Discussion of the definition of unfought fires and are they considered in designing a stucture

Mendel

Senior Member.
Clearly, a decision was made to fight this fire, despite many of the arguments used in the case of WTC7 applying (I've bolded the key parts). Apparently, this building, even though it was in the process of being demolished, was worth risking lives to save. I suppose that might have been due to the hardwon lesson of 9/11, namely, that leaving fires unfought can lead to total collapse?
Why the speculation at the end?

Btw, this was referenced as source for the wikipedia text you quoted:
Article:
In a highly unusual move, three ranking New York Fire Department officials were yanked from their posts Monday after the mayor and fire commissioner said they appear to be responsible for information lapses that led to the deaths of two firefighters at the former Deutsche Bank building.

So,
a) this building did not collapse from the fire, you are moving even further off-topic with your speculation,
and
b) obviously this decision was flawed, and thus is a bad example for best practices.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
I'm going to make a disinction here. I'm using "designed for X" if a design meets goal X, and "intended to be designed for X" when the designer has thought about X, but we don't know if they succeeded. After all, something that's "designed to be waterproof", but stops working upon contact with water, was not really designed to be waterproof, it was just being claimed that it was. Something truly designed to be waterproof should only be affected by water when it is already damaged.
I find this dinstinction a bit unnatural, but it sounds like we agree on the issues. We just use "is designed for" a bit differently.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
a) this building did not collapse from the fire, you are moving even further off-topic with your speculation,
and
b) obviously this decision was flawed, and thus is a bad example for best practices.
It doesn't look the decision to fight the fire as such was in question. It doesn't seem like they considered treating it like WTC7.

I'm not speculating. I'm just adding a bit of context. I think any decision to either fight a fire in a steel framed building or abandon it is on topic.
 

Henkka

Banned
Banned
It would all be so mysterious and steeped in necessary conspiracy except for the fact that WTC7 was the third time that fire brought down a high rise building, and the firefighters on scene had literally just watched the first and second times with their own eyes. That shouldn't be hard to understand, but, even if it were, I've already shown you that is exactly why the on-scene commander thought WTC7 could collapse. Again, here's the press release that FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro issued on September 23, 2007 ahead of the release of the NIST report:
I know he said that, but it seems unlikely that he made this determination entirely on his own, without consulting a single engineer, no? Fire chiefs surely know a lot about burning buildings, but I would think they still consult with actual engineers. According to the book excerpt you posted, One Meridian was declared unsafe by an engineer. I think it would be interesting to know:

1) Who was the very first person on 9/11 to suggest the idea that WTC 7 might collapse

and

2) What was their exact reasoning?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
It doesn't look the decision to fight the fire as such was in question. It doesn't seem like they considered treating it like WTC7
Yes. And unlike WTC7, the building did not collapse, so it seems not treating it like WTC7 was justified.

The fact that fire fighters were harmed and died is acknowledged by the mayor and fire commissioner to be based on "information lapses" which caused the risk to the fire crews to be underestimated.

Whether the Deutsche Bank building in its state of being dismantled was "designed for an unfought fire" is immaterial: the way the fans were set up and all of the polyethylene sheets had worsened the resistance of the half-demolished building to fire.
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
I know he said that, but it seems unlikely that he made this determination entirely on his own, without consulting a single engineer, no? Fire chiefs surely know a lot about burning buildings, but I would think they still consult with actual engineers. According to the book excerpt you posted, One Meridian was declared unsafe by an engineer. I think it would be interesting to know:

1) Who was the very first person on 9/11 to suggest the idea that WTC 7 might collapse

and

2) What was their exact reasoning?
So we've now moved from you asking a specific question to which you should have known the answer, to asking a more generalized form of that same question, knowing that, as asked, no one can know the answer to it. How wonderfully productive. In any case, anyone who made a determination that WTC7 could collapse did so in the shadow of the collapses of both the twin towers, so it is likely that, like FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro, who was the actual relevant decisionmaker and whose reasoning has been made crystal clear, such a person's evaluation of WTC7 was a risk-averse assessment that was primed by bearing witness to fire felling the two tallest buildings in the city.
 
