WTC 7 (Building 7)

[Cairenn]

I am also a clay artist and the reactions of chemicals at temperatures is an important part of ceramics. This discusses a problem with sulfur coming out of clay in a glaze firing.

The gases are generated from carbon and sulfur in the clay components of the body. As a natural part of the weathering and deposit of clay particles, organic materials containing carbon and sulfur settle throughout the clays we mine and use for modern ceramics. When these organic materials reach temperatures ranging from 1290° to 1650° Fahrenheit, they combine with oxygen, form gases, escape the clay body through the pores, and exhaust from the kiln. Under optimal conditions, all of the organics will be expelled from the clay through this process during the bisque firing. However, it is possible to leave carbon and sulfur in the clay under the following two circumstances.

First, the bisque firing can be too fast. Not only must the firing go to or beyond 1650°, but it must allow enough time for the maximum quantity of carbon to burn out. The process is not instantaneous; it takes time for all the carbons and sulfurs to combine with oxygen, and it takes time for the subsequent gases to work their way out of the body.

Second, the atmosphere in the bisque kiln can be oxygen poor. If this is the case, some of the organics will remain in the body because they can find no oxygen with which to combine. We see this phenomenon in both gas and electric kilns. In electric kilns with poor ventilation and tightly packed ware, the organics in the clay quickly combine with what little oxygen is available, and there is no means for new oxygen to get to the pots. Gas kilns have good ventilation, but that does not mean that oxygen is available. If too much reduction is used in the 1290° to 1650° range, the atmosphere will be oxygen poor and carbon and sulfur will be left behind.

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

I'm a Realtor, I don't sign anything after an engineer inspects.

Yes, sorry.

Taz says "developer".

 

[Mick West]

This is also the answer the BBC offered at the conclusion of its Conspiracy Files programme on WTC 7. However, the programme did not ask the question of what kind of reaction might actually be required to isolate elemental sulfur from calcium sulfate. Have you? It is by no means as "simple" as baking it in a rubble pile.

FEMA had steel from WTC 7 that was evidence of a "hot corrosion" attack.

NIST ignored it.

There's other potential sources besides wallboard.

and, see:

Here's a study done on that steel after FEMA recommended there be more study:
View attachment Metallographic Examination of Heavily Eroded Structural Steel fomr WTC 1,2,7.pdf

Here's a 2006 Discussion of the WPI work.
View attachment 2006biederman.pdf

 

[Mick West]

In the above #1283 Post (cited and inserted quote) NIST questions IMO their own findings . . . Me thinks they did what you just said . . . it is the best fit . . . that is all . . . if you exclude any skullduggery . . . that is . . .

I'm not sure what you mean about the #1283 post. You quote section 8.4.1, which says that the column could have failed by heating alone, but don't quote 8.2.4 (and the rest of the report), which discusses failure by loss of lateral support. The document goes into detail as to how the fires caused that loss of lateral support.

8.4.2 Column Failure by Loss of Lateral Support (increased unbraced length)Floors that frame into a column provide lateral support to the column. If a building had a regular floor-tofloor
height, h, then failure of one floor would result in an unbraced column length of 2h. Likewise,
failure of two floors would result in an unbraced column length of 3h, and so on. If a sufficient number
of floors were to fail, the column could buckle even if it were not weakened by heating. This simple
explanation assumes that the load on a column remains constant. In reality, the load on a column can
change as fires grow and spread and non-uniformly heat the steel frame. Such load redistribution is
accounted for in the analyses conducted in this investigation. The possibility of floor failure in fire is
explored in detail in later sections of this chapter.

Content from External Source

The leading hypothesis for the initiation of the collapse of WTC 7 involved:• Initial local fire-induced floor failures initiating in the tenant floors,
• At least one long unsupported column at the lower floors,
• Buckling of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large-span floor bay,
• An initial local failure that brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse, and
• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors that resulted in a progressive collapse
of the entire structure.
This hypothesis was supported by photographic and videographic evidence showing the collapse of the
east section of the roof and the kinking of the east penthouse.

Content from External Source

 

[jomper]

There's other potential sources besides wallboard.

It might be an idea to find one, then. Unless you're NIST.

Attachment 2411 merely confirms FEMA's conclusion that the steel was attacked and offers no speculation as to the source of the sulfur.
Attachment 2412 speculates that the sulfur could've just come from acid rain or the sea so that's obviously what happened.

