Court Rules Negligence Didn’t Cause World Trade Center 7 To Fall On 9/11

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Above ground? Where were they?

By the way the recently revealed scam of FDNY and NYCP 9/11 responders claiming disability will put all the testimony of FDNY and NYPD into question about 9/11. How can their words be trusted?

NIST says:
So I was thinking of the 1st floor tank. The precise locations of the four tanks "below the loading docks" is not clear.

Are there no court filing that specify things like this?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I understand that it was actually John Skilling who did the analysis white paper for this before the construction, him being the lead structural engineer on the project. The analysis was for a 707 at 600mph, and not a slow moving 707 as Robertson now claims in one of his many contradictions.

Definitely getting OT now.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I see your point. No doubt Mr Silverstein had good reasons for building on that site - perhaps it was just so it could be included in the WTC complex, which was prestigious. Perhaps the land was much cheaper because of the inconvenience than similar lots nearby.

NYC is remarkable for its density; my observations when visiting is that many things which might be improbable elsewhere are normal there. The city seems to pride itself in overcoming complex engineering challenges!

btw (slightly OT) speaking of concerns at the time of construction: I recall while digging into the aircraft impact study done on the WTC towers that there was a major public controversy that the towers would be vulnerable to collision with aircraft trying to land in fog. The obvious precedent was just such an incident with the Empire State Building. While apparently engineer Leslie Robertson oversaw the study and was satisfied that the towers could withstand that scenario, nobody envisioned an aircraft travelling at 400+ knots impacting the towers.
My understanding is that while that type of collision is now part of design considerations for very tall buildings around the world there is still no guarantee that it could not happen again. Measures are being taken to minimize the chance that such collapse could happen and more importantly to increase the safety of the occupants and facilitate their escape.
The current 7 WTC reflects those lessons learned as well.

But it is notable that the ConEd lawsuit failed.

The lawsuit did not fail. The suit was dismissed. The judge realized it would open up a can of worms... and probably believed it could not be resolved because it would be a matter of opinion and why open up wounds. The status quo seem content with the official story.. the bad Arabs did it.

The land I speak about was not especially expensive and was just as close in proximity to the WTC complex. It was reclaimed land from the trade center excavation placed on the river. Battery Park City apartments and the WTC center were built on it and recently a college building.

The engineering, design and construction cost would offset the savings in land acquisition I would imagine and then some. I don't buy your suggested reasons.

I don't think the judge thought anyone would benefit from the suit except Cnn Ed shareholders. Who needs them anyway?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Sorry... These discussions don't like to be in neat little boxes....

Loading dock? Right where E3 and E4 and column 79 were. And of course there was no basement and so a leak in the tank would have been all over the loading dock area. Does this mean the tank was crushed in the fall of the debris on it?

Also... if there was no fires in the fuel system for the emergency power... was it operating the entire day? Why would it stop operating? Didn't it kick on when Con Ed sub station's transformers / gear exploded and main power was interrupted?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The lawsuit did not fail. The suit was dismissed. The judge realized it would open up a can of worms... and probably believed it could not be resolved because it would be a matter of opinion and why open up wounds. The status quo seem content with the official story.. the bad Arabs did it.

The land I speak about was not especially expensive and was just as close in proximity to the WTC complex. It was reclaimed land from the trade center excavation placed on the river. Battery Park City apartments and the WTC center were built on it and recently a college building.

The engineering, design and construction cost would offset the savings in land acquisition I would imagine and then some. I don't buy your suggested reasons.

