WTC 7 (Building 7)

[Oxymoron]

In terms of fire resistance? Obviously.

So it is an unsafe design to use long span beam structures as any old office fire could collapse them?

Then why is this not made an issue and the design abandoned?

Such events will happen to any slender column long span beam structure unprotected from fire. That's why there's a security palaver.

How many buildings can you identify with this structure?

 

[jomper]

you don't know much

Breathtaking stuff.

 

[jomper]

Quite frankly, I am not sure that all of our modern buildings are built as sturdy as they used to be. A few years back, there was a condo here in Dallas that was under construction and a single wind gust collapsed it. It happened at night so no one was injured.

Well that certainly puts a different spin on the collapse of WTC 7.

 

[Oxymoron]

Breathtaking stuff.

Jazzy is exempt from the politeness policy as he can't quite understand it. I think it's the sun.

 

[Cairenn]

Not any 'old office fire'. One that is unfought and that expands to other areas and floors.

 

[Oxymoron]

Not any 'old office fire'. One that is unfought and that expands to other areas and floors.

But this is how they start off as any old office fire and then they can easily turn into infernos such as the ones I cited.

Jazzy is saying, and I may be prepared to accept, that it is an inherent fault in the design of ALL long span beam structures which made them fall.

If this is the case, people should know and the design, which they are still using, should be abandoned.

Is that unreasonable in any way?

 

[jomper]

Not any 'old office fire'. One that is unfought and that expands to other areas and floors.

Sure would be good to examine the actual steel from the building to see what happened to it under those conditions, huh.

 

[Cairenn]

I am SURE they would have, if they COULD have.

27. Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?
Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and to facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

Content from External Source

Please note the problem. The debris was mixed up and there was NO way to make sure what came from WTC 7. DUH

Should they have just taken some steel and guessed ? Would that have made you happy?

 

[jomper]

I am SURE they would have, if they COULD have.

27. Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?
Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and to facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

Content from External Source

Please note the problem. The debris was mixed up and there was NO way to make sure what came from WTC 7. DUH

Should they have just taken some steel and guessed ? Would that have made you happy?

How can you miss the point so completely? DUH

 

[Cairenn]

May I ask you HOW they were going to test the steel?

 

[Jazzy]

Is that unreasonable in any way?

For once, no.

 

[Cairenn]

There had been some discussions, down her in tornado alley about why did it seem that even F1 and F2 tornadoes were doing a lot of damage, especially to homes.

After one series of tornadoes in the area, one meteorologist noticed something. Roofs would be torn off on the side of the house where the attached garage was. He then started looking at photos of other tornado tracts and found the same thing. What was causing the damage was the tornado was blowing the garage doors in and then the roof off. Older neighborhoods without attached garages were not getting as much damage from the the same storm.

There is a reason that I have decided that if I have my dream home built, it will not have a common roof with the garage or carport. Sometimes newer designs have flaws that are not easily seen.

 

[jomper]

May I ask you HOW they were going to test the steel?

Are you suggesting NIST was not competent to carry out the further study of WTC 7 steel recommended by FEMA? You may be right.

 

[Jazzy]

Breathtaking stuff.

Now and then, a little fun is to be had.

Oxy is a clever guy, but a little conceptually-challenged in engineering and science. I like all the rest.

 

[Cairenn]

No I am not, I am suggesting that they didn't have the steel to check. It seems that folks were more interested in looking for injured and the dead, than they were making sure that they kept the steel separate. I suggest that you read into things WHAT YOU WANT it to SAY, not what is said.

 

[Jazzy]

Again, you form a theory after looking at all the evidence. You don't leave any out, like, for example, all the physical steel from the building.

The steel from the building would have been specified, selected, identified, delivered, its identity positively confirmed, before it was used in construction.

There are plans, construction files, transactions, parts lists, delivery notes. These records ARE evidence.

So one supposes they didn't leave out anything, not even the silent collapse. (For example).

What brought down WTC 7 was a fractured water main. The office fires would have been suppressed by the sprinkler system, and the building would have remained standing.