 

[Mick West]

In the above #1283 Post (cited and inserted quote) NIST questions IMO their own findings . . . Me thinks they did what you just said . . . it is the best fit . . . that is all . . . if you exclude any skullduggery . . . that is . . .

I'm not sure what you mean about the #1283 post. You quote section 8.4.1, which says that the column could have failed by heating alone, but don't quote 8.2.4 (and the rest of the report), which discusses failure by loss of lateral support. The document goes into detail as to how the fires caused that loss of lateral support.

8.4.2 Column Failure by Loss of Lateral Support (increased unbraced length)Floors that frame into a column provide lateral support to the column. If a building had a regular floor-tofloor
height, h, then failure of one floor would result in an unbraced column length of 2h. Likewise,
failure of two floors would result in an unbraced column length of 3h, and so on. If a sufficient number
of floors were to fail, the column could buckle even if it were not weakened by heating. This simple
explanation assumes that the load on a column remains constant. In reality, the load on a column can
change as fires grow and spread and non-uniformly heat the steel frame. Such load redistribution is
accounted for in the analyses conducted in this investigation. The possibility of floor failure in fire is
explored in detail in later sections of this chapter.

Content from External Source

The leading hypothesis for the initiation of the collapse of WTC 7 involved:• Initial local fire-induced floor failures initiating in the tenant floors,
• At least one long unsupported column at the lower floors,
• Buckling of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large-span floor bay,
• An initial local failure that brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse, and
• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors that resulted in a progressive collapse
of the entire structure.
This hypothesis was supported by photographic and videographic evidence showing the collapse of the
east section of the roof and the kinking of the east penthouse.

Content from External Source

 

[Mick West]

It might be an idea to find one, then. Unless you're NIST.

Attachment 2411 merely confirms FEMA's conclusion that the steel was attacked and offers no speculation as to the source of the sulfur.
Attachment 2412 speculates that the sulfur could've just come from acid rain or the sea so that's obviously what happened.

Why do you need to know which source of sulphur it was? Surely it suffices to know there are several potential sources?

The question you should as is "is it impossible that sulphur was present under OS circumstances?"

 

[jomper]

Why do you need to know which source of sulphur it was?

A forensic investigation looks for causes. That's why the source is relevant.

 

[Chuck]

The following video has most likely already been posted somewhere, but I thought it was germane to the discussion. According to eyewitness accounts, WTC7 was about to collapse due to the raging fire. The footage is rather compelling.

​

 

[SR1419]

we were discussing 7 and the severity of the fires... The pictures give no indication of the severity of the fires in 7.[/B]... only a non related issue designed to conflate the issue and embroil it into the shock and awe of the terrible surrounding destruction. You cannot see any fires in 7 and the smoke source is unclear... so what was the point of the pictures if they were not to conflate?

the "smoke source is unclear"- thats funny! ...and telling.

I simply posted images of WTC7 burning- if you are objective and rational then the smoke source is quite clear. The smoke DOES give an indication of the fires. Is it a definitive and perfect indication?-no- but an indication nonetheless.

The point of the pictures is to give an indication. The fact that the majority of the pictures of WTC7 burning occur after collapse of WTC1&2 is simply a time frame factor and not a deliberate attempt to appeal to emotions with pictures of carnage.

That you attempt to dismiss it with accusations of "conflation" and "dishonesty" simply highlights your own challenges with bias and a rational review of facts.

 

[Pete Tar]

Has the average wind-speed at elevated height been taken into calculation? That wind would act like a bellows, and a collapsed burning portion of building could easily form into an space that would act like an oven, amplifying heat massively in localised spots throughout the building.

Edit.
Also, most of the impressive pictures of burning buildings that have been posted are night time shots, where flames show up distinctly. A fire in the daylight is much less visually impressive or distinct.

 

[jomper]

The fact that the building was said to be in danger of collapse does not help to explain the way it collapsed. As I have said upthread, I do not think the NIST gif animation explains the evidence either.

​

 

[someGuy]

The following video has most likely already been posted somewhere, but I thought it was germane to the discussion. According to eyewitness accounts, WTC7 was about to collapse due to the raging fire. The footage is rather compelling.

​

Actually, the footage of building 7 included in this video (1:25) leaves no doubt regarding the intensity of the fire, it was nasty, "raging fire" is an appropriate description, IMO

Seems like the entire floor is burning, with wind blowing through it...A powerful combination, IMO, it looks like a giant forge/smithy

 

[Pete Tar]

... so yes I say it is a deliberate and dishonest attempt to portray 7's fires as far worse than they actually were.
...

