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

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
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.

What would have caused the failure below 7? I can't really comment much on your PDFs without knowing what you are saying the initiating point is but I am glad to see you do not agree with the magic thermal expansion theory that NIST gave us re the girder spanning C79 and 44. So we agree that the NIST report is not valid in that sense, and presumably we also agree that their analysis is nonsense, and has been proven to be so. Do you have any figures to support the TT#1 claim, and have you taken the values and ran any analysis of what loads these would be in comparison to the stated kips?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Skilling was wrong. The fires would not destroy all the steel for sure... but with the plane destruction having knocked out a large % of the axial capacity... the heat was able to do the rest to set the the thing into collapse mode. This was complex and likely (guess) involved the failing of the beam stub outlookers (connections) to the belt girder leading to the inboard side of the floor system collapsing. That turned into several more problems... increased in unbraced length... and loss OF bracing . Column to column connections in the twin towers were un restrained and more easily pushed laterally off alignment. But the collapse was driven by the collapsing floor mass outside the core we call ROOSD and inside the core (there was considerable floor area in the core at the upper floors of each of the three sections of the towers... which I call RICD (runaway inside the core destruction).

Once this got going the core columns simply lost 90% of their bracing (you can see that only rows 500 and 600 remain connected by bracing... the rest were completely unbraced by the RICD)... all the columns toppled from Euler forces.

So Skilling needs to bone up on how his tower came apart. It's been figured out...
This would be an interesting debate to have, maybe Mick will start a thread for it elsewhere. Skilling died in 98 i think. I am unsure about applying Eulers to substantial columns such as these. It lends itself to more slender elements ok though.
 

Bruno D.

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'm saying that WTC 1 and 2 were responsible for the destruction of all other buildings you mentioned. There's no controversy for any of the other buildings. Something very big and heavy fell on them, and they collapsed partially, burning in some cases.

I'm also saying that the only buildings that endured structural damage and collapsed entirely are 1,2 and 7. So a logical conclusion, as good as any CD logical conclusion, is that all of the WTC towers could be shitty, but the building characteristics made it dangerous only for buildings higher than 9 stories.

And yes, other buildings that were not part of the WTC complex were better built.

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.

The first evidence is that never before or after, in history, sky scrapers fell like that because of structural damage + long time burning.

Another good evidence is that the same building strategy was not used by any other sky scraper.

But see, what I'm trying to do here is to discuss other theories, different from the official story and from the "truthers" story. Maybe the real conspiracy is that the Port Authority of NY and NJ used shitty materials and a
shitty architecture to make the construction cheap, and thousands of people died because of that, and no one question it for a second. See? I'm blaming "they the government" for a conspiracy without the need of CD, drones, missiles and thousands of co-participants.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
What would have caused the failure below 7? I can't really comment much on your PDFs without knowing what you are saying the initiating point is but I am glad to see you do not agree with the magic thermal expansion theory that NIST gave us re the girder spanning C79 and 44. So we agree that the NIST report is not valid in that sense, and presumably we also agree that their analysis is nonsense, and has been proven to be so. Do you have any figures to support the TT#1 claim, and have you taken the values and ran any analysis of what loads these would be in comparison to the stated kips?

Gerry,

We are in agreement about NIST col 79 bunk.

I have a model of collapse which matches the movements and the testimony.

I have no calcs. But I have some graphics and my theory is basically that the connections of the trusses... HUGE plates which were field assembled were bolted together with splice plates and 1" or 3/4" Ø bolts.... those connections failed. No the plates did not melt, bend, warp... (well maybe enough to shear the bolts perhaps) ... but the connections failed and the trusses then came apart. It would only take one failed splice connection on a transfer truss to begin the entire collapse sequence. There were several connection failure possibilities... all leading to the exact same result... and there were 3 trusses as well. Another possibility is that columns E3 or E4 got fatally weakened somehow... 12,000 gal of diesel WAS stored near them I believe.

Note that there was one (at least) pretzeled perimeter column recovered from 7wtc. I think it was from just above the 8th floor on the east side east of columns 79 and 80. A severely pretzeled column means heat softened and loads way over capacity. This happens when nearby column have lost all capacity and the loads are moved to the adjacent column(s). there were only 4 columns on the entire east perimeter below 8 and about 15 above! There was some very rapid load increases going on over there and obviously the trusses which carried massive loads went south.

