Need help...

[NYCEMT86]

I was wondering if someone could figure this out for me and put it on a map for reference.



There was a collapse zone established around the WTC 7, the standard for a collapse zone is either the height of the building or 1.5 x the height of the building, so in that case, the zone would be 610 ft using the height of the building or 915 ft using the 1.5 method. If someone could translate that onto the map in all directions that would help me out a lot.


Thanks,
Matt

[Kryptos]

Give me a few minutes. I can get you this.

[NYCEMT86]

kryptos,

Thank you.

[slyjoe]

Is that radius or diameter?

ETA: Nevermind - I re-read the post. It's a radius.

[NYCEMT86]

Opps excuse me


It would be radius...bah geometry haha

[slyjoe]

Red is 610 ft, Yellow 915 ft.

ETA: oops - something wrong with upload. Wait a sec.

[slyjoe]

Opps excuse me


It would be radius...bah geometry haha

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1584246f1b95072a09.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8430)

[NYCEMT86]

Thank you for your work, that helps me out a lot

[slyjoe]

I'm an EE, not structural, so I don't get to help out very much here. It is my pleasure. And thanks.

[Kryptos]

I got the answer, but 915 ft (or 610 ft) doesn't seem right. I guess that would be the collapse zone for pieces from the top of the building only? Also, why the two numbers? Or was that the zone that they evacuated firefighters before it collapsed?

[slyjoe]

Kryptos: I also first read this as a collapse zone of where the debris went. I think the request was for the area firefighters would call a collapse zone but us civilians would call an evacuation zone. NYCEMT can correct us if we are wrong.

[NYCEMT86]

I got the answer, but 915 ft (or 610 ft) doesn't seem right. I guess that would be the collapse zone for pieces from the top of the building only? Also, why the two numbers? Or was that the zone that they evacuated firefighters before it collapsed?


My theory right now is based on testimony and accounts there were rescue workers still around WTC 6 and the rest of the pile, but not directly near or inside the WTC 7. If there was a collapse zone put around WTC 7 just prior to the collapse, I wanted to see how far it reached.

The two different numbers come from Chief Vincent Dunn that would be the height of the building. The 1.5 x h comes from the national standard, the thing is NYC has their own operations guide due to the uniqueness of the city and I am still trying to verify collapse zones.

[NYCEMT86]

Kryptos: I also first read this as a collapse zone of where the debris went. I think the request was for the area firefighters would call a collapse zone but us civilians would call an evacuation zone. NYCEMT can correct us if we are wrong.

I am sorry for not clarifying collapse zone. I meant the collapse zone as in evacuation zone.

[Kryptos]

Know you already have the answer, but I was able to find aerial imagery of Lower Manhattan from 1995 and 2002. Using GIS software, plotted the zones on both images and posted them. Shadows are an issue with the imagery, but was what I could find. That's why the WTC7 footprint in the top image doesn't line up with the roof - because of the shadow.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/9/9e/Wtc7in1995.jpg/450px-Wtc7in1995.jpg

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/1/17/Wtc7in2002.jpg/450px-Wtc7in2002.jpg

Larger images available:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=NYCEMT86

[NYCEMT86]

Know you already have the answer, but I was able to find aerial imagery of Lower Manhattan from 1995 and 2002. Using GIS software, plotted the zones on both images and posted them. Shadows are an issue with the imagery, but was what I could find. That's why the WTC7 footprint in the top image doesn't line up with the roof - because of the shadow.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/9/9e/Wtc7in1995.jpg/450px-Wtc7in1995.jpg

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/1/17/Wtc7in2002.jpg/450px-Wtc7in2002.jpg

Larger images available:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=NYCEMT86


Thank you, I appreciate the hosting on your website and the work you both have done. Once I finish with my paper I will have it posted on the forum so everyone can review it, its still in the beginning stages so it might be awhile

[Kryptos]

Thank you, I appreciate the hosting on your website and the work you both have done. Once I finish with my paper I will have it posted on the forum so everyone can review it, its still in the beginning stages so it might be awhile

Look forward to it. It's interesting to learn what the collapse zones would have been. Why the FDNY "pulled" them/it makes more sense now, when visualized like this.