This pic below is dishonest IMO, The main focus is on the right and the devastation... 7 is hardly noticeable unless it is sought out and the smoke is of unclear origin. Additionally... look at the damage on the edge of the far left building from impacts... no fires there!

This attempted dismissal implies that there are other photos of the building that were deliberately not posted. Please post them.

 

[Oxymoron]

This attempted dismissal implies that there are other photos of the building that were deliberately not posted. Please post them.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[George B]

I'm not sure what you mean about the #1283 post. You quote section 8.4.1, which says that the column could have failed by heating alone, but don't quote 8.2.4 (and the rest of the report), which discusses failure by loss of lateral support. The document goes into detail as to how the fires caused that loss of lateral support.

8.4.2 Column Failure by Loss of Lateral Support (increased unbraced length)Floors that frame into a column provide lateral support to the column. If a building had a regular floor-tofloor
height, h, then failure of one floor would result in an unbraced column length of 2h. Likewise,
failure of two floors would result in an unbraced column length of 3h, and so on. If a sufficient number
of floors were to fail, the column could buckle even if it were not weakened by heating. This simple
explanation assumes that the load on a column remains constant. In reality, the load on a column can
change as fires grow and spread and non-uniformly heat the steel frame. Such load redistribution is
accounted for in the analyses conducted in this investigation. The possibility of floor failure in fire is
explored in detail in later sections of this chapter.

Content from External Source

The leading hypothesis for the initiation of the collapse of WTC 7 involved:• Initial local fire-induced floor failures initiating in the tenant floors,
• At least one long unsupported column at the lower floors,
• Buckling of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large-span floor bay,
• An initial local failure that brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse, and
• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors that resulted in a progressive collapse
of the entire structure.
This hypothesis was supported by photographic and videographic evidence showing the collapse of the
east section of the roof and the kinking of the east penthouse.

Content from External Source

On reading . . Skimming the most technical areas . . . seems the findings are rather hypothetical . . . Me thinks the existence of hard temperature data would have been more definitive . . . they debunked later the blasts based on sound studies (8.9.2) but what of the more silent cutting capabilities of thermal cutting technology?

 

[Met Watch]

Has the average wind-speed at elevated height been taken into calculation? That wind would act like a bellows, and a collapsed burning portion of building could easily form into an space that would act like an oven, amplifying heat massively in localised spots throughout the building.

Hmm...good question. I can provide historical data from LGA for the day, at least until the collapse occurred.

KLGA 111151Z 32009KT 10SM FEW250 19/14 A3011
KLGA 111251Z 32009KT 10SM FEW250 20/14 A3013
KLGA 111351Z 34009KT 10SM FEW010 SCT250 22/13 A3013
KLGA 111451Z COR 32006KT 10SM FEW000 SCT250 23/13 A3012
KLGA 111551Z COR 34008KT 10SM FEW000 SCT050 SCT250 24/13 A3011 RMK AO2
SLP196 FU FEW000 FU AND DEBRIS PLUME SW FROM SFC-040 DRFTG SE
T02440128
KLGA 111651Z VRB05KT 10SM FEW005 SCT055 SCT250 25/13 A3009
KLGA 111751Z 33007KT 10SM FEW005 SCT055 26/13 A3008
KLGA 111851Z 35006KT 10SM FEW010 SCT060 26/13 A3007
KLGA 111951Z 35010KT 10SM FEW010 SCT060 27/12 A3005
KLGA 112051Z 36007KT 10SM FEW005 SCT060 27/12 A3005
KLGA 112151Z 35008KT 10SM FEW005 SCT065 27/13 A3005

Winds seemed to be largely out of the NW to N at about 5-10 knots, at the surface. Not sure how fast that is several stories up, although probably not that drastic of a difference.

 

[Pete Tar]

You claimed he was being dishonest in portraying the fire worse than it was. So there must be other available pictures that show the fire is not so bad.

 

[Pete Tar]

...

Winds seemed to be largely out of the NW to N at about 5-10 knots, at the surface. Not sure how fast that is several stories up, although probably not that drastic of a difference.

I always just assumed the wind had more force when you're up in a skyscraper. Too much TV.