The transfer trusses were very close to con ed gear which can and I think DID explode. Did the explosions stress the truss joints? One explosion in the vicinity of TT1 and TT2 blew out the east stairs as Jennings and Hess reported. Perhaps it weakened a joint or two?

No I don't have evidence of smoke.
 

Attachments

  • WTC 7 TTF r5.pdf
    162 KB · Views: 329

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Off Topic warning. Let's stick to WTC7 and the lawsuit please.


The lawsuit discussion implies that the plaintiffs believed that the designs were problematic. The theories of how they collapsed is part of the (unstated) premise of the action. It was never argued so we have to argue it here unfortunately...because some jerks in the justice system blocked the discovery... and the trial.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
This would be an interesting debate to have, maybe Mick will start a thread for it elsewhere. Skilling died in 98 i think. I am unsure about applying Eulers to substantial columns such as these. It lends itself to more slender elements ok though.

They were slender (made so my ROOSD)
 

Attachments

  • Spire -cc 501.pdf
    28.8 KB · Views: 397

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
I have a model of collapse which matches the movements and the testimony.
I have no calcs.
So how can your theory possibly be evaluated?
But I have some graphics and my theory is basically that the connections of the trusses... HUGE plates which were field assembled were bolted together with splice plates and 1" or 3/4" Ø bolts.... those connections failed. No the plates did not melt, bend, warp... (well maybe enough to shear the bolts perhaps) ... but the connections failed and the trusses then came apart.
It's a theory yes, but what is the origin of the alleged overstress that the transfer trusses experienced in your theory? It's too vague to comment on without more specifics. I know that is basically asking the impossible, but even a hypothetical would be enough to say if it would or wouldn't be possible. NIST have not as yet released the fieldwork drawings book to my knowledge, but if you have the FW drawings, please share them. I have been chasing these for quite some time and they would, i think, prove crucial.
It would only take one failed splice connection on a transfer truss to begin the entire collapse sequence. There were several connection failure possibilities... all leading to the exact same result... and there were 3 trusses as well.
This still requires an origin for the overstress.
Another possibility is that columns E3 or E4 got fatally weakened somehow... 12,000 gal of diesel WAS stored near them I believe.
There were some auxiliary tanks throughout the building yes, but a lot of the fuel oil was recovered, and the main tanks were actually buried and surrounded by medium to prevent tank failure due to any impact transfer around them, as per regulations. I would suggest you need to account for this within the realms of your theory and look at these regs, and also the non return valve systems etc that are required by same.

Note that there was one (at least) pretzeled perimeter column recovered from 7wtc. I think it was from just above the 8th floor on the east side east of columns 79 and 80. A severely pretzeled column means heat softened and loads way over capacity.
Are you referring to the WG section? There was far more steel recovered and kept from WTC7 than previously thought. A pic would be nice and perhaps I could help you identify it for sure.
This happens when nearby column have lost all capacity and the loads are moved to the adjacent column(s). there were only 4 columns on the entire east perimeter below 8 and about 15 above! There was some very rapid load increases going on over there and obviously the trusses which carried massive loads went south.
Again I think this requires some hard figures to back it up in terms of capacity values and overstress calculations.

The transfer trusses were very close to con ed gear which can and I think DID explode. Did the explosions stress the truss joints? One explosion in the vicinity of TT1 and TT2 blew out the east stairs as Jennings and Hess reported. Perhaps it weakened a joint or two?
The timing of this event is interesting. When you examine their movements (Jennings/Hess) it is likely that they would have reached this part of the building at or before 0930ish, bringing the cause of the explosion that they experienced into much doubt.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
So how can your theory possibly be evaluated?

It's a theory yes, but what is the origin of the alleged overstress that the transfer trusses experienced in your theory? It's too vague to comment on without more specifics. I know that is basically asking the impossible, but even a hypothetical would be enough to say if it would or wouldn't be possible. NIST have not as yet released the fieldwork drawings book to my knowledge, but if you have the FW drawings, please share them. I have been chasing these for quite some time and they would, i think, prove crucial.