 

[George B]

The steel from the building would have been specified, selected, identified, delivered, its identity positively confirmed, before it was used in construction.

There are plans, construction files, transactions, parts lists, delivery notes. These records ARE evidence.

So one supposes they didn't leave out anything, not even the silent collapse. (For example).

What brought down WTC 7 was a fractured water main. The office fires would have been suppressed by the sprinkler system, and the building would have remained standing.

What fractured the water main? The fall of the debris from above? Did the debris penetrate the ground sufficiently to cut the water main or just the seismic jolt? Would these be expected? Or were they cut intintentionally by coconspirators. . . .?

 

[Jazzy]

What fractured the water main?

The collapse of WTC 1, I believe. According to the fire service. Was it a co-conspirator?

 

[George B]

The collapse of WTC 1, I believe. According to the fire service. Was it a co-conspirator?

How?

 

[Mick West]

How?

Are you really asking how thousands of tons of steel and concrete hitting the ground at over 100mph might possibly damage a water main?

 

[George B]

Are you really asking how thousands of tons of steel and concrete hitting the ground at over 100mph might possibly damage a water main?

Yes . . . how deep were the mains . . . they obviously continually withstood subway traffic, etc. . . .why would one assume that the fall of debris on the surface would necessarily rupture underground utilities . . . .maybe they should have investigated to determine if new safety CODES should be instituted. . . .

The Towers were bombed before near the foundations . . . . did the water mains rupture then?

 

[Jazzy]

How?

You're asking how the fire service might be a co-conspirator, or do you know already? Or is your attention already elsewhere?

 

[George B]

You're asking how the fire service might be a co-conspirator, or do you know already? Or is your attention already elsewhere?

Simple. . . .how did the water become non-available. . . did anyone ask the question? . . . or did they just assume the forces were a slam dunk . . . shouldn't it be investigated to harden critical utilities for fire suppression in the future ? If co-conspirators were ever considered . . . water and personnel to supress further damage would be a logical target . . . as I have indicated repeatedly terrorists often kill and then attempt to kill first responders and delay recovery to heighten the terror and improve their purpose . . .

 

[Agav8r]

The steel from the building would have been specified, selected, identified, delivered, its identity positively confirmed, before it was used in construction.

There are plans, construction files, transactions, parts lists, delivery notes. These records ARE evidence.

So one supposes they didn't leave out anything, not even the silent collapse. (For example).

What brought down WTC 7 was a fractured water main. The office fires would have been suppressed by the sprinkler system, and the building would have remained standing.

Jazzy, have you ever compared the collapse of WTC 1, 2, or 7 to the fire and collapse of the Faculty of Architecture building at Delft University in 2005? My limited understanding is that it was a 12 floor steel structure, no concrete reinforcement, that burned from a fire started by a coffee machine. The top 6 floors were destroyed, then ultimately collapsed starting near the bottom of the burned floors, and collapsed through the undamaged 6 floors underneath. Seems like many parallels to the WTC buildings, except for scale. I guess the argument that I keep seeing over and over from CTers is that fire cannot cause steel buildings to collapse, but this flies in the face of it. Just thought that as an engineer you would be able to shed light on any similarities or differences.

 

[George B]

Jazzy, have you ever compared the collapse of WTC 1, 2, or 7 to the fire and collapse of the Faculty of Architecture building at Delft University in 2005? My limited understanding is that it was a 12 floor steel structure, no concrete reinforcement, that burned from a fire started by a coffee machine. The top 6 floors were destroyed, then ultimately collapsed starting near the bottom of the burned floors, and collapsed through the undamaged 6 floors underneath. Seems like many parallels to the WTC buildings, except for scale. I guess the argument that I keep seeing over and over from CTers is that fire cannot cause steel buildings to collapse, but this flies in the face of it. Just thought that as an engineer you would be able to shed light on any similarities or differences.

