Collapse due to steel weakend by fire?? Rubbish!

[nebula]

According to the official theory, the Twin Towers collapsed due to the structural steel being weakened by fire. In other words, they collapsed due to fire. if that's the case, then how come no modern high-rise, before or after 9/11, has ever collapsed because of a fire?? If that's the case, 9/11 would be the first time in history a modern steel building has ever collapsed due to fire or steal weakened by fire.




For example, why didn't this building collapse?



1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38-floor building. 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3-1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members".


Or this one?




Or this one?



Skyscraper in Madrid Spain burned for almost 24 hours, no collapse.

These out of control infernos burned much more longer and much more intensely,
but remained standing.



Compared to this weak, under control smoldering fire, burned less than an hour,
which caused the WTC towers to collapse but the others are standing!??

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Here you go...

http://ae911truth.info/misinfo/aeppt97/03235.html

None of those buildings had remotely similar circumstances, and many had very different construction affecting how they reacted.

[nebula]

2. What a load

LOL!

[BadgerLaw2010]

6. "Load" is actually the correct word. Not that I expect you to understand why.

[nebula]

3. The official story

states specifically, the Twin Tower collapses were due to STEEL BEING WEAKENED BY FIRE, not because of any design flaws.

The official story says NOTHING about the design of the towers being a factor in the collapse.
because to do is to claim that the design of the towers were defective or deficient in some way. If a one hour fire can cause a building to collapse, then obviously the design of that building would be GROSSLY flawed.

The official story does not claim that the design of the twin towers were deficient or defective in any way.

[AZCat]

5. The so-called "official story" is not the end of the story.

There is some dispute about the robustness of the design of the towers.

[nebula]

12. Moving the goalposts again are we?

What happened to the steel weakened by fire story?


http://www.bcfc.co.uk/javaImages/6a/ef/0,,10327~2944874,00.jpg

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Besides the debate over the robustness or not in the design of the Towers...

I wonder if you can look at that bottom picture you posted in the OP, the one of the Towers, and tell me if you see any flaws in them both.

Can you? I can.

[Laurier]

18. Well, no.

The towers collapsed as a result of a combination of the impact of large commercial airliners at high speed, the ensuing large scale fires several acres in size, the concomitant damage to the buildings and loss of sprayed on fire resistant material, the magnitude and location of the bulk of the fires rendering firefighting virtually impossible, and the ultimate inability of the structures to bear these multiple insults to their structural integrity.

When numerous factors, such as in this case, contribute to the ultimate result, they cannot legitimately be segregated from each other in order to pretend that they did not co-exist or that any one of them alone was responsible for the collapses.

[vincent_vega_lives]

29. Well said. You saved my fingers for another day (n/t)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. the buildings were rocked from the bottom

one could feel the ground move

[hack89]

7. You don't even understand the official story

you do understand that if the WTC had not been hit by 767s, they would have most likely survived the fires.

why do you still include the Madrid tower - you know very well it was mainly constructed of concrete and that the steel portions did collapse.

[wildbilln864]

9. Building #7 wasn't hit by a plane.

No steel framed high rise building has ever completely collapsed for any reason let alone from fire.
:eyes: "It's gone man!"

[Bolo Boffin]

10. It was hit by debris from the North Tower. It also burned for seven hours

and the fire was never fought by the fire department UNLIKE every other building ever cited by the Truth Movement.

[wildbilln864]

11. Hey didn't you get the memo from your fellow no-truther?

It was hit by some debris yes. Not enough to cause complete and global collapse however. And what do you suppose vaporized the steel in those three buildings? :eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

14. If the damage alone would have caused complete and global collapse

it would have collapsed immediately.

It needed the fire. The fire worked together with all the other factors. NIST's hypothesis, in fact, will show that the fires alone were sufficient to take down the building. All of the other problems were just icing on the cake.

What vaporized the steel? High heat. The fires underneath the Pile burned plenty hot enough to "vaporize" steel to the extent that it was.

[wildbilln864]

17. " The fires underneath the Pile burned plenty hot enough to "vaporize" steel to the extent that it "

Incorrect speculation by you. You do know what a hypothesis is don't you? Psst! It is a guess, man.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Not an incorrect speculation by me. Haven't you seen those thermal images of heat

coming off the Pile?

Thermite doesn't burn like that. It's an irresistable, rapid chemical reaction. It doesn't last for five months. Fires last for five months.

[vincent_vega_lives]

44. Triage

gotta cut some loose sometimes bud.

[wildbilln864]

63. yes it was....

steel melts at 2700 degrees F! How much higher temperature is required to evaporate it? It's for certain that no hydrocarbon fuel burns above 2000 degrees F. :eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Wildbill, you refuse to understand the situation.

That's your prerogative. It's fine. Do what you want to do.

But how have we been melting steel all this time, even though no hydrocarbon fuel burns about 2000 degrees? How? How? When you allow that knowledge to enter your thinking, you will understand how temperatures under the Pile reached those levels even though it was only the contents of an office that was burning.

[wildbilln864]

66. Man!

With foundries bolo. Specifically designed for that purpose. Ever heard of a carbon arc furnace, bolo? Oxygen? :eyes: You're the one refusing to understand the situation, not me.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. And thus begins the intelligent design portion of this discussion.

So only foundries specifically designed can produce those kinds of temperatures? Is that your final answer?

[wildbilln864]

84. Are you changing the subject to ID?

:rofl: That'd be off topic and this is the wrong forum for it. Or are you trying to avoid the facts again? Not going to let you. The maximum temperatures for hydrocarbon fires is about 1800 degrees. Steel melts at 2700 degrees. Both of those are Fahrenheit BTW.

[Bolo Boffin]

89. No, just pointing out in this oft-repeated conversation how similar the logical fallacies

in the ID movement and the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Heat energy doesn't need a specially designed anything to accumulate. All it needs are the right conditions. Massive amounts of fuel, plenty of insulation, and oxygen enough for human observers are the conditions under the Pile. They are perfect for heat accumulation.

Again and again we say this. Maybe we could just do posting by numbers these days.

WB: 11! :rofl:

BB: 37. *sigh*

[wildbilln864]

94. And again....

steel melts at 2700 degrees F.! Hydrocarbon fuel sources maximum temps can only reach about 1800 degrees F! Let that sink in for a while.
You may believe the bullshit you're shoveling but it's still bullshit. Reminds me of another false statement you made about the collapses being like a sledge hammer meeting a lemon pie. False also. :eyes: Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it. It's still false. linky

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. WTC 5 & WTC 6 were hit by MORE debris than 7 was, and they completely burned out....

why didn't *they* fall?? And save the story about the superspecial "unique design" because it's complete bullshit, as is the "well, they were *smaller* buildings... :eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Oh, well, if you're going to specifically exclude the actual reasons

then it must have been space aliens.

[Ghost in the Machine]

32. "The actual reasons"...

:rofl:

Let me regain my composure.....


Fig. 8: A FEMA diagram depicts debris distribution from the collapses of WTC1 and 2. Dotted, darker orange, and light orange areas denote heaviest, heavy, and lighter debris distribution respectively. Red 'X' marks denote isolated perimeter columns ejected farther than average debris distribution.


Fig. 11: Part IIC – WTC 7 Collapse - Final

Interim Report on WTC7 (page L-18)

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m. firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building.

• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8

• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving

• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed.

More info here: http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/



Please explain, in detail, why WTCs 3,4,5&6, which took the brunt of the debris, were still standing yet WTC 7, which was impacted by only LIGHT debris, totally collapsed.

WTC 3



WTC 4



WTC 5&6



http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc3456.html


I'll be waiting for an intelligent reply from you...

Thanks

[Bolo Boffin]

35. As soon as you're ready to listen to reality, you let me know. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

40. Whose reality? Are you saying FEMA got it wrong?

Fig. 8: A FEMA diagram depicts debris distribution from the collapses of WTC1 and 2. Dotted, darker orange, and light orange areas denote heaviest, heavy, and lighter debris distribution respectively. Red 'X' marks denote isolated perimeter columns ejected farther than average debris distribution.

Are these charts wrong? WTC6 took the brunt of the debris hit from WTC1, did it not? WTC6 did not totally collapse even though it sustained catastrophic damage right through the center of it, did it?

Whose reality are we dealing with?