This still requires an origin for the overstress.

There were some auxiliary tanks throughout the building yes, but a lot of the fuel oil was recovered, and the main tanks were actually buried and surrounded by medium to prevent tank failure due to any impact transfer around them, as per regulations. I would suggest you need to account for this within the realms of your theory and look at these regs, and also the non return valve systems etc that are required by same.


Are you referring to the WG section? There was far more steel recovered and kept from WTC7 than previously thought. A pic would be nice and perhaps I could help you identify it for sure.

Again I think this requires some hard figures to back it up in terms of capacity values and overstress calculations.


The timing of this event is interesting. When you examine their movements (Jennings/Hess) it is likely that they would have reached this part of the building at or before 0930ish, bringing the cause of the explosion that they experienced into much doubt.

Gerry,

The stresses were the existing service loads of the joint. The joint, bolts, welds, etc experience loss of capacity from mechanical damage and or heat... If the service load remains static and the joint or node or member losses capacity there will be a failure. If the splice had 24 bolts and 18 of the were non functioning (for whatever reason) do you expect the joint to perform even with no load increase?

I am suggesting that the explosions were electrical in nature... and these happened for various reason...shorts, burnt wires... and so forth. It is hard to associate electrical problems often cause and location. A short occurs one place and a circuit protection trips or explodes in some cases in another location. You realize that the larger the circuit the slower the circuit protection works and this can lead to nasty outcomes.

I have no data and no evidence and no else does either. But TTF makes more sense that AE's 81 columns over 8 floors or NIST column 13. And the building's own engineer blamed his trusses for the collapse. Ask him! He's have numbers. I do not accept the no diesel possibility... Sorry. It's claimed by NIST and it's self serving. I don't trust them.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Gerry,

The stresses were the existing service loads of the joint. The joint, bolts, welds, etc experience loss of capacity from mechanical damage and or heat...
I asked about OVERstresses. The design load of the connection would be higher than the service load, so you would have to quantify what that was and then show that it was exceeded. You haven't.
The bolts would be HTS and are called out specifically on the drawings. I could go get them for you, but as you said, you have the drawings there yourself. Also the weld is also specified on the drawings and the material was stronger than the elements that were welded.

If the service load remains static and the joint or node or member losses capacity there will be a failure.
Big generalised statement there. Depends on the extent to which the member loses capacity. Again, you need to be specific here to make that claim.
If the splice had 24 bolts and 18 of the were non functioning (for whatever reason) do you expect the joint to perform even with no load increase?
That depends entirely on the ultimate capacity of the connection. Give me the figures and I'll let you know.

I am suggesting that the explosions were electrical in nature... and these happened for various reason...shorts, burnt wires... and so forth.
Given that the emergency system was functioning, burnt wires in WTC7 would be unlikely given the chronology stated by Jennings. I think you need to study his account of what he experienced in WTC7 that morning more closely.
It is hard to associate electrical problems often cause and location. A short occurs one place and a circuit protection trips or explodes in some cases in another location.
Jennings gave a clear account as to when the "lights went out (and) Hess came running in". This was way before they were at the level at which they experienced the explosion, so I would discard your hypothesis on that basis alone.
You realize that the larger the circuit the slower the circuit protection works and this can lead to nasty outcomes.
No, I do not realise this at all. Show me the circuit diagram and the protection/current leakage detection devices, and THEN make your claim.

I have no data and no evidence and no else does either.
So you admit that you have nothing whatsoever to back up your theory at all. The claims that I have made about WTC7, in terms of NISTs hypothesis are backed up with solid data and analysis of the relevant drawings by myself and independantly by others. I suggest you examine them.
But TTF makes more sense that AE's 81 columns over 8 floors or NIST column 13. And the building's own engineer blamed his trusses for the collapse. Ask him!
I think you mean column 79, or am I missing something here? I didn't mention AE911, and the conclusions that my group reached, although strongly supported by many in AE911, were reached entirely independently by our group alone. Address my claims rather than grinding an axe against AE911, they can respond for themselves, as can I.