Interesting . . .

http://www.brandweerkennisnet.nl/publish/pages/3777/sfpe_lund_conference_paper_final_meach... ABSTRACT
On the morning of May 13, 2008, a fire that started in a coffee vending machine on the 6th floor
of the 13-story Faculty of Architecture Building at the Delft University of Technology (TUD),
Delft, the Netherlands, quickly developed into an extreme loading event. Although all building
occupants evacuated safely, the rapid fire spread severely impacted fire department operations,
allowing the fire to burn uncontrolled for several hours, eventually resulting in the structural
collapse of a major portion of the building. With the fire continuing to burn after collapse,
damage was ultimately significant enough that the building had to be demolished. Collecting and
archiving data from this fire is extremely important because structural collapse of high-rise
buildings due to fire has historically been quite rare. There are several reasons for this, from the
overall infrequency of fire ignition in high-rise buildings, to the combination of structural fire
resistance of the frame, fire-rated compartment barriers, automatic fire suppression systems, and
fire department suppression activities generally associated with the fire protection strategy for
high-rise buildings. This event offers a unique opportunity to study the performance of a code compliant
high-rise building in a major fire wherein the outcome was different than might
typically be expected. In order to facilitate analyses of this event, researchers in the United States,
under a Small Grant for Exploratory Research (SGER) from the National Science Foundation
(NSF award 0840601), teamed up with researchers from TNO and Efectis in the Netherlands,
along with Prof. Kees van Weeren of the TUD Faculty of Architecture, to collect data on the fire
and collapse. A summary of data collected and outcomes of preliminary analyses are presented.

Content from External Source

 

[Agav8r]

Interesting . . .

http://www.brandweerkennisnet.nl/publish/pages/3777/sfpe_lund_conference_paper_final_meach... ABSTRACT
On the morning of May 13, 2008, a fire that started in a coffee vending machine on the 6th floor
of the 13-story Faculty of Architecture Building at the Delft University of Technology (TUD),
Delft, the Netherlands, quickly developed into an extreme loading event. Although all building
occupants evacuated safely, the rapid fire spread severely impacted fire department operations,
allowing the fire to burn uncontrolled for several hours, eventually resulting in the structural
collapse of a major portion of the building. With the fire continuing to burn after collapse,
damage was ultimately significant enough that the building had to be demolished. Collecting and
archiving data from this fire is extremely important because structural collapse of high-rise
buildings due to fire has historically been quite rare. There are several reasons for this, from the
overall infrequency of fire ignition in high-rise buildings, to the combination of structural fire
resistance of the frame, fire-rated compartment barriers, automatic fire suppression systems, and
fire department suppression activities generally associated with the fire protection strategy for
high-rise buildings. This event offers a unique opportunity to study the performance of a code compliant
high-rise building in a major fire wherein the outcome was different than might
typically be expected. In order to facilitate analyses of this event, researchers in the United States,
under a Small Grant for Exploratory Research (SGER) from the National Science Foundation
(NSF award 0840601), teamed up with researchers from TNO and Efectis in the Netherlands,
along with Prof. Kees van Weeren of the TUD Faculty of Architecture, to collect data on the fire
and collapse. A summary of data collected and outcomes of preliminary analyses are presented.

Content from External Source

Wrong year, my bad. Was going off memory there. Yes, I understand that it was a portion of the building, but it is also my understanding (could be wrong) that each part of that building had its own foundation, along with firewalls that prevented the spread to those other sections. This is obviously not the technical wording, but basically each section was its own building, with its own footprint, so you would not expect the undamaged areas to collapse. Unlike WTC 1 and 2, and maybe unlike WTC 7? Not entirely comparable, I get that, but I believe it should at least be definitive proof that fire can, in fact, cause steel to fail and collapse.

 

[hiper]

27. Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?
Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and to facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

Content from External Source

That's a very reasonable explanation. I can live with that. I'll go back to sleep now.

But you didn't get it.

That the WTC fire-exposed steel lost half its strength, was only the beginning of the story. It also crept, in other words, became plastic and allowed loadings to be transferred, columns to be bent away from their center line, beams to expand beyond their design limits, and the affected floors to sag to the point where their fixings sheared off. The columns cannot stand on their own, and rely on the floors for structural stability. Once floors detach, they may cascade the floors beneath by impact. The unsupported columns will immediately buckle, as their stability diminishes proportionally to the square of their unrestrained length.