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Reality reality. You've already dismissed the actual reasons because of your personal

incredulity. You're saying, "Give me the answer, but don't give me the answer." That's not a rational request, and I can't do anything with it.

[Ghost in the Machine]

45. personal incredulity?.... try "educated opinion, bolo...

because I can guarantee you that I've erected more steel buildings in a year than you have in your lifetime... and that's just 1 year of the 25 years experience that I have in iron working, steel erecting, welding, framing and commercial roofing.

What experience do you have in the subject of which you speak? While you were going to college and dancing on the Love Boat, I was working on the Radisson Hotel in Miami, the Airport Hilton in Miami, The Miami Herald building, The CenTrust Tower in downtown Miami (now known as the Bank of America Tower), the SouthEast Bank Center (now known as the Wachovia Financial Center), and many others over the years, including schools, churches, hospitals, shopping centers, condominiums, apartment buildings and even houses.

I've built with wood, light gauge metal studs and steel. I've worked with architects and engineers due to having to do field modifications because blueprints were off and various other reasons. I've field fabricated metal trusses that were 35' tall at the apex & 85' long, with built in hips, valleys and dormers. I've field fabricated metal trusses that were 47' tall at the apex and 102' long, again with built in hips, valleys & dormers. I've had to modify these on the fly, also. Sometimes foundation layouts get a little off, or the the steel framing can be out of square, so I've had to compensate for that. Sometimes load bearing walls are built in the wrong place and the site superintendant thinks it's easier(and cheaper) to modify a truss than it is to tear down a wall and rebuild it...

Now tell me again about your cantilever designs and superspecial unique designs... and the experience YOU have in working with them...

Sometimes "personal incredulity" is born out of personal & professional experience... what's your experience?

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Whoop-de-do.

There's only two buildings you list there that are remotely comparable to WTC 7, and that's the old CenTrust building and the old SouthEast building.

Here's the CenTrust building under construction, and on fire.



Remember that day? I'm sure you do. I'm sure you remember those concrete-reinforced perimeter columns as well. Those make this different from 7 World Trade.

Also, the footprint of the entire building might make it to football-field size, but the actual 37 floor tower isn't half that. WTC 7 was 47 football fields on top of each other.

Which brings us to the SouthEast building. That's a big building. Taller even than 7 World Trade. It's got 22,000 square feet of office space on a typical floor, according to Wiki.

7 WTC had 47,000 square feet of office space per floor. That's two of your SouthEast buildings, all made of structural steel, all with core columns that stop around the fifth to seventh floor, mesh into a dense web of transfer trusses, and pick up again in different places than where they were below. Anything like that in the SouthEast building?

This is a link to the NIST Interim Report on WTC 7, Ghost.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf (PDF)

That is not me and my experience, Ghost. That's where I'm getting my information from. I'm really glad you drew to a full house, but I've had a straight flush from the flop.

Look at that report, especially at the information about the fifth and seventh floor. When the east mechanical penthouse fell into the building, it and the section of floors below it all crashed down into two crucial transfer trusses. Those trusses were supporting the core, keeping it from moving east. When they were gone, the core moves (you can see the other penthouse falling east to west very quickly as the rest of the building starts to fall). Without the core, the rest of the building is just going to go down.

Now tell me true. Do you really expect a building the size of two SouthEast buildings to respond the same way to a massive fire or falling debris as a squat, dense grid, eight story structure? Really? When the stakes are so immense and concentrated?

[Ghost in the Machine]

57. So you have nothing....

no engineering experience, no architectural experience, no construction experience.... NOTHING.... except your rabid adherence to the NIST report, which you seemingly parrot without understanding. You *do* know that even several of your fellow OCT supporters say the NIST report isn't the be all end all... in fact, one said that it isn't the "gospel" of 9-11 and had some flaws. (ok, this is just mostly reactionary bluster due to your dismissive "Whoop-de-do" response & attitude) :evilgrin:


BTW, do you have proof of these "massive fires"?

"Building 7 had a number of fires of limited extent and unknown duration before its precipitous total collapse at 5:20 PM. Official reports assume that debris from the fall of the North Tower ignited fires at 10:29 AM.


This photograph from FEMA's report, and others like it, appear to be the only evidence of emergent flames.



Photographs of the building's north face show only small, barely visible fires. Photographs of the building's east face, apparently from the mid-afternoon, show flames emerging from an isolated section of the 11th floor. Photographs of the building's west face, apparently from the late afternoon, show several areas with smoke stains, but don't show any flames. There appear to be no photographs of Building 7 from a time shortly before its collapse that show large active fires. The photograph below, taken in the afternoon, shows the upper half of Building 7 from the south. There are no signs of fire.



FEMA's report blamed the collapse of Building 7 primarily on fires, though it was inconclusive. NIST's investigation placed much more weight on claims of severe structural damage to the building. Nonetheless, all theories of the collapse that exclude demolition are necessarily primarily fire theories, since the building collapsed almost seven hours after incurring any structural damage from North Tower fallout. It is thus striking that other skyscraper fires exhibited fires that were far more extensive and long-lasting that Building 7's, but none of these other buildings collapsed.


Despite the fact that the fires in Building 7 were relatively small and short-lasting compared to other office fires, a decision was made not to fight them. Chapter 5 of FEMA's Report implies that lack of water was the basis for this decision:

It appeared that water on site was limited due to a 20-inch broken water main in Vesey Street. Although WTC 7 was sprinklered, it did not appear that there would have been a sufficient quantity of water to control the growth and spread of the fires on multiple floors. In addition, the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities.

This explanation is highly dubious given that Building 7 was only about two blocks from the Hudson."
http://www.wtc7.net/b7fires.html

Do you have or know of any photos of the "massive fire" and extensive damage to WTC7? I can't seem to find any. How about photos of the debris in front of WTC7? Surely there's some pictures somewhere, taken before the building collapsed, right? 7 hours burning before collapse and no photos exist of anything? Can you point me to some other proof besides the NIST?

[Bolo Boffin]

61. "Give me the answers, but don't give me the answers!"

Yes, I'm aware that the NIST report isn't the last word. The people at NIST are aware of it, too. It's their Final Report, but it's the nature of scientific inquiry to study other factors.

But it has to be done rationally, and it has to deal with available evidence. You're excluding factors right and left based on your whim. Tell me something, how much of the SouthEast tower did they ask you your opinion on changing while they were building it? When the CenTrust bank caught on fire, when exactly did they call you in to access the damage and figure out how to proceed?

If the choice is between the NIST report and laser beams, you better believe I'm rabidly adhering to the NIST report.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage


That's WTC 7. That's two of your SouthEast buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

And that's two of your SouthEast buildings on fire. Go back to the top link and read how the firefighters describe that building. "Fully involved," they say. "Fires on all 47 floors," they say. "you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block," one says.

Now how are they all lying, Ghost?

[Ghost in the Machine]

69. Now I see where some of you guys get the "unreliable eyewitness testimony" meme from:

Just like people who described seeing a missle or small jet hitting the Pentagon... or a plane flying over it...

"Go back to the top link and read how the firefighters describe that building. "Fully involved," they say. "Fires on all 47 floors," they say. "you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block," one says."

And yet there is not one, NOT ONE, photograph or videotape that backs these claims up. If you know of one, please provide a link to a photo of WTC7 "fully engulfed" with "flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other"...

Hint: There are none...

I agree with you about believing NIST over laser beams, but I haven't said a word about laser beams, have I? That's just distraction on your part...

The FEMA debris zones show LIGHT debris from Tower 1 and NO debris from Tower 2 reaching WTC7. Reports from firefighters checking WTC7 after Tower 1 collapsed state that there were "sparse fires" and "mostly dust & hanging wires" in the Lobby...

I'm also starting to take exception to the term "cantilever" in describing the building design. From looking at the structural details, there weren't any cantilevers, just a change in direction of the floor trusses. All the trusses had supports under them on the ends, whereas cantilevers do not.

I tried to do you a crude a drawing in paintshop pro to show the difference between a cantilever and trusses connecting to a girder truss and changing direction, but maybe one of our resident architects or engineers can explain it to you better. I think you're confusing the truss direction change in the "V" shape of the building with a cantilever...



Sorry it's so crude, but it was easier at the moment than going through my Home Design Architectural Series 18 software...

[Bolo Boffin]

70. Firefighters looking at a burning building? Unreliable eyewitnesses? Really?

I don't understand how you can look at the Spak videotape I linked to and think that the building isn't blazing away. I really don't.