I don't think the judge thought anyone would benefit from the suit except Cnn Ed shareholders. Who needs them anyway?
So Jeffrey . . . you are a proponent that there were significant design flaws and had the same damage occurred to a comparable building built under proper standards it would not have collapsed ?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
So Jeffrey . . . you are a proponent that there were significant design flaws and had the same damage occurred to a comparable building built under proper standards it would not have collapsed ?
George,
Basically that is what I think is possible. I don't know that I would call them design "flaws"... the buildings were all soundly built. But the design concept and strategies were rather unorthodox and that seemed to be part of their undoing. In the case of 7wtc there wasn't much the engineers could have done to span the sub station. In the case of the twin towers... they were built kinda cheaply for erection purposes. The OOS system was subject to a ROOSD. A conventional design is not.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
George,
Basically that is what I think is possible. I don't know that I would call them design "flaws"... the buildings were all soundly built. But the design concept and strategies were rather unorthodox and that seemed to be part of their undoing. In the case of 7wtc there wasn't much the engineers could have done to span the sub station. In the case of the twin towers... they were built kinda cheaply for erection purposes. The OOS system was subject to a ROOSD. A conventional design is not.
Wtc7 was built through the con ed and not around it. When you say unorthodox, are you referring to long span floor beam systems?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George,
Basically that is what I think is possible. I don't know that I would call them design "flaws"... the buildings were all soundly built. But the design concept and strategies were rather unorthodox and that seemed to be part of their undoing. In the case of 7wtc there wasn't much the engineers could have done to span the sub station. In the case of the twin towers... they were built kinda cheaply for erection purposes. The OOS system was subject to a ROOSD. A conventional design is not.
So if there is a conspiracy it may be more related to suppressing the discovery of embarrassing information and opening up a can of worms over economic liability?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Wtc7 was built through the con ed and not around it. When you say unorthodox, are you referring to long span floor beam systems?

I think you are somewhat mistaken about the structural limitations that building over the sub station imposed on Cantor. It was impossible to bring many of the columns in the tower above the 7th floor straight down to bedrock. You know there were 81 above flr 7 begining at floor 8 there were only something like 51 of those which continued down to bedrock. I don't recall the exact number but the engineer had to use massive transfer structures to support (pick up) the 40 story loads of those 30 or so columns above them. 8 bays of the north wall's 14 were supported on the end of cantilever girders because over the Con Ed below.

You need to review the Cantor plans because you appear to not be familiar with what he had to do to work around Con Ed. But a few columns were able to pass through Con Ed to bedrock such as cols 61, 64, 67, 70 and 73 where apparently there was no equipment.
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
So if there is a conspiracy it may be more related to suppressing the discovery of embarrassing information and opening up a can of worms over economic liability?

George,
I don't know if I would use the world conspiracy. I do think that it appears that somehow it was decided to just come up with an explanation that would not open up a can of worms, subject powerful people to all manner of wrongful death and negligence claims. Have you heard to comments of Thornton who is a prominent engineer and who I believe consulted with NIST? He claims the twin towers were built like shit and the it's a myth that they were incredibly robust structures... something I've said for a long time. I don't think any other towers built before or after used those bar trusses to support floors... the ones you see for roofs in big box stores... That's pretty telling... wouldn't you say? If those long span trusses were such a super idea and were so reliable and inexpensive how come no other office buildings have them for live floor loads?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
I think you are somewhat mistaken about the structural limitations that building over the sub station imposed on Cantor. It was impossible to bring many of the columns in the tower above the 7th floor straight down to bedrock. You know there were 81 above flr 7 begining at floor 8 there were only something like 51 of those which continued down to bedrock. I don't recall the exact number but the engineer had to use massive transfer structures to support (pick up) the 40 story loads of those 30 or so columns above them. 8 bays of the north wall's 14 were supported on the end of cantilever girders because over the Con Ed below.

You need to review the Cantor plans because you appear to not be familiar with what he had to do to work around Con Ed. But a few columns were able to pass through Con Ed to bedrock such as cols 61, 64, 67, 70 and 73 where apparently there was no equipment.
Are you talking about the 8 cantilever girders at floors 6-7 ? I have the drawings here. I suppose I could revisit that and pick out the ones you want to refer to if you like.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Are you talking about the 8 cantilever girders at floors 6-7 ? I have the drawings here. I suppose I could revisit that and pick out the ones you want to refer to if you like.

Gerry,
You can do whatever you like. I'm suggesting you study the columns /axial load paths below floor 8 down to bedrock. If you haven't you'll see some interesting things, I think. The south columns of the facade had no lateral N-S bracing for 5 stories! They are damn slender columns no?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Gerry,
You can do whatever you like. I'm suggesting you study the columns /axial load paths below floor 8 down to bedrock. If you haven't you'll see some interesting things, I think. The south columns of the facade had no lateral N-S bracing for 5 stories! They are damn slender columns no?
As i said, i have the drawings here. What number drawing are you referring to, so we can be totally clear about which elements we are talking about? It is important for clarity. Just give me the drawing number and I will post it so we are totally sure. Thanks.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Cantor's sheets S-1 through S- 7 covers the framing plan from ground to floor 8. the trusses are on other sheets if I recall correctly.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George,
I don't know if I would use the world conspiracy. I do think that it appears that somehow it was decided to just come up with an explanation that would not open up a can of worms, subject powerful people to all manner of wrongful death and negligence claims. Have you heard to comments of Thornton who is a prominent engineer and who I believe consulted with NIST? He claims the twin towers were built like shit and the it's a myth that they were incredibly robust structures... something I've said for a long time. I don't think any other towers built before or after used those bar trusses to support floors... the ones you see for roofs in big box stores... That's pretty telling... wouldn't you say? If those long span trusses were such a super idea and were so reliable and inexpensive how come no other office buildings have them for live floor loads?
I remember one or more of the hijackers studied high rise building construction in Germany . . . do you think someone familiar with architecture or structural engineering would have recognized the unique vulnerabilities represented by the WTC Towers????
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I remember one or more of the hijackers studied high rise building construction in Germany . . . do you think someone familiar with architecture or structural engineering would have recognized the unique vulnerabilities represented by the WTC Towers????

