What happened to WTC 7 again?

Originally posted by BigTrain
No ANOK, its you who has no clue as to what im talking about. You are probably one of those people who thinks that a fire has to melt a column before it can fail.

LOL pls don't make assumptions about what I believe.

I don't even know how to respond to you anymore, All you've done so far is show us you have no idea what you are talking about, same with your partner skibum.
You just keep getting sillier with every post. Even Howward gave up I think...LOL

Interesting that you official story preachers always seem to work in pairs??

Did you even check out the link I provided? Why did the columns fire proofing fail to work? Why did the compartmentalization, designed to help control a fires spread, fail to work? Why did the sprinklers fail to do their job? Why did the fire department stop fighting the fires? Why were there still people in the building when it fell, when supposedly Silversteiner told everyone to evacuate?

This thread is going nowhere which I think is you guys plan.

Why did the columns fire proofing fail to work? Why did the compartmentalization, designed to help control a fires spread, fail to work?

Because all of these systems are designed to hold back fire for a certain amount of time. A one hour rated fire wall is designed to keep fire from breeching it for an hour, a two hour wall is designed to hold back fire for two hours, and so on.

Another reason is renovations, I've worked on numerous buildings that, although they were supposed to have firewalls, some jackass electrician or plumber or any other trade has carelessly chopped holes in these walls, and they were never fixed.

Hey ANOK, being that I know you have neither the knowledge nor the desire to perform any calculations yourself, I happened to do my own for you. Using mathcad, I built a simple 2 story frame structure, using all wide flange sections.

I had 5 columns and 4 inner story griders. No bracing, only moment frame connections.

I calculated the displacement of the structure with a lateral load of 1000 pounds applied at both the middle and upper stories and another 1 million pounds on each of the columns.

The displacement to the right caused by these loads was 0.014 inches!

I then applied a 300 degree difference in temperature on opposite sides of the columns, so for example, the exterior column of the wtc. Outside air remains cool, inside fire heats it to 300 degrees above normal.

This was applied to all 5 columns of the frame.

The lateral displacement went from 0.014 inches to 1.551!

An increase in deflection of 110 times!

This is a very basic analysis but I think you get the point.

Train

You know I hate to rain on the official parade' but there is one issue that all this yammering has ignored to date:

that just below where the planes went in was an observation deck in the towers, a floor which was much more strengthened than average. The point I am making here is that this level of the tower may have even stopped downward forces which everyone here is debating the effects of.

It seems clear to me that structural damage done to the ground floor levels aka detonations or what have you would have been required to knock the building down.

that just below where the planes went in was an observation deck in the towers

You mean the ones on the 107th and 110th floors of the south tower?

25 floors above the impact zone, nice try.


I thought you guys do research?

It seems clear to me that structural damage done to the ground floor levels aka detonations or what have you would have been required to knock the building down.

Care to share you theory on how explosions on the ground level would collapse the towers from the top down?

[edit on 28/4/06 by Skibum]

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

a floor which was much more strengthened than average.

Thats a complete lie, care to show us any structural drawings to prove this.

Train

Thats a complete lie, care to show us any structural drawings to prove this.

Shhhh, it probably came from the "truth movement" and not the government, so it's gotta be true.

I would like to see proof as well.
Not only the drawings, but proof there were other observation decks than the ones at the top of the south tower.

Anyways, since the thread is about tower 7 and not 1 or 2 we oughta get back on topic before the mods break out the whips to chastise us.







[edit on 28/4/06 by Skibum]

Can you explain why those particular floors would be stronger than normal?

It seems a tad far fetched to me that just those floors would be stronger than the others.

Forgive me if this hasd already been explained, I didn't read the entire thread, what can I say, I'm hungover.

I just went over the video I linked you all too earlier in the thread looking for more signs of buckling, and of course, what did I see....

If you go back and watch the video, divx required, look at approximately the lower left corner of fire and impact hole and just as the building collapses, you can see a very, VERY noticable buckling of an entire 3 column section. Its so obvious because the columns buckled laterally in the plane of the frame, so you will see them buckle clockwise, rotating about their tops. So ANOK, and CD people, what do you thik about that visual evidence?