You haven't said anything about laser beams, no. But you've got the same rhetoric about rabid clinging to the NIST report as they do. I should be happy. At least we've established that NIST bears a modicum of responsibility and authority here.

Jon Peruggia was in 7 when 2 (the South Tower, the first to collapse) collapsed.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110160.PDF (PDF)

Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7.

We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.

Q. Were you injured?

A. Yes, I saw some stuff had fallen on me. I didn't believe that I was injured at that time. I discovered later on I was injured. I had some shards of glass impaled in my head, but once I was able to get all this debris and rubble off of me and cover my face with my jacket so that I could breathe, it was very thick dust, you couldn't see. We heard some sounds. We reached out and felt our way around.

Debris from the South Tower did indeed reach 7.

Here is a picture of the road between 7 and the rest of the WTC Complex, after the North Tower fell.



That's the pedestrian bridge and promenade that used to span over the road between 7 and the rest of the Complex. They are now on the ground.

When they were ripped out of 7, do you think it left a mark?

Look at the perimeter columns from the towers there.

The beams being marked as cantilevers don't have support on the ends of them.

[Ghost in the Machine]

72. "The beams being marked as cantilevers don't have support on the ends of them."

You just proved you have no clue as to what you're talking about, bolo... are you saying the blueprints are wrong, too?

Here, I spelled it out for you, ok?



Again, you should look up what a 'cantilever' is... it's an overhang... this design IS NOT a cantilever, it's merely a change in direction of trusses to accomodate the building design. The ends are completely supported.

Do you know how to read a blueprint? A layout? How many construction sites have you been on? How many blueprints have you read? How many buildings have you erected? When asked about your experience or qualififcations, you always state that they are irrelevant and don't give them. Well my friend, you are wrong about that. The only qualifications and education I've seen about you is that you graduated from Jesus College and you were an actor on a cruise ship. I don't need an actor to tell me *anything* about construction, and until you prove otherwise, I will consider you completely unqualified to speak to me about construction. Anyone can copy`n`paste info from another site, without really understanding what they're copying & pasting...

As for your photo, you *do* know that it was taken from under the pedestrian bridge, looking at WTC 6, right? Apparently not:

"That's the pedestrian bridge and promenade that used to span over the road between 7 and the rest of the Complex. They are now on the ground."

You are completely wrong. Here's the pedestrian bridge, still intact after the collapse of WTC1, from the same photographer....



Here's the same photo you supplied:


A photograph from under the pedestrian bridge looking towards the promenade shows WTC heavy debris (perimeter column trees) to the left near WTC6.

I would suggest that you familiarize yourself a little bit more with the information you post... you totally blew this one... I would also suggest that you spend some time reading here: http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Your complete duplicity in the discussion is duly noted. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

74. Your complete lack of knowledge of construction is duly noted also..

as is your reaction to being proven wrong... it's not the end of the world, ya know. You should be thankful and embrace the education you got.

Here's you a picture of what a cantilever is:



The 'cantilever' is the small piece of steel hanging over the beam... NOT the whole truss itself.. and you can also see the support column underneath the truss..

[Bolo Boffin]

76. So it is YOU that knows nothing about which you're talking. Thanks for clearing that up.

1. When I was talking about the beams not being supported at the ends, I was (laughingly enough) talking about the ends. The ends, that you so helpfully pointed out ARE cantilevered. It isn't often that my debate opponent provides the actual proof of what I'm talking about so nonchalantly, but then again, this is the September 11th forum.

2. Now while you've admitted implicitly that I was correct in describing those beams as cantilevered, I'd like to get you on record and ask a very simple question. The support columns you labeled there in BLUE and the support columns you labeled in RED in the previous diagram -- are you indicating the SAME support columns in each one?

3. You are aware, of course, that the beams in question are over the ConEd substation already built on the site. Do you know how much weight was actually being redistributed through the ConEd substation structure? Perhaps you see where I'm going with this -- if the answer is "not much at all", as in "enough to simply help the balance and not really support the building", then "cantilever" really would be a good way to describe those beams.

4. Please provide any examples of similar structures to those transfer girders in any building that you helped construct, especially those of your design. Be sure to indicate the ones you designed and the ones you did not.

5. Please provide some examples of how you were consulted when the CenTrust building caught on fire and work was delayed for about a month. If the extent of your being consulted was "Report back to work in a month," then feel free to ignore this subject again.

6. Also, any examples of any load-bearing structure onsite at the SouthEast building that were moved at your initiation and by your plans would be helpful. Passing plans made by others along to your fellow workers would again be great occasion to simply ignore this subject.

7. The passenger bridge in the Cirone pictures above -- tell me, how does it remain suspended in the air like that? Surely you don't think that was its original position. Even in your picture, the bridge is clearly lying on the ground that's elevated there beside the road. And the promanade is where again? Isn't that the silliest thing you could argue in this situation? Again, I ask you, when those two structures were ripped out of the building, don't you think that left a mark? Hmm?

Perhaps you could just cut and paste these questions and then provide your answers to each. Then feel free to start maligning my character again. God knows I hate to disappoint my fan club.

[Ghost in the Machine]

81. Nope, you're still wrong...

"1. When I was talking about the beams not being supported at the ends, I was (laughingly enough) talking about the ends. The ends, that you so helpfully pointed out ARE cantilevered. It isn't often that my debate opponent provides the actual proof of what I'm talking about so nonchalantly, but then again, this is the September 11th forum."

Nice backtrack, but you've described the whole wing sections where the trusses change positions as your "cantilever design".. this is also evident from your question #3: "if the answer is "not much at all", as in "enough to simply help the balance and not really support the building", then "cantilever" really would be a good way to describe those beams." No, there is no friggin' "cantilever design". Period. Just because a truss has a cantilever on it does NOT mean that the structure was "built on a cantilever design". What a laugh riot this is becoming. Do you honestly think they just built around and over the ConEd station? Please provide a drawing of how you think this building was built in the manner you describe. Also, if the existing building was only 'balancing' the rest of the new construction, the theory of the core being damaged and causing collapse goes right out the window... doesn't it?

"5. Please provide some examples of how you were consulted when the CenTrust building caught on fire and work was delayed for about a month. If the extent of your being consulted was "Report back to work in a month," then feel free to ignore this subject again.

6. Also, any examples of any load-bearing structure onsite at the SouthEast building that were moved at your initiation and by your plans would be helpful. Passing plans made by others along to your fellow workers would again be great occasion to simply ignore this subject."

Please provide a link, or copy & paste where I said I was consulted about anything on this building. I said I worked on erecting it. It helps if you comprehend what you read, then retain it for later discussion... and btw, this discussion is about WTC7, not the CenTrust or SouthEast towers... just in case you forgot..

"7. The passenger bridge in the Cirone pictures above -- tell me, how does it remain suspended in the air like that? Surely you don't think that was its original position. Even in your picture, the bridge is clearly lying on the ground that's elevated there beside the road."

What a load of shit! Do you not understand the meaning of "intact"? Please point out this "ground that's elevated there beside the road" in the photo below....



Do you see any 'elevated ground' anywhere near the pedestrian bridge? I didn't think so... The bridge was attached at the second floor level, where it remains in the photo I supplied to you. You *should* be able to tell this by judging height from the damaged vehicle in the photo. The bottom of the bridge is still sitting at the 2nd floor elevation.

As for the rest of your post, I won't provide you with a damned thing until you do so yourself. I've provided you with more than enough information of *my* experience and qualifications... you have provided absolutely NOTHING in return in this respect. NOTHING. Until you do so, you're out of luck...

Malign your character? If pointing out your error is 'maligning your character', I'll do it all day long...

[Bolo Boffin]

92. How sad.

I've quoted a portion of the interim report here. It's on page L-14 and L-15 (pdf 18-19).

The layout of the substructure and Con Edison columns did not align with the column layout in the upper portion of WTC 7. Therefore a series of column transfers were constructed. These transfers occurred primarily between Floors 5 and 7. See Fig. L–18 for a schematic rendering of the transfers.

Columns 47 through 54, at the north facade, were transferred at Floor 7 by cantilever girders to bring them in line with the substation columns, offset 6 ft to 9 ft to the south. The back-span of these cantilevers was supported by the north side core columns. The eastern most cantilever girder was connected to truss #1, and the western most cantilever girder was connected to truss #3 (see Fig. L–18).