Why not?

There was no secret that they were built like an erector set bolted together. Of course the columns were size for the axial loads... which by the way PANY got reduced to lighten the structure. But it wasn't the columns which caused the global collapse, but the floor system in what we now call ROOSD.. runaway open office space destruction. Columns without bracing don't stand and the floor system was the bracing. Once that collapsed there was no chance the core would last long or the facade would stand like a hollow square tube. The weak link took the strong columns down. I'd call that a bizarre design circumstance. But who expected a runaway floor collapse?

That happened because the massive destruction from the plane and the fires which destroyed the strength of the core bracing the belt girder support the OOS floors and pushed the remaining core columns past their capacity.

The lightweight floor system was done to save money in cost of construction. They got a pass on NYC DOB code requirements. It came back to haunt them and thousands of people had their lives snuffed out.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
So for the columns, we should really be looking at S-17 and S 17A which I have attached.
For clarity, also the West elev, showing the con ed. for perspective. I have added S-1,4 and 8, so that you can refer to exactly what columns you are meaning.coned WG W el.jpg
 

Attachments

  • S-17.tif
    4.7 MB · Views: 805
  • S-17A.tif
    3.1 MB · Views: 756
  • S-1.tif
    3.8 MB · Views: 782
  • S-4.tif
    2.6 MB · Views: 723
  • S-8.tif
    3.9 MB · Views: 781

Alienentity

Active Member
The lawsuit did not fail. The suit was dismissed. The judge realized it would open up a can of worms.
A Majority upheld the lower court's decision. If you don't see that as failure, well ok then ;)
I don't think you can say anything about the judge's reasoning beyond what is written. That's pure speculation.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Thanks gerrycan, I have the drawings. Note in the photo and the east elevation how many columns are above floor 7 and how many are below. All loads from above end are being carried by 4 columns! Similar on west side and north side has the 8 MG 23 cantilevers. So a fair amount of the columns are supported by load transfer structures/trusses. If one truss goes it takes a lot with it. No? Have you see the attached I prepared some months ago? As you may or may not know I do not go along with NIST on column 79 flr 13 girder walk off. I think it a failure in below 7 in the load transfer structures. My guess it was TT#1 but once any one of the goes it will take the whole lot of the AND col 79 and the EPH with it.
 

Attachments

  • WTC 7 TTF r5.pdf
    162 KB · Views: 365
  • WTC 7 sk TTF.pdf
    13.3 KB · Views: 326

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
A Majority upheld the lower court's decision. If you don't see that as failure, well ok then ;)
I don't think you can say anything about the judge's reasoning beyond what is written. That's pure speculation.

The attempt at bring suit failed but the suit was never heard and there was no discovery. Engineering is not common sense and the court in my opinion was ill advised to frame the issue as it did, but that may have been how the suit was worded. 7wtc did not come down because of plane strikes but because... in my opinion (and I think perhaps Con Ed agrees though not sure) their own equipment exploded from shorts causing fires which may or may not have been burning diesel but did weaken the transfer structure to below capacity... that it was not as NIST claims office contents burning under a girder on the 13th floor. As no testimony or discovery took place... that theory or similar was never "tested".