He's have numbers.
Show them then.
I do not accept the no diesel possibility... Sorry. It's claimed by NIST and it's self serving. I don't trust them.
Have you looked at the data produced regarding the amount of fuel oil recovered from WTC7 tanks? If not, I will try to get a hold of it for you.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Gerry,

The stresses were the existing service loads of the joint. The joint, bolts, welds, etc experience loss of capacity from mechanical damage and or heat... If the service load remains static and the joint or node or member losses capacity there will be a failure. If the splice had 24 bolts and 18 of the were non functioning (for whatever reason) do you expect the joint to perform even with no load increase?

I am suggesting that the explosions were electrical in nature... and these happened for various reason...shorts, burnt wires... and so forth. It is hard to associate electrical problems often cause and location. A short occurs one place and a circuit protection trips or explodes in some cases in another location. You realize that the larger the circuit the slower the circuit protection works and this can lead to nasty outcomes.

I have no data and no evidence and no else does either. But TTF makes more sense that AE's 81 columns over 8 floors or NIST column 13. And the building's own engineer blamed his trusses for the collapse. Ask him! He's have numbers. I do not accept the no diesel possibility... Sorry. It's claimed by NIST and it's self serving. I don't trust them.

The Jennings/Hess experience is irrelevant to your ideas, don't get sidetracked there. They were in the OEM when the lights went out, which seems to correspond with the collapse of the first tower - and the large explosion they felt corresponds with the collapse of WTC 1 directly on it. When they escaped the stairwell and broke a window, they saw cars, trucks and buses burning outside and paper swirling everywhere. Clearly this had to be after the tower collapses.

Any earlier explosions might have been electrical, but I think there were personnel in the building for a while and no reports of this. I can dig up some references. They set up a triage centre for a while before moving it.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
The Jennings/Hess experience is irrelevant to your ideas, don't get sidetracked there. They were in the OEM when the lights went out, which seems to correspond with the collapse of the first tower - and the large explosion they felt corresponds with the collapse of WTC 1 directly on it. When they escaped the stairwell and broke a window, they saw cars, trucks and buses burning outside and paper swirling everywhere. Clearly this had to be after the tower collapses.

Any earlier explosions might have been electrical, but I think there were personnel in the building for a while and no reports of this. I can dig up some references. They set up a triage centre for a while before moving it.

I have no brief for Hess and Jennings. But with all due respect your explanation doesn't wash. I don't know the preceise time line but these fellows describe and explosions below them in the east stair (IIRC) and falling debris from tower 1 would not do the damage they describe. Their description was explosion below them. And further where's the "gash" in the building from your WTC debris? As far as I know the WTC falling debris went only as far as just past the south facade of 1 wtc which means it was well short of where the east stair was on floors 5-8. And who knows whether the time report is accurate.

STOP with there were no reports of X, Y and Z.. no reports DOES NOT MEAN SOMETHING DIDN'T HAPPEN. IT MEANS THAT NO ONE WITNESSED IT AND REPORTED IT.

There WERE many reports throughout the period from the moment AA11 hit of explosions and most of them were likely electrical. Do you recall a single witness announcing he or she saw or heard a transformer explode? No.. you can't dismiss their "explosion sound testimony". But you can't know what it was.... and it likely was electrical equipment. One FDNY inspector DID say he heard what he thought was electrical equipment exploding in 2wtc IIRC.

Electrical explosions occur for multiple reasons.. shorted wiring, over headed transformer coolant, severed wiring and so forth. Burning building with multiple large substations... the twins had 8 - 13.8 kv one on 4 floors and I think WTC had at lead 4 or 5 and this doesn't include the local step down transformers in electrical closets on every floor in the entire complex. Probably a fair amount of them exploded.

And why would the lights go out in the OEM when the arrived at a bit after 9am? Do tell.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I asked about OVERstresses. The design load of the connection would be higher than the service load, so you would have to quantify what that was and then show that it was exceeded. You haven't.
The bolts would be HTS and are called out specifically on the drawings. I could go get them for you, but as you said, you have the drawings there yourself. Also the weld is also specified on the drawings and the material was stronger than the elements that were welded.


Big generalised statement there. Depends on the extent to which the member loses capacity. Again, you need to be specific here to make that claim.