Train

Originally posted by Skibum

that just below where the planes went in was an observation deck in the towers

You mean the ones on the 107th and 110th floors of the south tower?

25 floors above the impact zone, nice try.

It seems clear to me that structural damage done to the ground floor levels aka detonations or what have you would have been required to knock the building down.

Care to share you theory on how explosions on the ground level would collapse the towers from the top down?

[edit on 28/4/06 by Skibum]

I'm sorry I was referring to the reinforced skylobby and mechanical floors at 78 and 76 which are a lot stronger than the regular floors.

I would have guessed that you knew that along with all the other official story gang...

look at the pickie yourself:

WTC cross-sectional view on page

Now in regards the crazy idea that falling reinforced floors of concrete brought down the outer box structure (which was self supporting), as well as the internal elevator and mechanical shaft structure is pure fantasy.

Last time I checked concrete was relatively fire resistant and holds a lot of heat as well as the high grade steel in the building coated with asbestos we would need extreme temps to do anything.

Now on this page:

Engineer on building collapse

from the link above we have the interview:

"NOVA: After the planes struck and you saw those raging fires, did you think the towers would collapse?

Eagar: No. In fact, I was surprised. So were most structural engineers. The only people I know who weren't surprised were a few people who've designed high-rise buildings.

NOVA: But you weren't surprised that they withstood the initial impacts, is that correct?"

From your link Deny.

"Robertson's crew placed the dampers, 11,000 of them in each building, between the bottom of the floor trusses and the columns"

How convenient.

I wonder how often they needed inspection/repair.

Damper renovation/repair would be "good cover" to place charges in the exact place where charges would be required.

The only mention i can find of them in any official report is this...

Figure B-9 (A) Visco-elastic damper angles.

I think they are trying to say an angled piece of steel is this device, lol.

Or they are trying to indicate that the angle holds the damper device.

I don't think they really want to speak about it for some reason.



[edit on 29-4-2006 by The Links]

I want to find out more about that spire that was left standing when the north tower collapsed.

Website with the stuff

How the hell did that part disconnect from the rest of the falling building and stay standing? How many floors were above it? Look at that straight point. It looked like it turned into dust.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

I'm sorry I was referring to the reinforced skylobby and mechanical floors at 78 and 76 which are a lot stronger than the regular floors.

I would have guessed that you knew that along with all the other official story gang...

look at the pickie yourself:

WTC cross-sectional view on page

Now in regards the crazy idea that falling reinforced floors of concrete brought down the outer box structure (which was self supporting), as well as the internal elevator and mechanical shaft structure is pure fantasy.

Last time I checked concrete was relatively fire resistant and holds a lot of heat as well as the high grade steel in the building coated with asbestos we would need extreme temps to do anything.

Now on this page:

Engineer on building collapse

from the link above we have the interview:

"NOVA: After the planes struck and you saw those raging fires, did you think the towers would collapse?

Eagar: No. In fact, I was surprised. So were most structural engineers. The only people I know who weren't surprised were a few people who've designed high-rise buildings.

NOVA: But you weren't surprised that they withstood the initial impacts, is that correct?"

I cant believe you looked at a shaded floor of a cross-section that was given to you to show you where that skylobby was located and just immediately think it was over-reinforced. The skylobbies consisted of the same design as the other floors. Nice try again.

Nice try on the quote above, even though he clearly states, the only people who weren;t surprised who were people who actually design skyscrapers, no wonder, but you listen to the suprise of people who dont design them and say well, i told you, they shouldnt have failed. That sir is rediculous judgement on your part.

Do you also know that concrete is only safe as a fire resistant material for a certain amount of time just like the fireproofing? As much as you want to believe it, concrete contains water dude, not liquid water, but water molecules. There is around I believe 10% of the solid material is water and when fire hits, this water boils and cracks the concrete, making it very brittle and causing massive loss of strength. Thats why you never want to surround a concrete column with a steel jacket that doesnt have any holes for the water vapor to escape, the vapor will explode the column!

