possible questions as to the validity of your theory?

I'm no structural engineer, but I've seen and heard enough of them tell you that you don't know what the hell you're talking about to believe them over you.

[Architect]

Chris

Tell me. How long does it take to qualify as a structural engineer and what is involved by way of study?

[Christopher7]

Without running a full-scale model, even I can't tell you if the damage had a significant effect. But that's exactly the point. I know enough to know that this is an exceptionally complicated problem, and that you can't whisk an educated guess out of the air without performing a good 100 hours worth of engineering analysis. And even then, it's still just a guess.
The problem is not that complicated.

Your model shows that loads become negligible beyond the second column from the damage.

We both know that lateral stress will be distributed to the entire building.

Please read post #2217

NIST made it clear, by omission, that the damage to the perimeter columns did not have a significant effect on the area of the initiating event.

There is no reason to believe otherwise.

Thank you for admitting that you don't know and that 100 hours of analysis would still result in a guess.

[rwguinn]

The problem is not that complicated.

Your model shows that loads become negligible beyond the second column from the damage.

We both know that lateral stress will be distributed to the entire building.

Please read post #2217

NIST made it clear, by omission, that the damage to the perimeter columns did not have a significant effect on the area of the initiating event.

There is no reason to believe otherwise.

Thank you for admitting that you don't know and that 100 hours of analysis would still result in a guess.so, a 15% reduction in vertical load 1 column removed, and a 3% increase in vertical load plus a new horizontal load of 5% of the vertical load 2 columns removed is insignificant?
stick to your lumber, nails, and backyard sheds, boy.
You don't have a clue.

[Christopher7]

A hint, Christopher7--If you can't even use the correct terminology, all we can do is laugh and point.
snob:

1) somebody who looks down on others
somebody who admires and cultivates relationships with those considered socially superior, and disdains those considered inferior

2) somebody who feels superior
somebody who looks down on people considered to have inferior knowledge or tastes

[Architect]

Chris

Tell me. How long does it take to qualify as a structural engineer and what is involved by way of study?


Come on, lad.

[Christopher7]

so, a 15% reduction in vertical load 1 column removed, and a 3% increase in vertical load plus a new horizontal load of 5% of the vertical load 2 columns removed is insignificant?
The effect to columns beyond the first 2 columns is insignificant.
This includes the area of the initiating event.

[Christopher7]

Come on, lad.
You're the one calling yourself an architect, you tell me.

BTW, Mr. architect, do you think that the damage to the south west perimeter frame had a significant effect on the area of the initiating event?

If so, why do you suppose the experts at NIST didn't think of it?

[Architect]

4 years university, usually a further 2-3 practical work prior to sitting your exams for your MIStructE. Subjects will include, amongst others, plastic and elastic theory, structural analysis, and design work.

I'm just intrigued how, having conveniently bypassed all this, you purport to understand structures more accurately than NB. Perhaps you coudl fill us in?

[Christopher7]

4 years university, usually a further 2-3 practical work prior to sitting your exams for your MIStructE. Subjects will include, amongst others, plastic and elastic theory, structural analysis, and design work.

I'm just intrigued how, having conveniently bypassed all this, you purport to understand structures more accurately than NB. Perhaps you coudl fill us in?
I already have.
Perhaps you could post something relevant.

[Architect]

I'm still waiting on your structural calcs.

[Christopher7]

Architect

I have stated several times that i am a carpenter, not an engineer.

NB provided the calculations that show:

No significant loads would be transferred beyond the second column from the severed column.

You have yet to offer anything to the debate.

Do you think the damage to the SW part of WTC 7 had a significant effect on the area of the
initiating event?

[Architect]

Chris, I'm waiting for the full report. What amazes me is that arrogance of a chippy, who clearly has little or no grasp of structural issues and considers that the complex structure of WTC7 is in some way comparable to a couple of 4x2s, trying (and failing) to take someone who is clearly an engineer to task.

[rwguinn]

Chris, I'm waiting for the full report. What amazes me is that arrogance of a chippy, who clearly has little or no grasp of structural issues and considers that the complex structure of WTC7 is in some way comparable to a couple of 4x2s, trying (and failing) to take someone who is clearly an engineer to task.
AHA! Lebe3nty-one 111!!)))!!!!)
Obviously you ain't no archetect! 4x2. Ha! Everbidy no's that they is 2 by 4's!:D:D

[Newtons Bit]

What I have provided, Christopher7, is a simple model showing the effects of a basic moment frame designed to resist a progressive collapse. What you only look to see, is the gravity load transfered. I showed the moment transfer as well and it was significant even to that last column. The actual effect was to increase the interaction equation (where 1.0 = failure) of the columns by more than 0.1. This is not insignificant. I cannot translate what this means to WTC7 beyond the fact that I know the damage did have AN effect on the whole building. What level, I cannot tell, but it's not zero.