Last edited:

Henkka

Banned
Banned
So we've now moved from you asking a specific question to which you should have known the answer, to asking a more generalized form of that same question, knowing that, as asked, no one can know the answer to it. How wonderfully productive. In any case, anyone who made a determination that WTC7 could collapse did so in the shadow of the collapses of both the twin towers collapsing, so it is likely that, like FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro, who was the actual relevant decisionmaker, such a person's evaluation of WTC7 was just a risk-averse assessment that was primed by bearing witness to fire felling the two tallest buildings in the city.
Well, I guess the real issue is that his reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. Reasoning that because two towers that were hit by planes just collapsed, a third tower that wasn't hit by a plane might also collapse is absurd. The collapses even started where the planes hit. So why would you think another building hit by light debris would also collapse? It's completely irrational. So I'm wondering if he came up with that on his own, or if it was something that was suggested to him by some engineer or someone from the OEM.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I know he said that, but it seems unlikely that he made this determination entirely on his own, without consulting a single engineer, no? Fire chiefs surely know a lot about burning buildings, but I would think they still consult with actual engineers.
We've been over this in the other thread, see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/was-column-79-the-achilles-heel-of-wtc7.12391/page-3#post-270669 for the source quotes.
The chief was "unsure about the structural stability of the building", and "the loud noises as it burned indicated to them that it might be unstable".

Lots more detail in that thread about how the building indicated it was unstable.
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Well, I guess the real issue is that his reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. Reasoning that because two towers that were hit by planes just collapsed, a third tower that wasn't hit by a plane might also collapse is absurd. The collapses even started where the planes hit. So why would you think another building hit by light debris would also collapse? It's completely irrational. So I'm wondering if he came up with that on his own, if it was something that was suggested to him by some engineer or someone from the OEM.
Well, it just goes to show that FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro has far better judgement than you about such matters. Also, you are misrepresenting the situation by stating that WTC7 was just hit by "light debris," which is disingenuous at best.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
Reasoning that because two towers that were hit by planes just collapsed, a third tower that wasn't hit by a plane might also collapse is absurd. The collapses even started where the planes hit. So why would you think another building hit by light debris would also collapse? It's completely irrational.
you are misrepresenting the situation by stating that WTC7 was just hit by "light debris," which is disingenuous at best.
The question Henkka is raising is whether it made sense, on the day, to reason from the collapse of the Towers to the likelihood that WTC7 would collapse. At that point it was not clear that it was mainly fire that did the Towers in, and there were other buildings (like Deutsche Bank) that had been hit harder than WTC7. And it has since been determined that the debris damage did not play any important role in the outcome. Arguing about whether the word "light" is appropriate splitting hairs.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The question Henkka is raising is whether it made sense, on the day, to reason from the collapse of the Towers to the likelihood that WTC7 would collapse.
Yes.
it has been raised and answered before, in the other thread.
I've quoted and linked above the actual signs that gave rise to the thought that WTC was unstable.
The fire chief based his decision on more than just the observation that the towers collapsed.

Re: the debris, NCSTAR 9-1 chapter 6, p. 300: "The PAPD reported that the collapse of WTC 1 had done significant damage to WTC 7." That's what counted at the time.
 

Henkka

Banned
Banned
Yes.
it has been raised and answered before, in the other thread.
I've quoted and linked above the actual signs that gave rise to the thought that WTC was unstable.
The fire chief based his decision on more than just the observation that the towers collapsed.
It was more over whether the reasoning given by Nigro in that statement made much sense. This part specifically:
Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
Now maybe loud noises and such also played a part, but that's not what he says. The reasoning given seems to be "Damage from impact + Fires = Likely collapse". I think it's just a bizarre thing to say, the main issue being him conflating the damage of planes striking WTC 1 and 2 with that of debris hitting WTC 7.
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
It was more over whether the reasoning given by Nigro in that statement made much sense. This part specifically:

Now maybe loud noises and such also played a part, but that's not what he says. The reasoning given seems to be "Damage from impact + Fires = Likely collapse". I think it's just a bizarre thing to say, the main issue being him conflating the damage of planes striking WTC 1 and 2 with that of debris hitting WTC 7.
A 10 story section of the southwest corner of WTC7 was completely destroyed, including the corner column for that entire span. If that does not count as significant damage, then nothing does.
 