NB the NIST cause was unfought office fires... on a tenant floor... not a terrorist cause. The fires were unfought because the fire suppression systems failed... not necessarily because of a terrorist strike, but because their equipment shorted out and exploded... much as it did during Sandy from water intrusion. This sub station was ALSO subject to water intrusion as we found out during Sandy.... and shorts can occur for any number of reasons exploding sub stations... have a look see:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=exploding+sub+stations&sm=3
 

Vec

New Member
The fires were unfought because the fire suppression systems failed... not necessarily because of a terrorist strike, but because their equipment shorted out and exploded... much as it did during Sandy from water intrusion. This sub station was ALSO subject to water intrusion as we found out during Sandy.... and shorts can occur for any number of reasons exploding sub stations...

New here, first post, forgive me if I make any mistakes.

The quoted text is factually incorrect. The Con Ed station never failed. It was shut down at 4:33 pm, approximately 2 hours after the emergency crews had evacuated the building and ceased their activities there*. Because the mains had failed after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, lack of water pressure made fighting the fires impossible. Also, the sprinkler system in 7 was not automatic and had to be manually engaged, but it didn't matter anyway because there was no water to be had.

Also this from above

I do think that it appears that somehow it was decided to just come up with an explanation that would not open up a can of worms, subject powerful people to all manner of wrongful death and negligence claims.

is strange when talking about WTC 7 since no one died there. The place was totally evacuated within an hour or so after the second plane hit.

* This information is available in the NIST report available in the .pdf here: http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
New here, first post, forgive me if I make any mistakes.

The quoted text is factually incorrect. The Con Ed station never failed. It was shut down at 4:33 pm, approximately 2 hours after the emergency crews had evacuated the building and ceased their activities there*. Because the mains had failed after the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, lack of water pressure made fighting the fires impossible. Also, the sprinkler system in 7 was not automatic and had to be manually engaged, but it didn't matter anyway because there was no water to be had.

Also this from above

is strange when talking about WTC 7 since no one died there. The place was totally evacuated within an hour or so after the second plane hit.

* This information is available in the NIST report available in the .pdf here: http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

Thank you for your comment.... are you aware that when the AA11 struck tower 1 Con Ed lost 13 - 13.8 kv feeders or so they say in an after report.

Why did they lose 13 hi voltage feeders?
 

Vec

New Member
Thank you for your comment.... are you aware that when the AA11 struck tower 1 Con Ed lost 13 - 13.8 kv feeders or so they say in an after report.

Why did they lose 13 hi voltage feeders?

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that any number of events could cause the feeders to de engergize. I have seen no reports of any water damage or explosions however, so saying water caused it is I think speculation at best. Whatever the case, the substation was in some way still functional until 4:33 when Con Ed shut it down. The salient point of all of this though is that, primarily, the reason the fires couldn't be fought was lack of water pressure, not an explosion in the substation. If you want to find that report you mention, I'll happily read it tomorrow. I don't know which report you're talking about or I'd look it up myself.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that any number of events could cause the feeders to de engergize. I have seen no reports of any water damage or explosions however, so saying water caused it is I think speculation at best. Whatever the case, the substation was in some way still functional until 4:33 when Con Ed shut it down. The salient point of all of this though is that, primarily, the reason the fires couldn't be fought was lack of water pressure, not an explosion in the substation. If you want to find that report you mention, I'll happily read it tomorrow. I don't know which report you're talking about or I'd look it up myself.

I did not write ithe sub station had problems from water damage. I said water can cause a sub station transformer / gear to short and explode.
I wrote it likely went bonkers when the plane struck tower one causing a short which caused the explosion in the sub basement of tower 1 and likely the explosions reported in wtc.
The feeder was cut TO the sub station perhaps... but I doubt that the sub was feeding other circuits down stream after AA11 hit.

I personally don't accept everything NIST writes as being factual. I believe that the evidence NIST cites or omit perhaps is done so in service to their own theory of destruction about office fires on floor 13 weakening a girder framed into col 79 leading to the global collapse. Their own FEA animation does not resemble real world at all.

I also don't accept their sagging truss bit for the twin towers. That 0 for 2. So I am not a big fan of NIST's models and work. As a result I take everything they've written with a huge grain of salt.

I can't prove BOO because I don't have evidence and the technical background do produce a proof.

I heard what Thornton said, what Cantor said and what my own background as an architect tells me rings true. Fires did it but not how or where NIST says so.

You can believe whatever you want or whomever you want. There are no proofs.
 

Vec

New Member
I did not write ithe sub station had problems from water damage. I said water can cause a sub station transformer / gear to short and explode.
I wrote it likely went bonkers when the plane struck tower one causing a short which caused the explosion in the sub basement of tower 1 and likely the explosions reported in wtc.
The feeder was cut TO the sub station perhaps... but I doubt that the sub was feeding other circuits down stream after AA11 hit.