Again, this is a model of a MOMENT-FRAME. This type of system is what the perimeter of WTC7 was. The interior was gravity framed. This means that the connection from the beams is not considered continuous through the column. These connections have basically zeor capacity to transfer moment to the column. What a gravity column fails, something very different happens. The column, and everything above it, drops until something arrests its movement. This is typically the ground. However, if a sufficiently strong connection is at the column, the beams that attach to it can go into what is known as catenary action. Unable to support the column through bending stiffness(like a moment frame) they instead become tension only members. Essentially ropes. Much more lateral load is induced into the system. These lateral loads will act out of plane to the moment frames and can cause the whole building to be pulled inwards (if the building is capable of supporting).

I cannot provide a model of this as the software I have is not capable of analyzing this by default. I could probably jury-rig something, but I wouldn't be able to verify the results without doing many hours of hand-calcs, which I'm not going to do.

The model does not reflect WTC7. You said so yourself a few pages ago when you were trying to discount the CONCEPT I was offering. The concept holds true, but the actual behavior does not. The actual transfer of loads may be vastly larger to columns further away, or it may even be vastly smaller. It all depends on exactly what beams and what columns (even the floor deck to a degree) are. And I cannot model this without somewhere around 100 hours of time.

[Christopher7]

Chris, I'm waiting for the full report. What amazes me is that arrogance of a chippy, who clearly has little or no grasp of structural issues and considers that the complex structure of WTC7 is in some way comparable to a couple of 4x2s, trying (and failing) to take someone who is clearly an engineer to task.
Really? You [all] seem to be a bit skeptical about my credentials.
No worries.

Do you think this statement is true?

"If a cantilevered beam is developed, an upward load will actually develop in the columns furthest from the damage."

I don't


Stop insulting the arguer and address the argument.

Please read the following post and state weather or not YOU agree.

[Christopher7]

The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not weaken or have a significant effect on the area of the initiating event.


NIST Apx. L pg 36

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. Progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel of the perimeter moment frame which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"

The report then talks about possible damage to core columns and fires in the area of the initiating event.

pg 37

" I2.1 South facade damaged
> I3.1 Perimeter moment frame redistributes loads around damage
> I4.1 Local failure only"

PG 41

"If a group of perimeter columns failed, the perimeter framing above this area would have redistributed its loads, due to the redundancy of the moment frame."

pg 42

" Initiating event scenarios from I4.4 to I4.6
> V1.1 Any perimeter column fails
> V2.1 Collapse does not progress vertically"

The report makes no further mention of the damage to the south face.

They site core damage and fires as the possible causes of the initiating event.

[Christopher7]

What I have provided, Christopher7, is a simple model showing the effects of a basic moment frame designed to resist a progressive collapse. What you only look to see, is the gravity load transfered. I showed the moment transfer as well and it was significant even to that last column. The actual effect was to increase the interaction equation (where 1.0 = failure) of the columns by more than 0.1. This is not insignificant. I cannot translate what this means to WTC7 beyond the fact that I know the damage did have AN effect on the whole building. What level, I cannot tell, but it's not zero.
I agree. The effect was to the whole building which means it was shared by all the components of the framework.
The loads would be the greatest next to the severed columns and less to columns further away because each column in turn would resist or take up some of the lateral load.

Again, this is a model of a MOMENT-FRAME. This type of system is what the perimeter of WTC7 was. The interior was gravity framed. This means that the connection from the beams is not considered continuous through the column. These connections have basically zero capacity to transfer moment to the column.The floor beams were attached to the girders which spaned between the columns.
As you say, the floor beams had zero capacity ability to twist the girders and hence, the columns.

We are talking about hanging, broken floors, minus their live load.

The core columns are capable of carying several times their live load.

The hanging floors will create some lateral force.

What a gravity column fails, something very different happens.The first columns to fail were columns 79, 80 and 81.
[the eastern most core columns]

The model does not reflect WTC7. You said so yourself a few pages ago when you were trying to discount the CONCEPT I was offering. The concept holds true, but the actual behavior does not. The actual transfer of loads may be vastly larger to columns further away,I disagree.
Run your model again using more columns and see what happens, before making that claim.

or it may even be vastly smaller. It all depends on exactly what beams and what columns (even the floor deck to a degree) are. And I cannot model this without somewhere around 100 hours of time.There is no way to accurately assess the actual damage so a 100 hr. model would not be all that useful anyway.

[Christopher7]

Why do you always trot that same sentence out as if it is some sublime statement that answers any possible questions as to the validity of your theory?
Post #2247 summaries NIST Apx. L pg 36 - 42.

They make it clear that the damage to the perimeter columns did not cause the initiating event. [first part of the framework to fail]

They site core damage and fires as possible causes.

They did not say that the damage to the perimeter columns was a contributing factor.

Do they have to specifically say it wasn't a factor?



I'm no structural engineer, but I've seen and heard enough of them tell you that you don't know what the hell you're talking about to believe them over you.Do you believe them over the engineers at NIST ?

[Arus808]

I love how this has turned into yet another "christophera" type of thing

where one who is arguing about a preliminary paper states, that is being handled by EXPERTS in engineering, thinks that whatever is said in that "preliminary" report is what is definitely final.

forget that they are still investigating; forget that he of course is not an expert

architect,newtons.. there is no use. you are arguing with a brick wall.