That depends entirely on the ultimate capacity of the connection. Give me the figures and I'll let you know.


Given that the emergency system was functioning, burnt wires in WTC7 would be unlikely given the chronology stated by Jennings. I think you need to study his account of what he experienced in WTC7 that morning more closely.

Jennings gave a clear account as to when the "lights went out (and) Hess came running in". This was way before they were at the level at which they experienced the explosion, so I would discard your hypothesis on that basis alone.

No, I do not realise this at all. Show me the circuit diagram and the protection/current leakage detection devices, and THEN make your claim.


So you admit that you have nothing whatsoever to back up your theory at all. The claims that I have made about WTC7, in terms of NISTs hypothesis are backed up with solid data and analysis of the relevant drawings by myself and independantly by others. I suggest you examine them.

I think you mean column 79, or am I missing something here? I didn't mention AE911, and the conclusions that my group reached, although strongly supported by many in AE911, were reached entirely independently by our group alone. Address my claims rather than grinding an axe against AE911, they can respond for themselves, as can I.


Show them then.

Have you looked at the data produced regarding the amount of fuel oil recovered from WTC7 tanks? If not, I will try to get a hold of it for you.

Gerry,

I don't have the details you are interested in, nor the maths. I apologize. What I have done is sketch out a theory based simply on the nature of the structure and where it MIGHT fail and if it did it would provide movements etc. to match the real world. I don't think column 79 BS does. I don't think AE's and Tony's nonsense does either.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that if one of the MANY connection splices of those trusses failed...and there were 2 per chord... because they were field assembled and it tolerances and assembly restriction meant the members could not have full length and perfect mating of the ends. The connections SPANNED those gaps and those connections appear to me to be the weak link so to speak in the trusses. There does not need to be OVER STRESS for a failure to occur... as happened in the twins... There has to be a loss of capacity of a node below the reserve capacity. And this does not even take into account load redistribution which WOULD count as over stress.

So you have:

Weak (in my opinion) connections from the get go (weaker than the members they joined)
Some source of heat... could be burning gas, diesel, transformer oil or a combination to lower capacity of steel
Source of ignition from electrical shorts and so forth.
Massive axial loads on a few structures from the get go
Load transfer structures that linked multiple column line together
Equipment in close proximity which likely exploded during the course of the day

and

The building's engineer's comments that he believed the truss failed from diesel fires (a good reliable expert)
The ASCE testifying in 2002 before congress that they believed that connection failures were the cause of the collapse
FEMA engineers proposing in 2002 that they thought the load transfer region was where the collapse originated
the recent dismissed Con Ed lawsuit question the design and the placement of diesel in the towers
And the rube goldberg structure itself which if one of those trusses (#1 and or 2) went the entire building WOULD collapse precisely as we saw (you don't deny that do you?)
More than 50% of the north perimeter was supported on the ends of 8 MG23s with their south ends framed into a beam which began at the west end of TT1 and extended to the north end of TT3.

That to me looks like the basis for an explanation.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
I have no brief for Hess and Jennings. But with all due respect your explanation doesn't wash. I don't know the preceise time line but these fellows describe and explosions below them in the east stair (IIRC) and falling debris from tower 1 would not do the damage they describe. Their description was explosion below them. And further where's the "gash" in the building from your WTC debris? As far as I know the WTC falling debris went only as far as just past the south facade of 1 wtc which means it was well short of where the east stair was on floors 5-8. And who knows whether the time report is accurate.

STOP with there were no reports of X, Y and Z.. no reports DOES NOT MEAN SOMETHING DIDN'T HAPPEN. IT MEANS THAT NO ONE WITNESSED IT AND REPORTED IT.

There WERE many reports throughout the period from the moment AA11 hit of explosions and most of them were likely electrical. Do you recall a single witness announcing he or she saw or heard a transformer explode? No.. you can't dismiss their "explosion sound testimony". But you can't know what it was.... and it likely was electrical equipment. One FDNY inspector DID say he heard what he thought was electrical equipment exploding in 2wtc IIRC.