It doesn't seem like it was sending out power, but it wasn't destroyed by any means. As far as I can tell anyway. There's no evidence that it was as far as I'm aware.

I personally don't accept everything NIST writes as being factual. I believe that the evidence NIST cites or omit perhaps is done so in service to their own theory of destruction about office fires on floor 13 weakening a girder framed into col 79 leading to the global collapse. Their own FEA animation does not resemble real world at all.

Yeah I mean, it's really hard to make a model so far after the fact on imperfect information. I think the NIST probably got one important thing right, which was whatever happened inside 7 caused a loss of lateral support to a column. A loss of lateral support would be the end of the game for that column. I think it's really telling that the reports from the people on the ground said, in several cases, that they could tell the building wasn't right hours before the collapse actually happened (a bulge maybe, or listing perhaps).

I also don't accept their sagging truss bit for the twin towers. That 0 for 2. So I am not a big fan of NIST's models and work. As a result I take everything they've written with a huge grain of salt.

Imperfect models for an imperfect world. God how many variables do you think there were in just 7? 1 and 2 were almost twice as tall! Really incalculable.

You can believe whatever you want or whomever you want. There are no proofs.

Eh, I'm not sure it matters that much. That it wasn't explosives or thermite is all that really matters. There are probably 100,000 scenarios of internal failures that could have produced what we saw that day, but none of them involved any of that conspiracy theory stuff as far as I can tell.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Yeah I mean, it's really hard to make a model so far after the fact on imperfect information. I think the NIST probably got one important thing right, which was whatever happened inside 7 caused a loss of lateral support to a column. A loss of lateral support would be the end of the game for that column. I think it's really telling that the reports from the people on the ground said, in several cases, that they could tell the building wasn't right hours before the collapse actually happened (a bulge maybe, or listing perhaps).

How does a girder walk lead to a building appear to bulge? And did it or did it not?

You realize that there were at least 10 columns under the East Penthouse... why make 79 the fall guy (pun intended)? And supporting several column lines were TT#1 and TT#2.. if those crapped out the column would just drop like an icicle from a roof eave.

Did NIST show us column 79 all buckeled up or the walking girder? One would think that would be really slam dunk evidence to support their theory. I've not seen it. Odd that is, ain't it"

Now NIST had access to all the steel at the WTC and have much of it in their possession. Couldn't they find column 79?

Oh.... I forgot... someone had the steel melted down in China lickity split. How convenient ain't it... like the missing diesel and the smoke and fires that no one saw...
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
It doesn't seem like it was sending out power, but it wasn't destroyed by any means. As far as I can tell anyway. There's no evidence that it was as far as I'm aware.
What exactly would you consider a destroyed sub station? Clearly if it blew to kingdom come we call it destroyed... check

But how about if a few of those transformers shorted out... Or some switch gear or circuit protection... destroying the sub station's ability to step down and redistribute the power...would that be a destroyed sub station?

Oh I forget... everything was working fine! because NIST said so... Con Ed told them. A company with Con as their first name is hard to take seriously.... no?
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
George,
I don't know if I would use the world conspiracy. I do think that it appears that somehow it was decided to just come up with an explanation that would not open up a can of worms, subject powerful people to all manner of wrongful death and negligence claims. Have you heard to comments of Thornton who is a prominent engineer and who I believe consulted with NIST? He claims the twin towers were built like shit and the it's a myth that they were incredibly robust structures... something I've said for a long time. I don't think any other towers built before or after used those bar trusses to support floors... the ones you see for roofs in big box stores... That's pretty telling... wouldn't you say? If those long span trusses were such a super idea and were so reliable and inexpensive how come no other office buildings have them for live floor loads?

For me this is an example of the place where all CTs and debunkers should be focusing their energy at. If the towers, all of them, were built like shit, and maybe better towers would hold the attack, there are more people to blame. If greed from the construction company is partially responsible for deaths, they need to be sued and held accountable together with the terrorists.

But it's more beautiful, more exciting, trying to blame "they" the government than finding the real responsibility for everything. There's so much energy spent in the wrong place, when there's maybe a real conspiracy to hide the quality of the buildings. If that's the case, these guys must love the CTs X debunkers controversy. They won't need to answer any law suit, any investigation, anything.