 

[hiper]

It wasn't a forensic investigation. It was an investigation to figure out exactly why the building collapsed. They figured it out in great detail.

They figured for years.
And after years of figuring they come up with a report that does not contain a scientific investigation of the dust & steel.
Years...

But you said that it's not fire. You said you know this because of "thermodynamics".
So back that up. Explain.

A parameter NIST used to come up with the 3D model was heat conductivity.
NIST set this parameter to '0' which means the model does not let the heat transfer along the steel but instead keeps it focused on 1 spot.
A pc model will allow all kinds of funky stuff... nature won't.

J
Perhaps it's already been explored ad nauseum, but when the insurance claim was in fact paid, does anyone think that the insurance company would have been negligent to the point where they paid a claim on a building intentionally and without cause was demolished by its owner?

Would the insurance company dare to question the official government narrative? Of course not.

I, like you and others, would have much preferred that every conceivable angle had been attacked. But we have to deal with what is, not what we wish it to be.

Your patronising tone is misplaced.
We don't have to deal with NIST's dismal investigation.
A new official independent and scientific investigation is in order.

In backup of CWC:
The first of which was a volume-restrained thermobaric detonation four times the size of this:

You don't know what you are talking about.
The movie you pointed to is the unconfined detonation of a cloud of propylene oxide.
It is extremely difficult to even intentionally detonate a clould of kerosene due to it's very low vapor pressure and the subsequent very small
vapor phase inside the clould.
Kerosene deflagrates nothing more.

 

[Met Watch]

I always just assumed the wind had more force when you're up in a skyscraper. Too much TV.

I'd have to ask my professor, but I have read somewhere that wind speeds go up about 15-20 knots for every 30 floors you go up, at least in a tightly packed urban environment, and if you have it coming from the right direction. Streets in downtown Manhattan are mostly orientated close to ESE-WNW and NE-SW, especially right around the World Trade Center complex. Wind was orientated a bit too far north to have an optimal wind tunnel effect, so the wind speeds probably did increase a bit with height, but probably not by 15-20 knots every 30 floors.

 

[Mick West]

On reading . . Skimming the most technical areas . . . seems the findings are rather hypothetical . . . Me thinks the existence of hard temperature data would have been more definitive . . . they debunked later the blasts based on sound studies but what of the more silent cutting capabilities of thermal cutting technology?

It would have been great if they could have figured out the precise bits of steel that failed. But unfortunately clearing the site took priority.

Since the fire is by far an away the most obvious cause of collapse, you really need some actual evidence to go looking for esoteric explanations.

I think this is very hard for conspiracy theorists to wrap their heads around. The people conducting the investigation were not conspiracy theorists. I imagine their reaction to a suggestions of "silent thermal cutting technology" being involved in WTC7 would be "that is ridiculous".

For the theorists to really get a chance of having their concerns addressed, they need to demonstrate why a fire could not have done it.

 

[someGuy]

You claimed he was being dishonest in portraying the fire worse than it was. So there must be other available pictures that show the fire is not so bad.

Or simply that those pictures were not accurate enough to prove the point (doesn't mean there are better available), on which I agree, they were not really convicing because they don't show the origine of the smoke, it could have been the smoke generated by the previous collapses

That video submitted by CWC is way more convincing

 

[George B]

A parameter NIST used to come up with the 3D model was heat conductivity.
NIST set this parameter to '0' which means the model does not let the heat transfer along the steel but instead keeps it focused on 1 spot.
A pc model will allow all kinds of funky stuff... nature won't.

Where did you get this info?

 

[Mick West]

They figured for years.
And after years of figuring they come up with a report that does not contain a scientific investigation of the dust & steel.
Years...

If it was initially determined that no such study was needed, then why would "years" make any difference?

And studies of the dust and steel have been done. Nothing conclusive found.

 

[jomper]

fire is by far an away the most obvious cause of collapse

I think this is where we have to agree to disagree. I suggest that a reasonable person viewing the video evidence of the collapse of WTC 7 for the first time would not perceive it to be obviously caused by fire. I further suggest that this reasonable person would have questions about the peculiar nature of the building's collapse that would reasonably include testing for accelerants or other substances.

 

[SR1419]

Or simply that those pictures were not accurate enough to prove the point (doesn't mean there are better available), on which I agree, they were not really convicing because they don't show the origine of the smoke, it could have been the smoke generated by the previous collapses

That video submitted by CWC is way more convincing

The "point" was to provide an indication...which they did...admittedly not a perfect indication.