Electrical explosions occur for multiple reasons.. shorted wiring, over headed transformer coolant, severed wiring and so forth. Burning building with multiple large substations... the twins had 8 - 13.8 kv one on 4 floors and I think WTC had at lead 4 or 5 and this doesn't include the local step down transformers in electrical closets on every floor in the entire complex. Probably a fair amount of them exploded.

And why would the lights go out in the OEM when the arrived at a bit after 9am? Do tell.

If you're going to get all snippy with me when you haven't studied it then the conversation is over. I have no interest in bantering with you if you don't want the facts.
Just one short observation - you don't have any way of knowing that debris from tower one couldn't damage the building internally the way they describe. Please don't pretend to know this.
It is a simple, unavoidable fact that when the two men clambered up and broke a window, the scene outside was post-collapse. You cannot rationalize this away.

I'm trying to help you understand, if you don't want to understand then I'm not interested in you. Capeche?
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
If you're going to get all snippy with me when you haven't studied it then the conversation is over. I have no interest in bantering with you if you don't want the facts.
Just one short observation - you don't have any way of knowing that debris from tower one couldn't damage the building internally the way they describe. Please don't pretend to know this.
It is a simple, unavoidable fact that when the two men clambered up and broke a window, the scene outside was post-collapse. You cannot rationalize this away.

I'm trying to help you understand, if you don't want to understand then I'm not interested in you. Capeche?

Don't be silly... falling debris would have had to come down on top of the two gentleman before it destroyed the stair below them. Get real.

No I wasn't there and can't know what fell where. We DID see the gashes in the SW corner... no mystery there.

And
NB that the location of the east stair was well to the east of 1wtc's footprint and the facade fell away normal to the axis of the building. The SW corner was almost perfectly aligned with the CL of the north facade... ergo the gash damage. The east egress stair was way out of the path of the falling north facade.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Don't be silly... falling debris would have had to come down on top of the two gentleman before it destroyed the stair below them. Get real.

No I wasn't there and can't know what fell where. We DID see the gashes in the SW corner... no mystery there.

And
NB that the location of the east stair was well to the east of 1wtc's footprint and the facade fell away normal to the axis of the building. The SW corner was almost perfectly aligned with the CL of the north facade... ergo the gash damage. The east egress stair was way out of the path of the falling north facade.
Sigh... it doesn't matter what you think happened. What actually happened is what counts.
ConEd reported that power was cut off to the building at 9:59am when WTC 2 collapsed.
Hess reported that
Once he looked out the window he saw
Hess says '
He was looking North and West, and btw he says that the event which caused the collapse of the stairwell was building 1 falling onto building 7. Just to clarify the story.

The point is that the scene they described was clearly post-collapse. There is no other explanation. So it is you who must rethink your understanding of what was possible from the debris impacting 7. You can't change the facts with speculation.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
If you're going to get all snippy with me when you haven't studied it then the conversation is over. I have no interest in bantering with you if you don't want the facts.
Just one short observation - you don't have any way of knowing that debris from tower one couldn't damage the building internally the way they describe. Please don't pretend to know this.
It is a simple, unavoidable fact that when the two men clambered up and broke a window, the scene outside was post-collapse. You cannot rationalize this away.

I'm trying to help you understand, if you don't want to understand then I'm not interested in you. Capeche?

Thanks for the help Mr Entity. I think I understand a lot more than you think I do. I've done thousands of hours of study and produced scores of slides etc. And what have you done aside from repeat NIST and quote mine and parrot.

How about.... I am trying to help you understand? How does that sound? I haven't dismissed you (or been snippity or taken by marbles and gone home. I have explained my position... I have published slides in support of them which I produced... and you, I am sorry to say respond like a child and are condescending and dismissive... and then of course state you are not interested in what I have proposed.

I started a thread at JREF to have the fellas explain how a single column failure can lead to a total collapse of a building. I did not get one JREF to substantively respond... How do you explain them and the single column failure...which was caused by a girder falling away according to NIST and their JREF supporters??
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Thanks for the help Mr Entity. I think I understand a lot more than you think I do. I've done thousands of hours of study and produced scores of slides etc. And what have you done aside from repeat NIST and quote mine and parrot.