Column 76 was supported at Floor 7 by truss #1. The west side of truss #1 is supported by column 73, while the east side is supported by a transfer girder running north-south which is, in turn, supported by columns E3 and E4 at Floor 5.

Columns 58, 59, and 78 were transferred by simply supported girders at Floor 7. Column 78 was supported at Floor 7 by a transfer girder that was supported at its north end by truss #2. Column 77 was also supported by truss #2. Truss #2 was supported by column 74 at its west end and by column 80 at its east end.

Column 61 was supported by truss #3. Truss #3 runs north-south and was supported by columns 62 and 61A. Truss #3 has a 10 ft cantilever span between column 61 and column 61A and an 18 ft back span to column 62.

This is Figure L-18. My additions are clearly marked as such.



Explain to me how I have mislabeled this figure.

[Ghost in the Machine]

93. Now I understand the source of your confusion...

You pointed out the cantilevers, so I circled them for more clarity. The cantilevers on columns 47 through 54 are pretty typical in a lot of buildings as they are used to accomodate a glass & steel storefront facade or brick. This isn't a "superspecial unique design", nor does it mean that the building was built on a "cantilever system". The ONE inside cantilever, on truss #3, also does NOT make this a "superspecial unique design", nor does it mean that the building was built on a "cantilever system". It is no different than 1,000 other buildings that have been built on to and expanded. There's nothing special about it.

This has been my point of disagreement the whole time, bolo... in case you missed that. WTC 7 WAS NOT built on a superspecial unique design, nor was it built on a cantilever system.



"The back-span of these cantilevers was supported by the north side core columns."

This blows one of your statements all to hell also, doesn't it?:

"You are aware, of course, that the beams in question are over the ConEd substation already built on the site. Do you know how much weight was actually being redistributed through the ConEd substation structure? Perhaps you see where I'm going with this -- if the answer is "not much at all", as in "enough to simply help the balance and not really support the building", then "cantilever" really would be a good way to describe those beams"

Now, how much weight do you think those core columns helped redistribute since they were, you know, supporting the backspan of the trusses?

[vincent_vega_lives]

97. You still think there was nothing about this structure

that led to it's demise? I suspect you can agree that if truss #3 was damaged by a partial collapse and dissassociated from beam 54 the collapse could be transmitted horizontally to truss #1.

[Ghost in the Machine]

101. Yes, I could agree with your statement, however, NIST doesn't list truss 3

as a source of collapse initiation, so this whole conversation has really been for naught...


Fig.1: The NIST report displays internal columns, trusses, and shows NIST's damage estimates reaching far into the building towards critical structural elements.

"NIST's collapse hypothesis hinges on the failure of one or more of columns 79, 80, and 81. The report cites the massive size and strength of the three columns as appearing to require "severe fires and/or damaged fireproofing to initiate thermally-related failures". Damage to the building from WTC1 debris is pointed to as the most likely contributing factor or direct cause of that failure, specifically damage to truss #2 (or adjacent components) which was located on the 6th floor. Simply put, a single truss or a single column is claimed to have been the Achilles heel of the structure, a heel that once broken, caused the entire entire 47 storey building to implode perfectly in on itself, with no resistance and at free fall rate."
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/

[vincent_vega_lives]

103. Truss 1#

not 3#. Got Turned around looking at the 3d image. As it was the east penthouse that collapsed into the building, resulting in truss #1 and #2 being damaged.

Not for naught, the point is the same.

[Ghost in the Machine]

105. ok, that's better...

I can see truss 1 and truss 2 failure causing partial collapse. If I understand you correctly, you're saying the fires caused the penthouse to collapse, which in turn caused the trusses to fail?

From what I see in the collapse video, it looks like the bottom trusses fail and the building comes down from the bottom to top, in a manner consistent with controlled demolition, unlike the top down collapse of the Twin Towers.



Again, I don't claim to have all the answers.. or even *some* of them... that's why I ask questions...

[Bolo Boffin]

107. That doesn't include the collapse of the east penthouse.

I hope you can see YouTube videos, because this one is important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qModnDaejzc&eurl=http://ae911truth.info/misinfo/aeppt97/021.html

Watch the east penthouse fall. It's not collapsing exactly. It falls into itself and then hinges down into the building.

In other words, the floors below it are already gone. That's why it falls the way it does.

The NIST hypothesis is spelled out like this:

* Failure of column 79 (or 80 or 81 - 79 fits best), causing a

* Vertical progression of collapse up to the eastern penthouse, the debris from which causes a

* Destruction of either transfer trusses #1 or #2 (or both), leading to a

* Horizontal progression of collapse from east to west of core columns, resulting in

* The rest of the building following the core in the only way possible, straight down.

That "collapse video" only shows the last item.

[Ghost in the Machine]

110. I usually can't watch youtube because I'm stuck on dialup at the moment but that one wasn't too long

I was able to view it. I'm figuring that it was shot from the north?

What do you make of this video? The person who posted it seems to be concentrating on the side, where it looks like squibs coming out of the windows but I'm looking at the face as it seems to rip apart from lower floors towards the top floor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EadoxWXpgY&feature=related

I also note that NIST theorizes that truss 1 or truss 2 (or both) failed, causing the penthouse to collapse, yet right upthread, someone else is saying that penthouse collapse caused the truss failure. Which one is it?

[Bolo Boffin]

111. Yes, that was shot from the north.

It may actually be an extreme closeup of the Dan Rather video. I don't know.

The "squib" video -- the smoke popping out of the north facade is happening in sequence with the events on the southwest corner. To my eye, it's the same thing - the building is twisting a bit, windows break open (slightly from bottom to top?) and let smoke pop out on the north, and then the damaged southwest corner rips apart. Because of the angle of the sun, they catch the shadows in a very visually arresting way.



btw, the picture on the left is from the northwest, and the picture on the right is from the southwest. I should put a label on that pic.

Here's a higher-res of the entire shot. It still doesn't start with the penthouse though. I know I've seen a shot that zooms out from this exact angle with the east penthouse in place. I know the camera had to be filming the entire thing, but I've only seen this angle of the collapse start moments before the final part of the collapse. It's got to be out there somewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yKVxhX2F80

It's only six seconds. And to see just how much of the building you can't see here, a sketch from the Interim Report:

[Ghost in the Machine]

113. That video is a bigger, clearer version than the small one I have. Thanks for the link..

I watched it several times, looking at different parts of the building. It was pretty cool to watch the building fall faster than the ejected debris (dust clouds?). I took a screenshot of one part. Watch the video again and pay attention to the area I circled in this pic below. It looks like a glass pane, or maybe a piece of metal. It seems to fall too fast to be paper, plus the fact that it seems to have a metallic or glass reflection a couple of times. I could be wrong, though...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yKVxhX2F80

I found a small problem in the bottom picture. It has to do with the floor count. See if you agree. I'm counting the lighter colored lines as the windows and the darker colors as the knee walls. I'm counting the top row as the windows in the 47th floor since the 48th floor is the rooftop/penthouse area. I added the blue lines and dots to denote windows, and you can see my edits in the center in black font.



Have you seen this picture? It's very similar to the southwest shot you have:



edited: to add top pic & link to video... D'OH!

[greyl]

98. You disqualified yourself from this discussion in your post #21.

Now, you're just farting around with relatively meaningless details and wasting time.

[Ghost in the Machine]

100. You disqualified yourself from ANY discussion a long time ago

because you're irrelevant, as are your smarmy ramblings. You have yet to provide ANYTHING of substance to any discussion I've seen you in so far. You're the biggest waste of time on this board.

Be a good little boy and go back to building sand castles in your sand box and let the grownups talk here... and be careful that the cats don't try to bury you again..

Thanks...

[wildbilln864]

112. Hey Ghost....

:yourock: dude! :hi:

[Ghost in the Machine]

114. Heya Wild Bill

Thanks! Keep up the good fight for truth...

:hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

106. Let's back up a little further.

Page L-2:

The building was constructed over a pre-existing electrical substation owned by Con Edison. The original plans for the Con Ed Substation included supporting a high-rise building, and the foundation was sized for the planned structure. However, the final design for WTC 7 had a larger footprint than originally planned.