Henkka

Banned
Banned
A 10 story section of the southwest corner of WTC7 was completely destroyed, including the corner column for that entire span. If that does not count as significant damage, then nothing does.
Descriptive words like "lighter" or "significant" are relative... The damage was "significant" in the sense that obviously you don't want to have big chunks of your building missing, but it wasn't "significant" in the sense that it could ever cause it to collapse... As concluded by NIST. It's like losing a finger would be "significant" damage to your body, but it's not going to kill you.

It also seems a bit contradictory to say the damage to the south face was what made it possible to predict the collapse, since we now know it had little to do with it. The actual cause, thermal expansion from fires breaking connections, was completely invisible to anyone looking at the building from outside. So it's like they predicted something accurately, but for the wrong reason.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I think it's just a bizarre thing to say
Argument from incredulity.

"The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse." seems to me like a perfectly reasonable thing to say. The statement is demonstrably true, and relevant.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
I think it's just a bizarre thing to say
This thread may have run its course. It's long been my view that the controlled demolition theory is hard to believe but easy to understand, and the official story is the other way around. Maybe we need a thread on how to get the official account to make sense?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
It also seems a bit contradictory to say the damage to the south face was what made it possible to predict the collapse
And that's a straw man. The fire chief did not "predict the collapse", he considered it a possibility, given the totality of the information he had at the time. Again:
The chief was "unsure about the structural stability of the building", and "the loud noises as it burned indicated to them that it might be unstable".
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
And that's a straw man. The fire chief did not "predict the collapse", he considered it a possibility, given the totality of the information he had at the time. Again:
P.S.: Taking "planning for X" as evidence of foreknowledge is a conspiracy theorist fallacy to watch out for. It happened similarly with Covid, where past planning for a possible pandemic response was falsely considered evidence of intent to bring the pandemic about.
 

Henkka

Banned
Banned
And that's a straw man. The fire chief did not "predict the collapse", he considered it a possibility, given the totality of the information he had at the time. Again:
Whether it was the fire chief or someone else, the collapse was predicted, you know that. Here is for example a quote from MSNBC reporter Ashleigh Banfield:
The brown building, the tall one, is number 7 World Trade Center. I've heard several different reports from several different officers now, that that is the building that is going to go down next.
Indira Singh, EMT:
By noon or one o’clock, they told us we had to move from that triage site…because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.
David Rastuccio from FDNY:
We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would come down on its own or it would be taken down.

Etc, etc.
 

Thomas B

Active Member
Whether it was the fire chief or someone else, the collapse was predicted, you know that.
I agree that it's incongruous that it was widely known that the building would or could collapse but then, after it collapsed, it was a presented as "mystery" that it did.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
the collapse was predicted, you know that
Ok. I was referring to the decision to evacuate the building, create a perimeter, and let it burn itself out. I believe, from the quotes I've cited, that they were not sure at that time whether WTC7 would collapse or not.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
After the BBC Conspiracy Files episode on WTC 7, which ironically you made a brief appearance on, things became a whole lot clearer. In that program, FDNY Chief Peter Hayden made this statement:

"We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon? And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current state, you have about five hours.'"

Peter Hayden is quoted yet again on this "engineer" fellow in this 2013 court document: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...3c33b98-9cbf-4b82-b557-6088e207c8f6/1/hilite/

"Chief of Department Peter Hayden consulted with an engineer:

We posed to him the question that considering the structural damage that was obvious to the – to the building on the southwest corner, and the amount of fire damage that was occurring within the building, could we anticipate a collapse and if so, when. He said yes and he gave an approximate time of five to six hours, which was pretty much right on the money because the building collapsed about 5 o’clock that afternoon.
"
So, if his recollection can be trusted, at some point, from his own observations and the conversation with the unnamed engineer, Hayden anticipated the building collapsing.