It's just sad.
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
For me this is an example of the place where all CTs and debunkers should be focusing their energy at. If the towers, all of them, were built like shit, and maybe better towers would hold the attack, there are more people to blame. If greed from the construction company is partially responsible for deaths, they need to be sued and held accountable together with the terrorists.

But it's more beautiful, more exciting, trying to blame "they" the government than finding the real responsibility for everything. There's so much energy spent in the wrong place, when there's maybe a real conspiracy to hide the quality of the buildings. If that's the case, these guys must love the CTs X debunkers controversy. They won't need to answer any law suit, any investigation, anything.

It's just sad.
According to the postulation you are agreeing with, the Deutsche Bank building, the Verizon building, and the U.S. Post Office building were all well built, but the Twin Towers and WTC 7 weren't.

It could also be logically inferred according to that attempted explanation, that WTC 3, 4, 5 , and 6 were much better built, because in spite of tremendous structural damage from debris, and an enormous fire in WTC 5, they did not fall to the ground.

I don't see any basis shown anywhere that would support the argument that poor quality construction was responsible for the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7.
 
Last edited:

Vec

New Member
How does a girder walk lead to a building appear to bulge? And did it or did it not?

I think the point was that it was obvious that something critical had failed, structurally, even to the people on the ground hours before the actual collapse. I'm pretty sure that in the videos of the simulations the bulge is shown.

why make 79 the fall guy (pun intended)? .

I am almost 100% certain that the NIST modeled a whole host of scenarios (100s? 1000s?) and they ultimately chose the one that most closely resembled the both the visual and physical evidence, even if it wasn't perfect. Again, the variables would be astronomical, and there's simply no way to model all of them. It's telling to me that, since the report and the models came out, I haven't seen anyone model anything else that more closely resembles the actual collapse. Is there such a thing? Why hasn't anyone done it? Surely someone would be motivated enough to do that.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
According to the postulation you are agreeing with, the Deutsche Bank building, the Verizon building, and the U.S. Post Office building were all well built, but the Twin Towers and WTC 7 weren't.

It could also be logically inferred according to that attempted explanation, that WTC 3, 4, 5 , and 6 were much better built, because in spite of tremendous structural damage from debris, and an enormous fire in WTC 5, they did not fall to the ground.

I don't see any basis shown anywhere that would support the argument that poor quality construction was responsible for the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

"Deutsche Bank building, the Verizon building, and the U.S. Post Office building were all well built" this is true, they were more robustly built than the twin towers.

7WTC was strongly built but with a whacked out design which put too many eggs in too few baskets.

The 4, 5, 6 and were not especially strong and because the were onlyu 9 stories they didn't have the collapsing mass to enable a ROOSD type collapse. There wasn't much left of them however after the fires and the debris fell on them.

If you don't see any basis... look at what Thornton said.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I am almost 100% certain that the NIST modeled a whole host of scenarios (100s? 1000s?) and they ultimately chose the one that most closely resembled the both the visual and physical evidence, even if it wasn't perfect. Again, the variables would be astronomical, and there's simply no way to model all of them. It's telling to me that, since the report and the models came out, I haven't seen anyone model anything else that more closely resembles the actual collapse. Is there such a thing? Why hasn't anyone done it? Surely someone would be motivated enough to do that.

I have it's called TTF

I seriously doubt that NIST modeled 100s let alone 1000s of scenarios. You are dreamin' and clearly in the thrall of NIST.

No the number of scenarios would not be astronomical. They have to match the sequence of building movements. You.... are blowing smoke!

Why don't you suggest another possible scenario if there were 100s or 1000s... ???
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
I think the point was that it was obvious that something critical had failed, structurally, even to the people on the ground hours before the actual collapse. I'm pretty sure that in the videos of the simulations the bulge is shown.

I have never seen video of any bulge in a wall of WTC 7. I also don't understand how that could lead to a symmetrical free fall collapse. If you do, maybe you can explain it.

I am almost 100% certain that the NIST modeled a whole host of scenarios (100s? 1000s?) and they ultimately chose the one that most closely resembled the both the visual and physical evidence, even if it wasn't perfect.

How do you possibly know this?