How about.... I am trying to help you understand? How does that sound? I haven't dismissed you (or been snippity or taken by marbles and gone home. I have explained my position... I have published slides in support of them which I produced... and you, I am sorry to say respond like a child and are condescending and dismissive... and then of course state you are not interested in what I have proposed.

I started a thread at JREF to have the fellas explain how a single column failure can lead to a total collapse of a building. I did not get one JREF to substantively respond... How do you explain them and the single column failure...which was caused by a girder falling away according to NIST and their JREF supporters??

I think you're getting the threads mixed up. I'm trying to respond to each thread separately and stay on topic. This thread is about the court case, I think we're way outside the scope of it.

I was simply trying to warn you not to get sucked into the Hess/Jennings rabbit hole. I understand very well what they reported and when, and I have studied it a great deal. I recognized that you are making some fundamental errors in your understanding of the timing of the events. If you don't want the facts, that's fine with me.

I bow out of this discussion and leave it to you. Have a good evening.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I think you're getting the threads mixed up. I'm trying to respond to each thread separately and stay on topic. This thread is about the court case, I think we're way outside the scope of it.

I was simply trying to warn you not to get sucked into the Hess/Jennings rabbit hole. I understand very well what they reported and when, and I have studied it a great deal. I recognized that you are making some fundamental errors in your understanding of the timing of the events. If you don't want the facts, that's fine with me.

I bow out of this discussion and leave it to you. Have a good evening.

OK.... We never got to hear the suit and so all we can do is... discuss what the suit was perhaps about... the issues of liability of the defendants.
 
I don't know and I suspect neither does Mick West.

No the diesel fires cannot be eliminated due to lack of smoke. I am not a fire scientist, but not all combustion produce copious smoke... some produces none whatsoever. Were there any LNG or propane risers in the region? Those gas burn without smoke. My Volvo diesel produces very little smoke but lots of heat and burns little fuel.

The fact is that there were very few observations of what was going in in that building especially after the twins collapsed. And they were none after the order was issued to removed all personnel from the area around 3 pm I believe.

I don't think any maths were done.

Why must there be massive amounts of smoke? Or raging fires? How rigorously was the area documented for fires or smoke? I suspect the tanks were not checked. If there is direct testimony to this I am unaware of it. The absence of observations of fires or smoke in this case is not evidence that there were none.

Your Volvo diesel has an emission reduction system. An unremitted fuel oil fire will produce copious amounts of smoke especially when burning in an enclosed or semi enclosed space where complete combustion is not possible. I am a Fire Officer with 20+ years experience in fighting fuel oil fires. And just to be clear in terminology diesel fuel is fuel oil number 2 or 4 depending on grade.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Your Volvo diesel has an emission reduction system. An unremitted fuel oil fire will produce copious amounts of smoke especially when burning in an enclosed or semi enclosed space where complete combustion is not possible. I am a Fire Officer with 20+ years experience in fighting fuel oil fires. And just to be clear in terminology diesel fuel is fuel oil number 2 or 4 depending on grade.

Thank you for that! I believe the region of the mechanical floors was very well ventilated. There grillage along most of the north side was over a story or two in height. I don't recall precisely, but the grillage was massive and I suspect it supplied copious fresh air to the interior of the mech floors and perhaps the Con Ed sub station. Further there was a 20 knot NW wind which this grillage was exposed to all day on 9/11. You can see how the north side has (almost) no smoke from the fires because they the air pressure forced the smoke to find other (less pressure) paths. In some photos you can see all the smoke on the south facade the full ht of the building. Clearly (to me) that is where all the smoke from the fires in the building were traveling before rising up in the atmosphere.

I am not a fire expert by any stretch of the imagination so I cannot dispute what you are saying about fuel burning. There was a lot of black smoke in the twin towers, but they were visible from 4 sides and towered much higher and the fires were over 1,000 feet above ground. 7WTC fires were low and inside the building and mostly occured AFTER the twins fell and there was much less observation being made of 7 WTC.

Note there was testimony from one FDNY firefighter who reported small fires which he could easily *knock down*. Clearly he could not be aware of the OTHER areas where fires were raging out of control and could not easily be knocked down. Take away is that a single person has only the ability to observe a limited area.