The structural design of the Con Ed substation included elements that would support a high-rise building that would later be built on the property. 7 World Trade exceeded a lot of the expected parameters of this anticipated building, but allowances were made and additional cassions were added through the Con Ed substation to the foundation. It's good to be the Port Authority.

Is it wrong to say that not much weight at all was being redistributed through the Con Ed substation structure? Yes and no. Loads were being distributed only to those sections of the substation already designed to accept those loads. The overall structure, however, wasn't designed to accept those loads.

However, I will be more precise in the future. Only those sections of the Con Ed substation designed to take loads from the building above did so. And much more of the Con Ed substation structure now on the site was made available for this function. (This is the one thing in my memory I haven't been able to track down again. But it's out there.)

Let's also be clear about everything here, though. The support columns you circled in my diagram are not the core columns supporting the back span of the cantilever girders. They are perimeter columns.



Floor 4's basic blueprint shows this. The perimeter columns of this floor, the first one of 7 World Trade to extend over the Con Ed substation, are inset. They get cantilevered over to the northern facade at floor 7.

The core columns supporting the back-span of the cantilever are actually columns 64, 67, 70, and 73. They connected to a braced frame erected on the south side of the Con Ed Substation. This became a crucial part of the lateral system.



You can see them here, but they were left out of L-18.

The cantilevered girders are also supported by 61, but because this girder didn't connect to this braced frame in the Con Ed substation, it needed truss #3. 76 also has a cantilever girder going to it. That column is braced by transfer truss #1. It's sending part of the load to the framed brace in the Con Ed building via 73, and part to its own brace further east in the building.

This is all talking about a key difference between the towers and Building 7, btw. Lateral loads were dealt with 100% by the perimeter columns in the towers. Their cores only dealt with gravity loads. But the lateral system of 7 World Trade channeled the lateral loads into the core. This is indeed what the diaphragms on 5 and 7 were doing.

The substation’s lateral system consisted of a moment frame along the northern row of interior columns. Along the south edge of the substation there was a braced frame. This braced frame was coincident with the north side of the WTC 7 core, at columns 64, 67, 70, and 73. Lateral loads from WTC 7 were passed directly from the core above to the Con Ed braced frame below. There were also two moment frames within the substation oriented in the north-south direction, one on each end of the WTC 7 core.

...Above Floor 7, WTC 7 had a perimeter moment frame. Exterior columns were typically rolled W14 shapes of ASTM A36 grade steel. Column trees were fabricated for the east and west facades with field splices occurring every other story in the columns and at the spandrel beam midspan between columns, where the tree stubs were spliced with a bolted connection. On the north and south facades, the moment frames were constructed with spandrel connections at the face of the columns. Some column splices were shown on the erection drawings to be partial penetration groove welds between the column flanges.

At Floors 5 to 7 and Floors 22 to 24, there was a perimeter belt truss, shown in Fig. L–19. Below Floor 7, a combination of moment and braced frames around the perimeter and a series of braced frames in the core, is shown in Fig. L–20. The strong diaphragms of Floors 5 and 7 transferred load from the perimeter to the core. Above the loading dock at the south facade, two of the columns were hung from the belt truss at Floors 5 through 7. Above the Con Edison vault at the north facade, eight columns were also hanging from the belt truss between Floors 5 and 7.

The gravity loads were transmitted through each individual column, core and perimeter, all the way down to the foundation.

Above Floor 7, the building had typical steel framing for high-rise construction. The floor systems had composite construction with steel beams supporting concrete slabs on metal deck, with a floor thickness of 5.5 in. The core and perimeter columns supported the floor system and carried their loads to the foundation. The perimeter moment frame also resisted wind forces. Columns above Floor 7 did not align with the foundation columns, so braced frames, transfer trusses, and transfer girders were used to transfer loads between these column systems, primarily between Floors 5 and 7. Floors 5 and 7 were heavily reinforced concrete slabs on metal decks, with thicknesses of 14 in. and 8 in., respectively.

The lateral system is described by the project manager for the structural engineering firm that built 7 World Trade in a November 28, 1985 article in the Engineering News-Record. I knew you'd have to have a copy of this, and it's not available online, so I took the time to go downtown and make a copy from the Dallas Public Library's stacks. This is a pdf made from a scan of a copy, so I'm sorry about the quality:

http://ae911truth.info/pdf/ENR112885.pdf

From level seven to the top, the structural-steel building has a perimeter moment-resisting frame. Two two-story-high belt trusses, one at the 22nd story and one at the seventh, reduce deflection during high winds.

The first seven stories are more complicated. To resist lateral loads, the structural engineer designed a seven-story braced core linked through floor diaphragms to seven-story-high wind truss systems on the shorter sides of the building. "The end frames create channel action to stiffen the building," says Tamboli. Horizontal bracing in the fifth and seventh-story floor slabs transfers lateral loads from the moment frame to the braced core.

...The first seven stories were also difficult . The building's 350-ft side cantilevers 7 ft of the substation from the seventh floor to the roof. Eight 55-ton, 60-ft-long girders that taper from 9 to 3 feet deep had to be lifted over the substation and placed under seventh floor framing to carry cantilever loads to the core. The weight and reach involved prompted the use of two cranes and a derrick to lift each girder.

Cantilever loads to the core. Not to the perimeter columns that you so helpfully circled, the core.

[Bolo Boffin]

118. Damn, the crickets have sure been nice for the last two and a half weeks.

Yawn.

[Bolo Boffin]

119. Yoo-hoo, Ghost? Anybody there?

*cricket, cricket, cricket*

[Ghost in the Machine]

120. "*cricket, cricket, cricket*" - Is that the sound of brain cells misfiring in your head?

They must be loud, huh? Lots of echo room...

I'm working on a reply to you, but please follow instructions per my post in the other thread and provide your definitions of "cantilever". In case you're having difficulties with that task, this link will help ease those difficulties:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cantilever

Get to work!

[Bolo Boffin]

121. Why don't you provide yours to the structural engineers and project manager of 7 World Trade?

Because there's the real problem, you see. Did you ever tell us how much they consulted you during that fire in Miami?

[Ghost in the Machine]

122. You've just proven yourself unworthy and undeserving of any more of my time..

I don't see your definitions of "cantilever" in your reply, nor do I see any information about how the beams in question were connected to the truss in question.

You are unable to follow simple instructions. Period.

Please continue on your blissfully ignorant way and just copy-n-paste information from other sites since you seem unable, or unwilling, to learn what you're actually talking about.

This conversation has ended before it even got restarted. As I figured, you just used this conversation as a distraction from getting your ass handed to you over your blatant misleading information that you tried to get away with posting on a different thread. I'm done with you, unless I catch you again, then I'll be sure to point it out again...

Have a nice life...

Ghost

[Bolo Boffin]

123. I'll take that as an admission of your being absolutely, 100% wrong.

Thanks!

[Ghost in the Machine]

124. And *that* would be different than how you confuse other things...how? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

125. Run, Ghost, run.

Where does the project manager for 7 World Trade's construction say the lateral loads are going to end up? The perimeter or the core?

Run, Ghost, run.

[vincent_vega_lives]

75. No fire, no damage, it was explosives...right.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_bDl_7xBIFb4ACO6jzbkF/SIG=12thunvkn/EXP=1209155839/**http%3A//
Note the debris.


Better View


Note the fire.




Nope no impact damage here.

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9.../gz/boyle.html

[Ghost in the Machine]

82. Where did I say there were *no* fires and *no* damage?

This photo doesn't show the building 'fully engulfed' with 'fires on every floor', does it? No, it doesn't. It shows fire coming from 6 windows. This is what I'm questioning... where are photos of the building fully engulfed with fire on every floor?



This photo below is disingenuous at best because anyone can plainly see that a large percentage of the smoke came from the burning building and rubble pile in the picture. If you look to the left of the building you can also see a water stream trained on the building, causing most of the black smoke. The smoke is NOT coming from WTC7:



Anything else you need cleared up?

[vincent_vega_lives]

95. In context of contribution to the collapse that is exactly what you are saying

The building didnt need to have evenly spread conflagration throuought the building to compromise the structure. NIST makes it quite clear where they think the initiaion occured based on the evidence.

Claiming that pic is disingenuous at best is disingenuous at best. It is quite clear to anyone that actually takes a hard look at it that there are two distinct sources of smoke in that photo, the more significant one is WTC-7.

[Ghost in the Machine]

99. No, what I said "exactly" was that there were no photos or video showing the building fully engulfed

with fires on every floor. I did not say that there were NO fires or NO damage. Period.