Nice try on the self-supporting claim too about the outer wall. What are you trying to say with this quote? That the outer walls all by themselves would stand all 1300 feet, like a hollow tube?

Some of these cliams you guys are making are just pure lies. You have no evidence to back anything up.

Actually, the live loads of the sky lobbies were specified at 100 psf, just like the tenant floors.

The live load of the mechanical floors was 75 psf.

Howard, its no use, they dont even know what live load is.

Train

Originally posted by The Links
From your link Deny.

"Robertson's crew placed the dampers, 11,000 of them in each building, between the bottom of the floor trusses and the columns"

How convenient.

I wonder how often they needed inspection/repair.

Damper renovation/repair would be "good cover" to place charges in the exact place where charges would be required.

The only mention i can find of them in any official report is this...

Figure B-9 (A) Visco-elastic damper angles.

I think they are trying to say an angled piece of steel is this device, lol.

Or they are trying to indicate that the angle holds the damper device.

I don't think they really want to speak about it for some reason.

[edit on 29-4-2006 by The Links]

Links, all you have to do is look, and you will find the answers, like this perfect cross-sectional picture of the truss system.

thewebfairy.com...

Check it out.

Train

1) Building 7 did not suffer enough fire damage to result in collapse.
2) Building 7 Collapsed at the center, perfectly, all 4 corners of the building fell at the same pace, straight down - this happens in controlled bursts
3) Government wont provide any info on WHY

Conclusion: Someone DID IT. Not fire or debris. They wont tell us and never will, therefore we are suckers and should ignore the fact its dodgy.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

No, not really. There is clear documentation that there were problems with the fireproofing in the towers. The Port authority had extended it's fireproofing inspection program to WTC 7. There are reports that the WTC 7 fireproofing had some problems as well.

Has this documentation been linked to in this thread? Either way would you provide one, please?

Originally posted by jimmytango
and the timeline stops at 8.2 seconds - I think I read somewhere that the whole collapse took 30+ seconds? So when I am watching the clip of WTC 7 falling, it's taking 20+ seconds to fall? Sorry I just don't see it.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The timeline stops at 8.2 seconds, when the global collapse began.

in other words, the point where all the conspiracy theorists start to time the collapse, claiming that there was no internal resistance to the collapse. Thus you should add the 8.2 seconds to their times.

So then the official collapse time should be 18 seconds approx? I am sure I read that 30 seconds was the new, official number - I'll try to source this out later but perhaps you could verify this for me?

One other comment - Train you seem to have this figured out - but I haven't read any of what you've stated in the official report. Since you seem to be speaking from an educated standpoint, how do you feel about the work that NIST and FEMA have done to date? I'd imagine you must be awfully frustrated with the lack of progress in their studies of WTC 7.

Lastly - Skibum - I would have to disagree with your interpretation of the NIST/FEMA reports. I don't see where they have stated ANYTHING to be factual in terms of a conclusion. They identify potential causes for the collapse, put forth an hypothesis, and then admit that they haven't been able to find a scenario that combines the two.

Lastly - Skibum - I would have to disagree with your interpretation of the NIST/FEMA reports. I don't see where they have stated ANYTHING to be factual in terms of a conclusion. They identify potential causes for the collapse, put forth an hypothesis, and then admit that they haven't been able to find a scenario that combines the two.

Okay, until they rebuild the WTC and ram airplanes into them and recreate the exact situation, I admit anything they propose will be a hypothesis.

Thats the way the scientific method works isn't it?

Until they go through that ANYTHING that any side puts forth will just be a hypothesis, won't it?

I don't have any problem with the scientific method - but there are no ties between the evidence they have found and their hypothesis. They admit in the documents that certain conditions would have to be present for their hypothesis to be correct, yet they can't seem to prove these conditions existed, or that the evidence they have substantiates in any serious way these conditions.

That's where my problem lies.