Such events will happen to any slender column long span beam structure unprotected from fire. That's why there's a security palaver.

Jazzy let me ask you a question...

What do you think would happen if (for kicks) NIST tested a sample of the WTC dust?

 

[George B]

Simple. . . .how did the water become non-available. . . did anyone ask the question? . . . or did they just assume the forces were a slam dunk . . . shouldn't it be investigated to harden critical utilities for fire suppression in the future ? If co-conspirators were ever considered . . . water and personnel to supress further damage would be a logical target . . . as I have indicated repeatedly terrorists often kill and then attempt to kill first responders and delay recovery to heighten the terror and improve their purpose . . .

Seems they didn't try to identify the source of the damage or how extensive . . . they simply made the assumption it was caused by the collapse of 1 and 2 . . . end of any questions . . . http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

23. Why did WTC 7's sprinkler systems fail during the fires?
The sprinkler systems did not fail. The collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 damaged the city water main. The water main served as both the primary and backup source of water for the sprinkler system in the lower 20 floors. Therefore, the sprinkler system could not function. In contrast, the sprinklers and standpipes on the building's middle levels (21st floor through 39th floor) and upper levels (40th floor through 47th floor) received water from two large overhead storage tanks on the 46th floor, and used the city's water mains as a backup.

Content from External Source

 

[George B]

Here is a good question . . . I don't think there has been a satisfactory answer on WTC 7 . . . if thermal expansion was the reason for the collapse and it took many hours to occur . . . the how did the lower part of the building burn so long . . . what was burning???

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/nist-wtc-7-fire-conclusion-blatantly-contradicts-fema-report How impressive could this "thermal expansion" be to explain the collapseof WTC 7? We can only turn to NIST who explain helpfully, "At any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed." To put this in perspective, WTC 7 collapsedat 5:20 p.m., many hours after the fires were started. The collapse was notentirely a surprise apparently, as some news organizations were reporting it collapsing before it collapsed. Quoting expert opinions and contradictions in NIST'sexplanation, George Washington also writes:

Continue reading at NowPublic.com: NIST WTC 7 "Fire" Conclusion BlatantlyContradicts FEMA Report | NowPublic News Coveragehttp://www.nowpublic.com/world/nist-wtc-7-fire-conclusion-blatantly-contradicts-fema-report#ixzz2QvoFbcGE

Content from External Source

 

[Jazzy]

Simple. . . .how did the water become non-available. . . did anyone ask the question? . . . or did they just assume the forces were a slam dunk . . . shouldn't it be investigated to harden critical utilities for fire suppression in the future ? If co-conspirators were ever considered . . . water and personnel to supress further damage would be a logical target . . . as I have indicated repeatedly terrorists often kill and then attempt to kill first responders and delay recovery to heighten the terror and improve their purpose . . .

Main broken by seismic movement. Yes. No. No. Yes. Yes.

Do you want to help terrorists?

 

[Jazzy]

Jazzy, have you ever compared the collapse of WTC 1, 2, or 7 to the fire and collapse of the Faculty of Architecture building at Delft University in 2005? My limited understanding is that it was a 12 floor steel structure, no concrete reinforcement, that burned from a fire started by a coffee machine. The top 6 floors were destroyed, then ultimately collapsed starting near the bottom of the burned floors, and collapsed through the undamaged 6 floors underneath. Seems like many parallels to the WTC buildings, except for scale. I guess the argument that I keep seeing over and over from CTers is that fire cannot cause steel buildings to collapse, but this flies in the face of it. Just thought that as an engineer you would be able to shed light on any similarities or differences.

I'm not familiar with the Delft event. I thought my previous description was clear. There are many ways open to engineers to make such buildings safer.

In response to Oxy, there must be many building designs which took their lead from those WTC structures. Architects are quite free to innovate, as long as they can back up their calculations. But sometimes ramifications get themselves overlooked.