However, seeing as how the pictures were taken at least 4-5 hours after the collapse of WTC1&2..and we know that WTC7 was burning - the source is quite clear.



I agree the video is way more convincing.

 

[Mick West]

I think this is where we have to agree to disagree. I suggest that a reasonable person viewing the video evidence of the collapse of WTC 7 for the first time would not perceive it to be obviously caused by fire. I further suggest that this reasonable person would have questions about the peculiar nature of the building's collapse that would reasonably include testing for accelerants or other substances.

Sure, someone who had just watched some video might be suspicious. It resembles a controlled demolition from a simplistic visual perspective.

But what about a reasonable person who had watched it burn for eight hours, and watched the side of the building bulge and lean outwards?

See 20 seconds into here:

​

Or this:

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

What of a reasonable person (say that fireman in the video) who had watched it burn, watched it lean, and watched it collapse, and then read the NIST report. Would he also suspect silent thermite cutting?

 

[jomper]

It resembles a controlled demolition from a simplistic visual perspective

But in reality there's no actual need to test for that.

 

[Mick West]

But in reality there's no actual need to test for that.

Correct. Because simply looking somewhat like something in a video is not really evidence. What it looked like on the ground was evidence. People who were actually there saw the gradual deformation of the building, which is entirely unlike controlled demolition, and exactly like fire collapse.

 

[George B]

Sure, someone who had just watched some video might be suspicious. It resembles a controlled demolition from a simplistic visual perspective.

But what about a reasonable person who had watched it burn for eight hours, and watched the side of the building bulge and lean outwards?

See 20 seconds into here:

​

Or this:

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damage

What of a reasonable person (say that fireman in the video) who had watched it burn, watched it lean, and watched it collapse, and then read the NIST report. Would he also suspect silent thermite cutting?

How does leaning or burning preclude some targeted structural weakening . . . the key to a covert operation is to make it difficult or impossible to tell what you did to accomplish a mission . . .

 

[SR1419]

How does leaning or burning preclude some targeted structural weakening . . . the key to a covert operation is to make it difficult or impossible to tell what you did to accomplish a mission . . .

But this line of thinking would then suggest foreknowledge of collateral damage and burning....a highly suspect supposition.

 

[Mick West]

How does leaning or burning preclude some targeted structural weakening . . . the key to a covert operation is to make it difficult or impossible to tell what you did to accomplish a mission . . .

So you are saying that if they did it in a way that could not be detected, then we would not be able to tell?

 

[George B]

But this line of thinking would then suggest foreknowledge of collateral damage and burning....a highly suspect supposition.

That is the whole issue with WTC 7 . . . it is one of the following IMO
1) It happened something like NIST Reported
2) It was a crime of opportunity mediated by the intentional cut or degrading of water supply and pulling of firefighters
3) The people placing the technology to guarantee the collapse knew or expected there would be a fire for cover
4) There existed from construction a mechanism to bring the building down if too badly damaged in the least dangerous manner . . .

 

[someGuy]

So you are saying that if they did it in a way that could not be detected, then we would not be able to tell?

Sounds rather logical, it would be like trying to see infrared without some IR detector device
We could only tell that there's something missing, at best

 

[Met Watch]

Sounds rather logical, it would be like trying to see infrared without some IR detector device

But what is this method, where nothing could be detected and no evidence is left behind in the rubble?

 

[George B]

So you are saying that if they did it in a way that could not be detected, then we would not be able to tell?

It would be their desire that the evidence would be minimal or mixed with plausible existing evidence that could be interpreted as it has . . . especially when one controls the evidence, investigation and how it is reported . . .

 

[someGuy]

But what is this method, where nothing could be detected and no evidence is left behind in the rubble?

A new one I guess, something not available to the public

 

[Met Watch]

It would be their desire that the evidence would be minimal or mixed with plausible existing evidence that could be interpreted as it has . . . especially when one controls the evidence, investigation and how it is reported . . .

Why is everything secret and covert with you, George? So that it can make your theory seem more plausible? Anything is possible if there is an unknown variable(s) in there. What do you think happened that afternoon?

 

[jomper]

Correct. Because simply looking somewhat like something in a video is not really evidence. What it looked like on the ground was evidence. People who were actually there saw the gradual deformation of the building, which is entirely unlike controlled demolition, and exactly like fire collapse.

In other words, don't believe what you see.