So the points leading up to this were:
• WTC 1 and 2 setting precedents by collapsing
• observations (damage, bulging, noises etc.)
• alleged expert opinion

The thread is now on the border of well-trodden truther territory, so let's recap your question quickly before the thread crashes and burns:
1) Who was the very first person on 9/11 to suggest the idea that WTC 7 might collapse

and

2) What was their exact reasoning?
1) who cares? the "idea" was certainly part of the decision to evacuate the building, as evidenced by the quoted reasons pertaining to it being unstable.

2) reasoning for the "idea" has been quoted, and it's plausible that this idea moved up from possibility to anticipation during the afternoon, as the building deteriorated further, more information was collected, and experts were consulted.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I agree that it's incongruous that it was widely known that the building would or could collapse but then, after it collapsed, it was a presented as "mystery" that it did.
could you please quote that "presentation"?
it seems to me that the mystery surrounded the exact collapse sequence, not the fact of the collapse per se
 

Thomas B

Active Member
could you please quote that "presentation"?
it seems to me that the mystery surrounded the exact collapse sequence, not the fact of the collapse per se
[Aug. 21, 2008] Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.

The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan in New York. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics long have argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.

Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper.

"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team.
Content from External Source
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna26331842
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I agree that it's incongruous that it was widely known that the building would or could collapse but then, after it collapsed, it was a presented as "mystery" that it did.
there is a difference between collapse and "total collapse".
 

Henkka

Banned
Banned
could you please quote that "presentation"?
it seems to me that the mystery surrounded the exact collapse sequence, not the fact of the collapse per se
In addition to what Thomas B just posted, I just wanted to include this quote from Sunder:

Nevertheless, other tall buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing when sprinklers either did not function or were not existing. So we knew that from the beginning of our study, that understanding what happened to building 7 on 9/11 would be difficult. It did not fit any textbook examples that you could readily point to and say, yes, that is why the building fell.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?280569-1/investigation-world-trade-center-building-7 At around 3 minutes in.

So that's kind of the dilemma... That on 9/11, it was seemingly apparent to many that WTC 7 would collapse hours before it did. But then after it collapsed, it was very difficult to explain why it did. Usually when you accurately predict something, that means you have a pretty good understanding of the cause already.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
That on 9/11, it was seemingly apparent to many that WTC 7 would collapse hours before it did. But then after it collapsed, it was very difficult to explain why it did
there's a difference between collapse and "total collapse".

when a police officer tells you "you need to evacuate, the building is going to collapse", that in no way means he thinks the ENTIRE building is going to come down. when part of a building collapses, people say "the building collapsed".

you're insinuating meaning to people saying "collapse" on 911 to mean total global collapse, but that is not how the word is used in regular everyday English.

ex:
1656439286481.png

1656439434573.png
 
Last edited:

Thomas B

Active Member
So that's kind of the dilemma... That on 9/11, it was seemingly apparent to many that WTC 7 would collapse hours before it did. But then after it collapsed, it was very difficult to explain why it did. Usually when you accurately predict something, that means you have a pretty good understanding of the cause already.
Another thing I find unsatisfying is that it's not clear to me what Sunder and his colleagues thought the mystery even was. Other than it not having happened before; why was it not easy to explain? When and how did the pieces fall into to place and they had their eureka moment. None of this is clear in the report on in the coverage.

If you're going to say you've "solved a mystery", the story should be a little more exicting. Instead, we get the sort of thing we hear here at Metabunk a lot, namely, that it wasn't really much of a puzzle at all because, "Heat weakens steel. Finis."
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
Another thing I find unsatisfying is that it's not clear to me what Sunder and his colleagues thought the mystery even was. Other than it not having happened before; why was it not easy to explain? When and how did the pieces fall into to place and they had their eureka moment. None of this is clear in the report on in the coverage.

If you're going to say you've "solved a mystery", the story should be a little more exicting. Instead, we get the sort of thing we hear here at Metabunk a lot, namely, that it wasn't really much of a puzzle at all because, "Heat weakens steel. Finis."
Spoiler alert: the mystery was the exact likely point of failure. And it's not a mystery here because NIST spent years doing all the hard work to solve it and some of us even read the report they wrote. This thread has jumped the shark into utter stupidity.
 