BTW I was referring to a Volvo Penta and when there are problems like faulty rings a fair amount of dark smoke will be seen in the exhaust. The smoke is an indication of incomplete or flawed combustion I thought.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for that! I believe the region of the mechanical floors was very well ventilated. There grillage along most of the north side over a story or two in height. I don't recall precisely, but the grillage was massive and I suspect it supplied copious fresh air to the interior of the mech floors and perhaps the Con Ed sub station. Further there was a 20 knot NE wind which this grillage was exposed to all day on 9/11. You can see how the north side has (almost) no smoke from the fires because they the air pressure forced the smoke to find other (less pressure) paths. In some photos you can see all the smoke on the south facade the full ht of the building. Clearly (to me) that is where all the smoke from the fires in the building were traveling before rising up in the atmosphere.

I am not a fire expert by any stretch of the imagination so I cannot dispute what you are saying about fuel burning. There was a lot of black smoke in the twin towers, but they were visible from 4 sides and towered much higher and the fires were over 1,000 feet above ground. 7WTC fires were low and inside the building and mostly occur ed AFTER the twins fell and there was much less observation being made of 7 WTC.

Note there was testimony from one FDNY firefighter who reported small fires which he could easily *knock down*. Clearly he could not be aware of the OTHER areas where fires were raging out of control and could not easily be knocked down. Take away is that a single person has only the ability to observe a limited area.

BTW I was referring to a Volvo Penta and when there are problems like faulty rings a fair amount of dark smoke will be seen in the exhaust. The smoke is an indication of incomplete or flawed combustion I thought.
sometimes the smoke can tell us a great deal about an observable fire and sometimes tell us very little. The attached photo is from a fire that occur in a double wide modular home just a few nights ago. When we arrived thick black smoke was visible from the eaves and roof vents . When we entered visibility was zero due to the heavy smoke. As you can see from the picture there was very little actual damage. The take away here is unless you can observe the actual fire and burning conditions smoke is not an accurate indicator or fire size, intensity, or even location in side a structure.

While wind conditions outside of a structure are important they don't always clearly demonstrate conditions inside where heat and obstructions such as walls, halls, and doorways create their own localized conditions through convection and the chimney effects.
 

Attachments

  • 20140109_005407.jpg
    20140109_005407.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 372
Last edited by a moderator:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Thank you for that! I believe the region of the mechanical floors was very well ventilated. There grillage along most of the north side over a story or two in height. I don't recall precisely, but the grillage was massive and I suspect it supplied copious fresh air to the interior of the mech floors and perhaps the Con Ed sub station. Further there was a 20 knot NE wind which this grillage was exposed to all day on 9/11. You can see how the north side has (almost) no smoke from the fires because they the air pressure forced the smoke to find other (less pressure) paths. In some photos you can see all the smoke on the south facade the full ht of the building. Clearly (to me) that is where all the smoke from the fires in the building were traveling before rising up in the atmosphere.

I am not a fire expert by any stretch of the imagination so I cannot dispute what you are saying about fuel burning. There was a lot of black smoke in the twin towers, but they were visible from 4 sides and towered much higher and the fires were over 1,000 feet above ground. 7WTC fires were low and inside the building and mostly occur ed AFTER the twins fell and there was much less observation being made of 7 WTC.

Note there was testimony from one FDNY firefighter who reported small fires which he could easily *knock down*. Clearly he could not be aware of the OTHER areas where fires were raging out of control and could not easily be knocked down. Take away is that a single person has only the ability to observe a limited area.
sometimes the smoke can tell us a great deal about an observable fire and sometimes tell us very little. The attached photo is from a fire that occur in a double wide modular home just a few nights ago. When we arrived thick black smoke was visible from the eaves and roof vents . When we entered visibility was zero due to the heavy smoke. As you can see from the picture there was very little actual damage. The take away here is unless you can observe the actual fire and burning conditions smoke is not an accurate indicator or fire size, intensity, or even location in side a structure.

While wind conditions outside of a structure are important they don't always clearly demonstrate conditions inside where heat and obstructions such as walls, halls, and doorways create their own localized conditions through convection and the chimney effects.
20140109_005407.jpg

Thank you for this comment!
 
Top