Again, the variables would be astronomical, and there's simply no way to model all of them. It's telling to me that, since the report and the models came out, I haven't seen anyone model anything else that more closely resembles the actual collapse. Is there such a thing? Why hasn't anyone done it? Surely someone would be motivated enough to do that.
To mimic the collapse all that is necessary is to take out 8 stories of core columns starting from the middle of the core outward in a fraction of a second and that would produce what you saw. It actually is not hard.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I have never seen video of any bulge in a wall of WTC 7. I also don't understand how that could lead to a symmetrical free fall collapse. If you do, maybe you can explain it.



How do you possibly know this?

To mimic the collapse all that is necessary is to take out 8 stories of core columns starting from the middle of the core outward in a fraction of a second and that would produce what you saw. It actually is not hard.


Oh really? And how does the EPH and then the WPH manage to fall ahead of the rest of the building of a building?
 

Tony Szamboti

Active Member
Oh really? And how does the EPH and then the WPH manage to fall ahead of the rest of the building of a building?
Column 79 was taken out at the top of the building to effect the drop of the east penthouse. It is a non sequitur to say the kink in it was caused by a failure low in the building. The fact that the east side exterior did not deform shows the failure was not down low.

If 8 stories of the core was then taken out low in the building after the east penthouse was brought down it would take down the west penthouse as observed and would pull the perimeter in over 8 stories rendering the exterior columns ineffective and effecting the free fall.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Column 79 was taken out at the top of the building to effect the drop of the east penthouse. It is a non sequitur to say the kink in it was caused by a failure low in the building. The fact that the east side exterior did not deform shows the failure was not down low.

If 8 stories of the core was then taken out low in the building after the east penthouse was brought down it would take down the west penthouse as observed and would pull the perimeter in over 8 stories rendering the exterior columns ineffective and effecting the free fall.
Why did the demo crew bother with the penthouses? This is just twisted BS of truthers to try to jawbone the observations into their ridiculous theory.
 

Vec

New Member
My contention that there were 100s or 1000s of scenarios and innumerable variables was/is based on the fact the events during the collapse (after the collapse of the column) would have had variables that grew exponentially. I wasn't clear I guess when I said there were so many possible scenarios. There may be other possible scenarios for the initiating event (i.e. something other than the collapse of 79), but I'm not aware of what they would be. The NIST mentions clearly that they knew how great an extent the variables during the collapse event would grow, and there was a lot of information they couldn't account for (like interior walls and other support structures) because it A) either wasn't available and/or B) it would have been most likely been impossible to model. In any case, Jeffrey wants to know why they contend that it was the failure of column 79, and while I need to get to work now, I will say that the relevant information is in Chapter 8 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9. Specifically, the beginning of the initiating event details start on page 328. The entire chapter deals with the reasons why they concluded that the failure was column 79. I'm not a structural engineer, so I can't make any claims about what other events could have led to the collapse, but I can imagine that other events were possible but at the same time can reason that the people who conducted the investigation were experienced and knowledgeable enough to not just screw it all up.

One of the critiques, really the only one, that I've seen of the NIST video model is that the end of the video shows buckling of the top edge of the building and the inward movement of the outer shell of the building. These events shown in the model are not reflected in the video. There is explanation of the reason for this in chapter 3.5 of NIST NCSTAR 1A on and around page 42. Specifically, they note something similar to what I said earlier: that the variables during the collapse event become nearly impossible to model as the time advances.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Column 79 was taken out at the top of the building to effect the drop of the east penthouse. It is a non sequitur to say the kink in it was caused by a failure low in the building. The fact that the east side exterior did not deform shows the failure was not down low.

If 8 stories of the core was then taken out low in the building after the east penthouse was brought down it would take down the west penthouse as observed and would pull the perimeter in over 8 stories rendering the exterior columns ineffective and effecting the free fall.

That would have required explosive charges which are always audible on every video we have of real demolitions. So your hypothesis does not square with the absence of such explosions at the time of collapse. Logic would dictate you should discard this hypothesis.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
My contention that there were 100s or 1000s of scenarios and innumerable variables was/is based on the fact the events during the collapse (after the collapse of the column) would have had variables that grew exponentially. I wasn't clear I guess when I said there were so many possible scenarios. There may be other possible scenarios for the initiating event (i.e. something other than the collapse of 79), but I'm not aware of what they would be. The NIST mentions clearly that they knew how great an extent the variables during the collapse event would grow, and there was a lot of information they couldn't account for (like interior walls and other support structures) because it A) either wasn't available and/or B) it would have been most likely been impossible to model. In any case, Jeffrey wants to know why they contend that it was the failure of column 79, and while I need to get to work now, I will say that the relevant information is in Chapter 8 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9. Specifically, the beginning of the initiating event details start on page 328. The entire chapter deals with the reasons why they concluded that the failure was column 79. I'm not a structural engineer, so I can't make any claims about what other events could have led to the collapse, but I can imagine that other events were possible but at the same time can reason that the people who conducted the investigation were experienced and knowledgeable enough to not just screw it all up.