[negativ]

I'm still looking for someone who can put together an illustration of what the United 93 crash site "SHOULD" have looked like. From all the exhaustive truthy goofer research I've read, the laws of physics dictate that the plane should have been found sticking out of the ground, mostly intact, with an accordion bellows-shaped crumple in the middle of the fuselage. I'm told that every other 757 that has ever dived into the ground at full-throttle ended up this way. However, all the photographic evidence that would confirm this has been censored from the intertubes by the Jew World Order.

[Drs_Res]

Hope it helps you. :D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1774246f1e6987b098.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8435)

[LashL]

I got the answer, but 915 ft (or 610 ft) doesn't seem right. I guess that would be the collapse zone for pieces from the top of the building only? Also, why the two numbers? Or was that the zone that they evacuated firefighters before it collapsed?

I asked my beau (he's a fire captain with some 25 years of experience) about the protocol for establishing the extent of a collapse zone at a fire, and he said this:

When answering this question we reference two major sources, the primary one being the IFSTA (International Fire Service Training Association) Structural Collapse manual and NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) which issues guidelines of just this sort. Another respected source is Vinnie Dunn, retired Deputy Chief FDNY, whom NIOSH references on occasion.

The general rule is the following:

CZ= h+1/2h

where h is the height of the building.

The following is taken from Vincent Dunn:

Whenever there is a danger of a wall collapse, an officer in command must establish a collapse danger zone. A collapse danger zone should be equal to the height of the unstable wall plus half that height.

Stay out of this zone, mark the distance with barricade tape or other visual identification, post a watch if you must.

Do not forget to include the entire horizontal span of the unstable wall in the establishment of your collapse zone.

Sometimes the zone will make effective stream reach impossible. Consider flanking or use of aerial streams instead of putting people in the zone. Use the corners.

Aerial apparatus should not operate their ladders, towers, etc. in the collapse zone. Consider the zone as an arc that nothing should penetrate. Ladders should be positioned above the arc or outside of it in these situations. At a minimum, place the tip no closer than the length of the height of the wall above it.

Types of walls will provide indication of the stability of the wall. A free-standing wall is least stable and a non-bearing wall is more stable.

Watch the collapse indicator signs, smoke from mortar joints, bowing walls, other horizontal collapse in roof or other areas.

I hope that helps.

[leftysergeant]

I'm an EE, not structural, so I don't get to help out very much here. It is my pleasure. And thanks.

One of the great things about this place is that we can approach problems from different perspectives and combine a really wide range of talents. I'm dyscalculic, but i can describe what I would expect to happen when moving objects collide or hit a stationary object. But don't ask me to tell you where the chips may fall or how long it takes them to get there.

Sometimes that kind of thing makes a difference, sometimes it doesn't. But we can get together and figure out whether something is as anaomolous as someone else thinks it is.

To most fire fighters, it is not anomolous that a cantilevered steel structure should fail in a fire. We all know about McCormick Place. It's just a little hard to clearly explain it to all audiences without the number-crunching the engineers here do.

[slyjoe]

Know you already have the answer, but I was able to find aerial imagery of Lower Manhattan from 1995 and 2002. Using GIS software, plotted the zones on both images and posted them. Shadows are an issue with the imagery, but was what I could find. That's why the WTC7 footprint in the top image doesn't line up with the roof - because of the shadow.



These images are probably more accurate than mine. I just did a quick centering on the WTC7 site and added circles around it with Visio and Photoshop.

Kryptos' images are from a GIS package (he says ;)) and take into account the shape of the buildings. Thanks Kryptos!

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Hope it helps you. :D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1774246f1e6987b098.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8435)

Ok, that is a 9/11 picture I can laugh at!

[jaydeehess]

Watch the collapse indicator signs, smoke from mortar joints, bowing walls, other horizontal collapse in roof or other areas.


hmm, horizontal collapse in the roof as a sign of impending collapse. I've seen video that shows exactly that happening,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[ref]

I asked Chief Nigro about this. Here is his response:

"Regarding the collapse zone...based on our experience earlier that day we cleared an area consistent with the debris field created by the towers' collapse. Using that as a guide, the size of the collapse zone was probably close to one and one-half times the height of WTC # 7."

I PM'ed you, NYCEMT86.