Are you denying that there is a water stream going into the smaller burning building? That thick, dark smoke speaks of a low heat or smoldering fire. You can see some smoke coming from the rubble pile at the bottom, in the foreground, and the larger cloud of smoke is coming from the building that is being watered down. The smoke is rising and blowing across the face of WTC 7.



From bolo's post: "Go back to the top link and read how the firefighters describe that building. "Fully involved," they say. "Fires on all 47 floors," they say. "you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block," one says."

[vincent_vega_lives]

102. You missed

The diagonal deliniation line between the smoke is just south of the watermark, I edited it but have no place to upload it.

There is a better pic of the WTC smoke and debris damage in my post #75. I'm sure you understand that you don't need fires evenly distibuted on every floor to compromise a key structural component. THAT is the diference between a common gridded steel beam and girder structure. The transfer truss system was a compromise. A compromise that was perfectly acceptable under normal circumstances.

We only have recorded seconds of time of the whole day. The full picture is moer clear if you take the pictures with the accounts of the people on the ground that day. Otherwise you are just holding a single peice of the puzzle.

I notice you ignored the other pictures and the fire Captain's account.

[Ghost in the Machine]

104. If you'd like, feel free to start an album on one of my sites to upload your pics...

Here's a link to a photo album: http://www.offrampbums.com/coppermine/index.php

I see the smoke you're talking about in the picture in post 75... it's pretty thick, but seems to be coming from fires on 3 or 4 floors and billowing up...

I understand that you don't need fires evenly distibuted on every floor to compromise a key structural component. I'm just trying to process all the available info, and there's a LOT out there. Some say the core was damaged, some blame the fires and some blame a combination of both (which I *can* agree with). I'd find it even stranger if the fires were *only* in the critical areas (which I'm sure they weren't), but who really knows?

I'm slowly becoming addicted to the 9-11 discussion, as I've never really been too into it before. I've read some info, mostly here, and I just have questions that I need to resolve in my own mind... I'm not saying that it was impossible for the building to collapse due to damage & fire, it just seems too coincidental, given that buildings that took more brunt of the falling debris and burned longer didn't totally collapse.... only the ones owned by Larry Silverstein. I just find that strange and have to resolve it myself...

I see conflicting reports from firefighters, too. Some who say that there was sparse fires on a few floors when they checked after Tower 1 collapsed... then we have others saying that the whole building was totally involved... which I have seen no proof of...

[Bolo Boffin]

108. Larry had the lease on 5 and 6 as well, didn't he? He had the entire complex.

Four of Larry's WTC buildings fell completely that day. (The Marriott, WTC 3, had a huge chunk taken out by the South Tower, and then was reduced to a 3-story stump by the North Tower.)

[Ghost in the Machine]

109. I stand corrected, thank you...

I had to do a little googling and found this:

"Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. That was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had EVER changed ownership."

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/09/07/18306895.php

I had only read about the Twin Towers and WTC 7...

[Twist_U_Up]

78. Excellent response Ghost. Bolo has nothing but NIST`s John Gross, a proven liar.

Keep up the great work.

[Bolo Boffin]

79. Was Goss the sole author of the NIST report, Twist?

No?

Then his being a silly numbskull in a classroom one day hardly reflects on the entire report, does it?

[Twist_U_Up]

87. You're coming around........

actually owning up that the lead investigator from NIST was caught lying is a big step for you. I'm happy to see it.
Now if you could open your eyes a bit wider, perhaps you can see the bigger picture.....
911 was an inside job. But something tells me you already know that.
Revelations ;-)

[Bolo Boffin]

88. Lying? No, there's no evidence of that.

Goss was making a very fine distinction because no report of molten "steel" had ever been tested. That's exactly what he was asked about, and he stepped on the idiot asking him the question hard, possibly because he'd dealt with idiots like that before and since. NO ONE has conclusive, indisputable evidence of molten steel at Ground Zero. Goss got pissy about it. That's what he did.

What happens when you get pissy? You make stupid statements like Goss did. Now 9/11 conspiracy theorists grab that pissy statement and squeeze it for lemonade. He was an idiot to make that statement, but he was provoked. Yes, idiot 9/11 conspiracy theorists running around shouting their stupid questions to any public figure in front of a camera is being provocative.

And his statement certainly isn't the indictment of the NIST report you think it is. Seizing on things like that just demonstrate the desperation of the 9/11 Truth Movement for anything, anything, anything at all.

[Ghost in the Machine]

83. Thank you, Twist....

I know I don't have ALL the answers, and I may even be wrong on some of my thoughts, but it seems the more I read, the more questions than answers I come up with..

[AZCat]

54. The blueprints are ALWAYS off.

Goddamn architects refuse to coordinate that shit. How was I to know electrical had a cable tray above that corridor?

[Ghost in the Machine]

59. That was *you*?!?

:rofl:

Seriously though, I lay a lot of blame on the actual workers:

"gee Tom, is that a block wall with a cable race or is it a solid wall with a plate on top?" "dunno Bob, but it's lunch time... let's take a ride and "think" about it a bit... nudge nudge wink wink... gotta get our minds straight on this, ya know..."

[AZCat]

60. I've worked both sides of the divide.

Engineers screw up plenty, but so do the workers. Now that I'm on the design side, all I ask is that a contractor call me if he has a question or thinks he has a better solution. There's nothing worse than hearing from a guy that he has a final inspection scheduled in three hours but he needs drawings showing the changes he made to my design for the inspector.

Speaking of rides, at one point I was working for the facilities maintenance department at a university. We would spend entire work days driving around campus girl-watching, stopping only for our scheduled breaks (mid-morning, lunch, and mid-afternoon). I don't think I've ever worked less on a job.

[hack89]

28. Of course you are right

every building in the world will always react in identical fashion to fire no matter what.

[vincent_vega_lives]

42. I suggest you educate yourself more on this subject

You seem to be quite good at picking up details, so I am disapointed you would claim:

And save the story about the superspecial "unique design" because it's complete bullshit

This PDF file makes is quite clear the "superspecial" and "unique design" features of WTC-7 that is thought to have played a major role in that building's collapse.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[Ghost in the Machine]

46. I just posted *some* of my credentials in reply #50....

What are some of *your* credentials?

As for what I pick up on.... here it is:

"This PDF file makes is quite clear the "superspecial" and "unique design" features of WTC-7 that is thought to have played a major role in that building's collapse."

See, even NIST doesn't know for sure.. they think and they speculate and they assume a LOT. Why don't you question their claims and personal incredulities? They even admit that they didn't even BOTHER to test for explosive residue in WTC7 steel because the thought of government complicity or controlled demolition was ridiculous...

We're back to that whole "open mind" thingy again, vincent... and it doesn't seem to me that NIST did an indepth investigation into ALL possible scenarios of the collapse of WTC7.

Thanks for the link... I've read up on some of it before and will continue to do so... and ask questions... damn this stuff can become addictive.. I've honestly tried NOT to get too involved in all this 9-11 stuff, but it seems the more I read, the more questions I have...

[vincent_vega_lives]

48. Nice deflection

but you failed to address the matter in question.

You made a claim regarding the construction of building 7.

I provided detail as to what the NIST theorizes led to the collapse. With your creds I'm sure you can digest the information I provided to you in a few minutes and actually address the subject at hand...unless you think the structural components of WTC7 was just a theory too?

It isn't NIST's role to test for explosive residue. That would be the FBI and BATF's job, and AFAIK the details of that investigation has not been made public knowlege.

We're back at the "open mind somtimes leads nowhere" thingy again.

[Ghost in the Machine]

58. Did you miss where I addressed your point?

The point was that the NIST is a lot of speculation, guessing, thinking and, as you kindly pointed out in your reply, theorizing.

They cannot state that they are 100% positively certain of what they are saying. The have no empirical proof. All they have is their theory.

I know the mechanics of a cantilever.... I've built on cantilevers before. Even taking out 1 or 2 sections of the main supporting base will not cause total failure & collapse... unless they were precisely removed in critical spots for demolition purposes. How lucky could a couple of hijackers get, huh?

Now, one more question:

Where did all this damaging debris come from? According to firefighters' testimony, there was no large debris in the lobby after they went into WTC after WTC1 collapsed:

Interim Report on WTC7 (page L-18)

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m. firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building.

• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8

• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving

• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed.

The 2002 FEMA report also includes a description of fire fighter testimony, clearly stating the 9th floor of the building was intact along the south face:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner.

Furthermore, WTC7 floor plans in the interim report show that the lobby atrium extended up through the 4th floor to the floor of the 5th, with a narrow floor span across three columns in the center (Fig. 11a). Hence, any heavy debris impacting the south face and gouging out the 10th to ground floors - particularly if it extended across 6 columns of the face as NIST estimates - would fall into the lobby through the atrium and/or crash directly into it the lobby, yet the above firefighter testimony clearly states there was no such debris.
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/

What is your opinion of this site I link to? DO they seem credible to you? They speculate and theorize some, too. What's your take on them?

Fig. 12: Placement of elevator banks in relation to columns 79, 80, and 81.

A pedestrian overpass joined the building between the 11th and 13th columns along the south facade, directly under the region in front of truss #2 and columns 79 - 81. Photographs in the NIST report show the relatively fragile pedestrian bridge intact and only subject to light debris damage. This would seem to rule out with a high probabilty any heavy debris striking the south face in that specific region and with enough weight and force to penetrate deep enough into the building to affect those structural elements.

Do you have a link to something refuting that reports of no debris in the lobby of WTC7? I'd like to see it if you can provide it.

Oh, and another thing:

"It isn't NIST's role to test for explosive residue. "

Um, yes... it was. Weren't they doing a report based on investigation? Isn't that what part of an investigation is... actually *investigating*? How the hell do you write a report without investigation and research?

[vincent_vega_lives]

68. No I did not missyour rather clumsy non-adressment of my

answer. Yes the NIST has a theory regarding the collapse of WTC-7. A theory based on expertise, experience, educated assessments, knowledge of the building, and visual evidence eyewitness testimony.

I know the mechanics of a cantilever.... I've built on cantilevers before. Even taking out 1 or 2 sections of the main supporting base will not cause total failure & collapse... unless they were precisely removed in critical spots for demolition purposes. How lucky could a couple of hijackers get, huh?

Now I admit am no expert on construction terminology, so I had to do some research here.

In this case the cantilever transfer girders were supported by a truss on each end. take out one truss and the collapse is transfered horizontally to the other. It would hardly require precision.



NIST theorizes that the kink of the eastern penthouse (CLEARLY visible in the well known video) followed by its complete collapse into the building.

A vertical failure would pile debris on the east side of the building, damaging or severing transfer girders and trusses between floors 5 and 7.
�� This secondary damage has been postulated to cause a horizontal progression of failure in the core columns at or near floors 5 and 7.

The FEMA report was preliminary. I notice that site you link to is missing some photographs showing significant damage to the south face of 7.

This would seem to rule out with a high probability any heavy debris striking the south face in that specific region and with enough weight and force to penetrate deep enough into the building to affect those structural elements.

I would agree, no one is auguring that debris damaged the transfer truss. Also remember the building burned for hours after the building was cleared.

�� An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris
induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span
floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft2
�� Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were
unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse
�� Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that
were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure
�� Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure

"It isn't NIST's role to test for explosive residue. "

Um, yes... it was. Weren't they doing a report based on investigation? Isn't that what part of an investigation is... actually *investigating*? How the hell do you write a report without investigation and research?

NO IT ISNT. When a building burns down who investigates possible arson? The local building code inspector or the Fire Marshall? The NIST would not "test for explosive residue". If the found what looked like explosive spalling in the metal they would be required to turn it over to the FBI as and cease their investigation it was now evidence of a crime.

[petgoat]

13. The steel portion of thre Madrid tower was not fireproofed. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

15. And it failed.

The steel in the Towers was stripped of its fireproofing and it failed.

Or, if you take Quintieri's reasoning, the fires alone burned so hot that it caused the fireproofing to fail, and then the steel.


PS: The steel portion of the Madrid tower -- what happened to its "heat sink" capacities? Shouldn't all that heat have been wicked away from the fire?

:shrug:

[petgoat]

19. Madrid Towers unfireproofed steel failed after five hours. nt

[Laurier]

20. And?

[Bolo Boffin]

25. And what became of the vaunted "heat sink" thingy? n/t

[petgoat]

37. The steel was heated for five hours and was totally engulfed.

There was no cool steel to sink the heat.

In the WTC with any particular core column you had at most 25
feet of it being heated, and the columns were 1368 feet high.

[nebula]

26. Laughable

1) the 'fireproofing got knocked off' nonsense is nothing more than far-fetched speculation with no evidence whatsoever behind it.

2) fire does not weaken structural steel to the point of collapse, in under an hour (or even several hours), fireproofed or not.

[AZCat]

27. Have you even read the damn NIST report?

Strangely enough, it contains this thing called "information". Lots of it, too. Even some about the fireproofing. Maybe you should go read that before shooting your fucking mouth off again.

[petgoat]

38. The NIST report is 10,000 pages. Nobody has read it. nt

[AZCat]

50. Personal incredulity will get you nowhere.

If you haven't read it, stop fucking criticizing it as if you had.

[petgoat]

53. Nobody has read 10,000 pages. nt

[AZCat]

56. If you aren't going to read all 10k, maybe you should at least attempt the relevant sections.

Especially if you're going to claim NIST hasn't dealt with something, when it's there in black and white.

[Flatulo]

30. The fireproofing... not so very robust.

NIST did some very detailed experiments with the fireproofing peel strength. The average shear to remove the slurry was 5 PSI. This is equivalent to very light hand pressure.

Compare this to a standard cyanoacrylate joint, which can sustain shear loading to 3,000 PSI.

I think we can safely dispel the notion that the fireproofing was bonded to the steel members with any kind of permanance.

[petgoat]

39. The fireproofing that was dislodged was in the direct debris path of the plane.

The Jet fuel burned out in ten minutes, says NIST.

The office fires consume the office furnishings fuel in twenty
minutes--and move on.

Twenty minutes of heating can not significantly weaken the steel--
even if all the fireproofing was stripped off, and the fireproofing
was NOT all stripped off.

We have nomadic fires, roaming around through fireproofed and
unfireproofed regions.

The planes hit a banking angle, so the insult was spread over up to six
floors. The debris path was thus relatively narrow on any particular floor.
The animations showing the plane passing through the core of the building
are thus highly misleading because you tend to think of widespread contiguous
damage. (NIST's diagrams showing the ten columns that were allegedly severed
are also misleading, because you picture them all on the same floor. When
they're on different floors, the load redistributing mechanism mitigated the
damage.)

[nebula]

41. Another amazing coincidence

There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time. Exactly what work was done during that time?

In some sections of the NIST WTC report, the exact floors upgraded are listed. Other sections of the report suggest even more floors were upgraded, a total of 18 floors in WTC 1 and 13 floors in WTC 2, but the additional floors involved are not specified.<1>




This relationship is unmistakable for WTC 1. Some investigators have pointed out that a number of floors failed simultaneously in this tower, in accordion-like fashion, before the rest of the building began to 'collapse'. These floors seem to match up almost exactly with the floors that were upgraded. See the film clip below, and the following Powerpoint sequence created by Gregory Urich.

www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse...

www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/Wtc1SeriesNW.ppt

Two blueprints for the 1999, 2000 construction upgrades to WTC 2, provided by a supporter, indicated that the work was done at almost exactly the point of impact and failure in that tower. That is, the southeast quadrant of WTC 2 was the focus of the work, at least on the 78th floor (the blueprints provided were for floors 77 and 78 only). It was the southeast quadrant of WTC 2, at and just above floor 78, where flight 175 hit.

We have also seen video of molten metal pouring from WTC 2 prior to its destruction. The relationship between fireproofing upgrades and the pouring metal is close but not exact, as the molten metal seen in videos appears to be coming from floors 80 and 81. Communication to the NIST team from Frank Lombardi of the Port Authority, in 2002, indicated that only floor 78 of the impact failure floors of WTC 2 had been upgraded. But NCSTAR 1-6A (table 4-2, p 45) lists floor 85 as an upgraded floor as well. Could it be that certain areas within floors 79 to 84 were upgraded also, and not reported because the floors were not fully upgraded?