The safety scenarios ring very familiar to the aircraft industry, where it is known that deaths precede proper safety analysis and recommendations. It's the human condition, and not some damn stupid "conspiracy".

 

[hiper]

This gentlemen without problem admitted his institution loosing 2.3 trillion dollars and did this on 10/9/2001.

This gentlemen was thinking the smartest thing would be to pull WTC7.

The safety scenarios ring very familiar to the aircraft industry, where it is known that deaths precede proper safety analysis and recommendations. It's the human condition,

The human condition : "yes plenty of historical evidence of governments fucking over their people...but not our government"

some damn stupid "conspiracy"

Come on now Jazzy don't let it slip now...

Again what do you think would happen if (for kicks) NIST tested a sample of the WTC dust? Anyone?

 

[George B]

Main broken by seismic movement. Yes. No. No. Yes. Yes.

Do you want to help terrorists?

No, I just want a computer simulation . . . that seems to be the standard of proof for NIST. . . It deserves at least that since it is the CAUSE of the collapse of WTC 7. . .

 

[George B]

This gentlemen without problem admitted his institution loosing 2.3 trillion dollars and did this on 10/9/2001.

This gentlemen was thinking the smartest thing would be to pull WTC7.



The human condition : "yes plenty of historical evidence of governments fucking over their people...but not our government"



Come on now Jazzy don't let it slip now...

Again what do you think would happen if (for kicks) NIST tested a sample of the WTC dust? Anyone?

Why test real evidence when you can computer simulate it and withhold critical data??????

 

[Mick West]

This gentlemen [Donald Rumsfeld] without problem admitted his institution loosing 2.3 trillion dollars and did this on 10/9/2001.

False:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/16...annot-track-2-3-trillion-in-transactions-quot

This gentlemen [Larry Silverstein] was thinking the smartest thing would be to pull WTC7.

What? Pull it down with cables? No, he meant pull the firefighting operation.

 

[hiper]

False:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/16...annot-track-2-3-trillion-in-transactions-quot

Ok.

But here we see the secretary of defense helping out the wounded...
This is the secretary of defense of the United States of America during the worst terrorist incident in it's history...

What? Pull it down with cables? No, he meant pull the firefighting operation.

Again it looks like a duck and it walks like it to... but yet again! it's not a duck!

Mick would you like to answer my question?

What do you think would happen if (for kicks) NIST tested a sample of the WTC dust?

 

[Jazzy]

No, I just want a computer simulation. that seems to be the standard of proof for NIST. It deserves at least that since it is the CAUSE of the collapse of WTC 7.

But the simulation is NOT the proof.

The proof is laid out in the timeline and development of the fire situation. It is false to argue that a further confirmation of the proof by simulation is invalidated by the non-release of the input data for the simulation. The input data accounting for the fire timeline and resulting collapse is already sufficient proof, in that there are no sensible arguments which can be raised to the contrary, and the simulation, showing a reasonable match with the photographic and video record, acts as a further confirmation.

To insist on the simulation input data is to insist that terrorists have access to it, and at this point my politeness will probably end.

 

[Mick West]

Mick would you like to answer my question?

What do you think would happen if (for kicks) NIST tested a sample of the WTC dust?

Tested it for what?

There is a huge range of materials and particle morphologies in the dust.

 

[hiper]

Tested it for what?

For the thermitic residue found by an independent team of researchers.
After all these people are no tinfoil batshit individuals like myself.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm

Don't you find it a little bit weird NIST stubbornly refuses any testing of the dust...

 

[Oxymoron]

Jazzy is saying, and I may be prepared to accept, that it is an inherent fault in the design of ALL long span beam structures which made them fall.

If this is the case, people should know and the design, which they are still using, should be abandoned.

Is that unreasonable in any way?

For once, no.

Poor me. Well at least Jazzy thinks I am not being unreasonable if no one else does.

It seems an extremely relevant point to me. If we are to believe that a 'relatively small' fire, (to the ones cited where the buildings did not collapse), brought down WTC7 due to an inherent design fault, it should be made public. Questions should be asked at an appropriate level; action should be taken to remedy.

Or am I still being unreasonable?