Last edited:

Henkka

Banned
Banned
there's a difference between collapse and "total collapse".

when a police officer tells you "you need to evacuate, the building is going to collapse", that in no way means he thinks the ENTIRE building is going to come down. when part of a building collapses, people say "the building collapsed".

you're insinuating meaning to people saying "collapse" on 911 to mean total global collapse, but that is not how the word is used in regular everyday English.
I guess that could be the case, but I've never heard anything like that... That people were expecting maybe a partial collapse, but instead got a total collapse.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I guess that could be the case, but I've never heard anything like that... That people were expecting maybe a partial collapse, but instead got a total collapse.
i've never heard anything like people were expecting a total collapse. so we're even. :)
 

Henkka

Banned
Banned
i've never heard anything like people were expecting a total collapse. so we're even. :)
I feel like the quotes in my above post (#103) are more indicative of expecting a total collapse. I've also never heard anything indicating that people on the day were surprised by the total collapse... The reaction of the news anchors is more like "There it goes, just like we had heard it would" rather than exclaiming shock or surprise.
 

Henkka

Banned
Banned

That's Ashleigh Banfield, who moments ago said this:
The brown building, the tall one, is number 7 World Trade Center. I've heard several different reports from several different officers now, that that is the building that is going to go down next.
That's why she also says, "This is it", rather than, "What's happening?!" She's been told to expect WTC 7 to come down. Yeah, she says "Oh my god", but that's just because it's still disturbing to see a giant building go down like that. It's not because the building collapsed in a way she wasn't expecting.

There's also another guy you can hear in the background who says, "That's the building coming down". Notice that he doesn't say "Oh god, the building is coming down!" Presumably he had also heard the reports that the building was coming down soon, and not partially.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
This reporter, scott pelly, does use collapse in both meanings of the word.

3:45 then this afternoon we were told buildings 5 and 7 were in danger of collapsing...

4:07 scott pelly is on the scene..

4:32 "told us there was a good chance that building 7 would collapse...
4:40 but standing at the base of it watching it burn about an hour ago it looked to be 50/60 stories, ..
4:55 and i dont know if they were able to evacuate all of the emergency personnel before the collapse, but i can tell you that an hour ago there were a number of firefighters and police officers in the area.

They were watching building 7 burn because frankly, there was nothing they could do about it. The inferno was huge. so much of the building was collapsing into the street bit by bit.

And now it finally collapsed. At least the third building to fall in the world trade center today.
Content from External Source
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlnMub4_oOo&t=67s
 

econ41

Senior Member
Another thing I find unsatisfying is that it's not clear to me what Sunder and his colleagues thought the mystery even was.
I find it astonishing that you can make such a disingenuous claim. You are conflating two very different perspectives viz:

1) The macro level overview which says: "WTC 7 was a steelframed building, designed with sprinklers as part of the inbuilt fire resistance and with active fire fighting assumed. It was subjected to fires of greater scale than designed for, the sprinklers were essentially inoperative and, after all occupants had escaped, a deliberate decision was taken to not attempt active fire fighting. Therefore the risk of collapse was worsened. It subsequently collapsed."

(And that argument can be made much briefer as "Heat weakens steel. Finis.")

THEN

2) The micro level view - "What specific detailed mechanism actually caused the collapse? What initiated the collapse and what sequence of structural member failures followed the initiation"?

TWO very different perspectives. Both legitimate in different situations. So why conflate them?
Other than it not having happened before;
BS and a typical Truth Movement "lie by partial truth". The firefighters dealing with WTC7 in real time on the day had just seen two very large towers collapse completely. With the loss of over 2,000 lives including 300 plus of their fellow firefighters.
why was it not easy to explain? When and how did the pieces fall into to place and they had their eureka moment. None of this is clear in the report on in the coverage
The details are not easy to explain. The overall - "macro" level "Heat weakens steel. Finis." argument is very simple. Except the discussion has been obscured by the ignorance, lies and fog of truther claims for "CD", None of which have ever been shown to have any substance.
 

Latest posts

Top