One of the critiques, really the only one, that I've seen of the NIST video model is that the end of the video shows buckling of the top edge of the building and the inward movement of the outer shell of the building. These events shown in the model are not reflected in the video. There is explanation of the reason for this in chapter 3.5 of NIST NCSTAR 1A on and around page 42. Specifically, they note something similar to what I said earlier: that the variables during the collapse event become nearly impossible to model as the time advances.

Thanks for clarifying the statement.

My position is as follows.

The single column failure (79) leading to a global collapse as we saw as not be demonstrated. God only knows what inputs they plugged into their FEA to make that silly GIF animation which does not resemble the real world by a long shot. Why? I would guess because their girder walk off column 79 theory is a load of bunk. On that point I agree with the truthers.

Of course trying to model what happened is well nigh to impossible because of the 10s of thousands of nodes and energy inputs vary in location and intensity... key data that NIST doesn't have. So they have to make it up... and they did.

So rather than do a forensic investigation examining the steel and trying to reconstuct the event as the NSTB would do... they simply make an FEA model with inputs and expect the public and the professions to accept that as an explanation.

It's rubbish. And it doesn't even come close to matching the real world event.

Sure if the EPH collapsed through the building column line 79 would have to cease to function... as in get out of the way. Tony deludes himself and his buds by saying the EPH only collapse a single floor and so the perps placed explosives on floor 46 to take out that nasty EPH. But that's rubbish too.

The EPH went all the way down when it did. All the way? Well we don't know how far because no one was inside or could see the tell tale sign of it going down lower than perhaps floor 20 (don't know the precise floor) because the view was blocked by the building between the north facade and the camera position. NIST decided to celebrate 13 for some reason... but it's more like that something even lower pooped out and so the entire line above that dropped. And for the EPH to drop there were 9 columns below it as far down as floor 3... so they probably pooped too. And this is why TTF makes a helluva lot more sense than girder walk does.

Why doesn't NIST go there to party? That's the $64,000 question. We can only guess at the answer. But of course they expected the question so they answered it in advance with their usual evidence challenged made up out of who cloth assertion that there were no fires down there.

Admittedly we are evidence challenged... certainly more so that NIST. But as they make up evidence for their column 79 fantasy they can just as easily disappear it when it represents some inconvenient (truth). How easy to pass that off because.. we all know that there were no transducers or video cameras inside and so forth. All you have is a few fire fighter who were looking for people to rescue for a few hrs... who were no equipped to or probably tasked to figure out where the building was going to initiate the collapse. All the FDNY says is that they believed the tower would collapse because... it was warping????
Cool... they were proven correct. But then again... steel and fire doesn't mix very well for long.

And then there's all that pesky diesel fuel and flammable leaked coolant oil from Con Ed gear... tens of thousands of gallons potentially. So we have massive fires throughout this building and no oil or diesel decides to burn. How clever. Blame it on poet it nots, envelopes, files and carpet and pressboard table tops. Why not? Whose gonna defend them being there?

When one poses the question about the diesel.. the truthers get their knickers in a twist because the bow down to the CD god of bombs, nano thermite and secret eutectic devices (maybe). See no hear no smoke no fire no way Jose! They recovered it all except the 12,000 they can't account for which didn't do anything. Don't forget no one saw any smoke. And of course smoke stays right were the fire is... doesn't rise or enter ducts and so forth. Reading WTC smoke it like reading tea leaves a bit. Ya know white stuff is themite... black stuff is oxygen starved low temp...

The inconvenient truth about a problem down below 7 is that there wasn't much in the way of office contents to burn... especially on floors 5 - 7 where those magnificent transfer trusses were holding up close to maybe a hundred thousands of tons of building. You don't want that falling on your toes! Where was the diesel stored? Where were the oil cooled electrical transformers and switch gear? Where were those trusses? Oh no you don't say... Down on floors 5-7 under the EPH and right next to our friend 79. What a coincidence. Nothing interesting down there NIST said.

Makes you wonder a bit don't it? Who are they thinking about and for here?
 
Top