For the north tower at least, it is difficult to accept that this relationship is yet another unbelievable coincidence related to 9/11. Certainly the upgrade work allowed for access to critical areas. But in considering this, a number of other, admittedly far-fetched questions come to mind. Why was the upgraded fireproofing measured to be twice the thickness specified?<2> Could incendiary or explosive materials have been embedded within the upgraded fireproofing? Could these “construction” activities have involved installing mechanisms to direct the planes to the specific areas in which they hit each building?

In any case, the demolition hypothesis should be considered more than just simple demolition. If the idea was to create the appearance of a fire-induced collapse, then a fiery presentation was needed, much more than the jet fuel/office furnishings would have been able to provide. It seems that thermate may have been used not only to weaken or cut the steel infrastructure throughout the buildings, but also to help create that fiery presentation near the floors of impact.

It seems possible that a thermate-like material, and/or other devices contributing to the destruction of the towers, could have been incorporated on the floors of impact and failure during the fireproofing upgrades. The access for such an operation would have been facilitated by the activity surrounding the fireproofing upgrades.

<1> NCSTAR 1-6A, page xxxvii, indicates which exact floors were upgraded. NCSTAR 1-6, page 20 repeats these claims, as noted in the figure above. Elsewhere in NCSTAR 1-6, on page lxxi, NIST muddies the water by saying “18 floors in WTC 1, including all the floors affected by the aircraft impact and fires" and “"13 floors in WTC 2, although none were directly affected by the aircraft impact and fires.". On this last part, NIST contradicts itself yet again in NCSTAR 1-6 (on page lxvii-lxix) by stating that some of the floors upgraded in WTC 2 were affected by the impacts and fires (notably floor 78). As with the contradictory amounts of jet fuel referenced throughout NIST’s report, these fireproofing upgrade statements appear to be another example of how detailed findings in the NIST team’s lower level reports were confused or made vague in higher-level reports.

<2> NCSTAR 1-6A (p xl) states “The overall average thickness determined from the 356 individual measurements was found to be 2.5 in, with a standard deviation of 0.6 in.” The same report (p 44) says “Note that some of the average thicknesses shown in Table 4-2 equal or exceed 3.5 in. No photos were available of upgraded floors to show the appearance of such high average thickness of SFRM.” Floor 94 of WTC 1 stands out in this data, with a SFRM thickness of more than 4 in. The specification for these upgrades was only 1.5 in, increased from the as-built specification of 0.75 in.

www.911blogger.com/node/13272

[AZCat]

51. Even more claims for which you have no basis, petgoat?

You should make a career of this - you're good. Tell me - how are you so sure of the state of the fireproofing in the impact zone? Stating "the fireproofing
was NOT all stripped off" is pretty bold.

[petgoat]

52. Stating "the fireproofing was all stripped off" defies common sense.

The whole floor? The back of the columns too, floor to ceiling?

[AZCat]

55. Were you there? Do you have evidence stating otherwise?

Yes, it's probable not all the fireproofing was dislodged, but it is an assumption, not a certainty. Please try to keep them straight.

[petgoat]

62. The belief that an aircraft penetrating the wall with sufficient

directional momentum to sever core columns will at the same time scatter
debris so widely as to remove all the fireproofing on the floor--even
on the sides of the columns facing away from the plane--is absurd.

To advance it reveals a basic miscomprehension of simple Newtonian
mechanics.

Stanley Praimnath on the 81st floor said he saw an airplane wing
outside his office. He did not say he saw everything sandblasted by
aluminum shrapnel. http://www.stanleypraimnath.com/1.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

65. Why do you think that a column stripped of fireproofing on one half is protected against the fire?

Why?

[petgoat]

85. I don't. Are you trying to hide the important point in my post?

Any fireproofing stripped off by the aircraft debris would have
been in a narrow band of destruction, surely less than 15% of the
floor.

We then have jet fuel burning for ten minutes until it burns out.
Then we have an office fire that burns for twenty minutes before it
moves to new sources of fuel.

Even if a half-hour fire could weaken de-fireproofed steel, the
weakening would be highly asymmetrical in the building. The
twenty-minute office fires in un-de-fireproofed regions could
not weaken the steel.

And yet we get a totally symmetrical collapse in which every
core column and every perimeter column fails within fractions
of a second.

[Bolo Boffin]

90. No, I'm pointing out the gaping hole in your post.

Plus, you have an odd way of describing this fire.



This fire, petgoat: Did it ever move? It burned continuously for the forty-five minutes or so that the South Tower stood.



This one, petgoat: Does it look like a tiny, under-control office fire?

You continue to blind yourself with straw men, petgoat. You don't have to.

[AZCat]

117. You keep making this argument...

but I don't think it means what you think it does. Why are you so surprised that when failures begin, the load transfer and subsequent failures happen so quickly? That's what happens when the forces involved are significantly greater than the capacity of the structural members. I don't know where your claim about the duration of office fires comes from, either. Care to reference it?

[nebula]

86. bolo knows exactly what happened to the fireproofing

because he's psychic.

[Bolo Boffin]

91. bolo knows the strong likelihood of what happened to the fireproofing

based on scientific tests of similar and reproducible conditions.

Science.

[vincent_vega_lives]

96. Strawman (n/t)

[truedelphi]

126. Let me construct a simple "Try this at home" experiment for you

First stand up and move away from your computer.

Now shake yourself hard - really hard. So hard that your shaking could be a response to a model airplane measuring 16 inches long by three and a half inches high that has hit you around your thymus (Some four to five inches below your Adam's Apple)

See how your skin all falls off!! All of it!!

That is what happened to the Fireproofing material on the WTC buildings on Sept 11 2001.

If you did this correctly, and all your skin fell off, you get it.

If your skin didn't all fall off, then you didn't do this correctly. So keep repeating the experiment until you can believe the theory (Which will happen when your brain gets so shaken up by all the shaking down below!)

[vincent_vega_lives]

71. Laugh away

1. What makes you think the fireproofing in the area of the plane crash would have remained intact when there were reports of it dislodging from daily use vibrations!

2. This sentence makes NO sense. Steel doesn't collapse. Structures under loads collapse. Either you are a non English speaker or you have no idea what you are talking about. Steel, subjected to enough heat, will loose strength, PERIOD. If that strength loss exceeds the load it is supporting it WILL fail.

[piobair]

16. Maybe the difference

is what caused the fires.

[piobair]

31. You have never been correct in any of the idiocy

you have posted on this forum. Why should anyone place any credence in anything you post? You are the queen of wrong. Long live the Queen.

[wildbilln864]

115. Me thinks you might be projecting....

again! :eyes:

[victordrazen]

33. It's rididculous to think that two near identical

towers would completely fall to the ground rapidly after only signs of sporadic fires as the result of people (who didn't know how to fly) hitting them with planes . The really ridiculous thing is that someone would have planned to do that. The likelihood of both buildings (and a 3rd for good measure) would come down like that is not high.
There were plenty of people who were in the building and survived, so exactly when did it get so hot?

[AZCat]

34. It is ridiculous. That's why we call it a strawman.

Please - if you're going to criticise the "official story", learn what the fuck it is first.

[victordrazen]

36. Where have I not done that?

pray tell...

[AZCat]

49. Done what?

Your post makes no sense.

[Twist_U_Up]

80. Actually its yours that makes no sense

I understand Victors perfectly. Its when you added your nonsense that clouded the issue.
Please do not deflect perfectly good posts with your typical deflections,they are getting rather old and tiresome.

[AZCat]

116. Pointing out logical fallacies is nonsense?

No wonder the truth movement is off its rails.

[SidDithers]

77. As a reminder of the OP's technical expertise...

Anyone who posts that steaming pile of manure should have every post of theirs taken with a large fuckin' chunk of road salt.

Sid

[dorkulon]

127. Hehe. Wow.

Didn't know steel was sure a fire hazard.

What's funny to me is the idea that it's impossible that there could be a first time for something to happen. Or that maybe, just maybe, the towers weren't built all that well.

[balantz]

128. Boy, I've got to admit ignorance with all of this,

and there sure is a lot of different perspectives and info. flying around.

But what I'm wondering is how did BOTH of those tall towers come straight down?

If the steel did give way due to fire wouldn't the steel have given here, and there, in different locations of extreme temperatures and come down sort of pell-mell in at least ONE of the structures? Wouldn't some of the steel have failed in haphazard patterns and fallen this way and that in different places in the structure at different times, not just straight down like a house of cards for both buildings?

These things just dropped straight down in a short amount of time.