WTC 7 - Why?

Sorry guys, steel and concrete is not "apples to apples". At all.

When WTC 7 was rebuilt, one of the new features that were an improvement over the old one, was the fact that it was supported by concrete.

Why did they do this?

Ah, I suppose it's part of the mind control? To make people think steel doesn't perform as well in a fire than concrete?

What in the hell does the new WTC7 have to do with anything? It looks different too. You gonna try to make that into an argument against us too? You're ridiculous.

Griff is a structural engineer. That means I'm sure he can make a better argument than "the new WTC7 had concrete, therefore its BETTER!" Why don't you ask him how big of a difference it makes?

Originally posted by Stiney
Sorry guys, steel and concrete is not "apples to apples". At all.

Dude, I just noticed you registered TWO days ago. and have 360 points... Interesting. You also seem to know things about certain posters here... You said that you "warned" me, but I have not posted on here for weeks... Interesting.

who did you used to be?

Originally posted by Stiney
It's a completely different structure. It's not even steel, it's reinforced concrete. What's your point?

I'm also sick of this excuse. Euler's buckling equation is:

F=(K pi^2 E I)/l^2

F= Maximum critical force (verticle load on column)
E= Modulus of Elasticity
I= Area moment of Inertia
l= Unbraced length (unsupported length)
K= constant depending on the end conditions of the column. For a fixed column at both ends K=4 (which we will assume)

Assumptions: K=4
l=12 feet=144 inches
Rectangle box columns for steel and solid rectangle columns for concrete with the same dimensions. (30" x 30" x 4inch thick)

Givens:

Steel:

E= 29x10^6 psi

I= 67500 inch^4

Concrete:

E= 4.35 x 10^6 psi

I= bh^3/12 for a rectangle= 67500 inch^4

Steel:

F = (4) (3.14)^2 (29 x 10^6) (67500)/(144)^2=3.72 x 10^9 lbs.

Concrete:

F = (4) (3.14)^2 (4.35 x 10^6) (67500)/(144)^2=5.59 x 10^8 lbs.

So, in conclusion, given the parameters of my comparison, the maximum force that can be held up by the same column but made from steel and concrete is:

Steel: 3,720,000 kips

Concrete: 559,000 kips

The steel is 6.65 times stronger than the concrete. What's that about not being able to compare steel and concrete columns?

Concrete DOES perform better than steel; countless examples of disasters have proven this. In fact, the example that conspiracists seem to be fond of - the Windsor building in Madrid - also proves this.




Pootie, when I said I warned you against jumping to conclusions, I was referring to the post I had just made, where I said: "Until then I suggest you stop jumping to conclusions, or if you have your own evidence that it was free, please present it." Ironically that's exactly what you did in response to that post.
Where did it seem that I knew about certain posters?
And, honestly, I don't even understand how the point system works.




Anyway, here is one source that explains Silverstein's expenses:

www.forbes.com...

Now when are you going to give me a source that shows that it was free?

Griff, the distinction between steel and concrete is not the weight they can carry. It's their performance in a fire.

Let's get back on topic now.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Stiney]

Originally posted by Stiney
Concrete DOES perform better than steel; countless examples of disasters have proven this. In fact, the example that conspiracists seem to be fond of - the Windsor building in Madrid - also proves this.

Concrete does NOT perform better than steel. Why do they have to reinforce concrete with steel if concrete is the better product to begin with?

Also, the yield strength of concrete in compression is from 3,000-6,000 psi, (3-6 ksi) depending on the concrete mix.

The yield strength of A36 steel in compression is 36,000 psi (36 ksi)

Guess what the yield strength of concrete in tension is: Close to zero.

That's 6 times stronger. How in the hell can you state that concrete performs better than steel?

That's twice now that I have proven to you that steel is 6 times stronger than concrete. I even used two different methods to come to the same conclusion.

Originally posted by Stiney
Griff, the distinction between steel and concrete is not the weight they can carry. It's their performance in a fire.

And concrete is brittle as hell compared to steel, and cracks and breaks up when heated because of the water molecules trying to expand within the concrete. Obviously this causes loss of strength. It would cause complete failure if enough heat was transferred to the concrete.

All scientific studies of the behavior of steel structures in a fire show that steel doesn't give way under its own weight and fall apart in a fire. The amount of strength lost, even if all steel is heated to 600 C (very unrealistic), is not enough to overcome anything above a safety factor of 2, because only half of its strength is lost at 600 C. How much steel do you think was glowing red in broad daylight in those buildings? Because that's what happens when steel gets that hot. It doesn't realistically happen because so much heat is lost to the atmosphere and other matter.

Originally posted by Stiney
Anyway, here is one source that explains Silverstein's expenses:

www.forbes.com...

Now when are you going to give me a source that shows that it was free?

Your source is FOUR YEARS OLD... from 2003.

It is no longer accurate.

In 2004 he was awarded additional money:

NEW YORK — A federal jury ruled Monday that the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center was two occurrences for insurance purposes, meaning leaseholder Larry Silverstein stands to collect up to $2.2 billion from nine insurers.

The verdict in U.S. District Court in Manhattan was the latest twist in Mr. Silverstein's efforts to turn his $3.5 billion insurance policy on the trade center complex into a $7 billion payout.

Source: WSJ 12/06/04

The rest of the money is still in pending litigation.

Maybe you want to use current sources when making arguments?

Simple rule: Developers do not generally borrow money to build unless they believe the property will be profitable.

Simple rule: Even WITH NO BUILDINGS that propert has to be worth somewhere in the billions and he STILL WOULD OWN THAT.

BTW, for the steel to loose it's structural integrity, the modulus of elasticity of steel needs to be reduced to that of the concrete to compare. E of concrete is 15% of E of steel. E is what drops in steel at elevated temperatures. But, even then, we'd need E to drop to 85% of it's elasticity. I don't have my engineering book handy where I know to find the info I need, but that is a significant amount of heat to just equal the integrity of the concrete.

Originally posted by Stiney
Griff, the distinction between steel and concrete is not the weight they can carry. It's their performance in a fire.

Since performance is directly proportional to the weight they can carry, I'd say it is significantly important.

Let's get back on topic now.

Sure...why not.

As of 9/31/06:

...Silverstein thus far has been awarded $4.6 billion in insurance...
...Another issue raised during litigation was whether the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were one attack or two, given that two separate planes were flown into the two towers. Juries have found that the relevant insurance contracts offered different wording that should be applied in different ways, and have purported to strike a balance in the overall level of cash ordered to be paid, resulting in an amount “juggled” between two extremes...

This is not including the pending litigations for god knows how much and appeals on the denial of $1.1b and $700mil respectively.

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Pootie]

Stiney,

Just a bit of friendly advise. Griff is an engineer and unless your educated in engineering I suggest you listen to what Griff says on engineering matters.

As to the SEC files:

The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [in the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."

Source: www.nylawyer.com...

As to the Secret Service files:

Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. ..."All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran.

source:www.g4techtv.com...

As to Worldcom:

Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking (about WorldCom) was destroyed in the September 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack.

Source www.thestreet.com...

Note: all large companies keep off site copies of backup tapes.

As to Larry:

Silverstein was also given the right to rebuild the structures, should they be destroyed.

source: www.paulgoldberger.com...

For the original 99 year lease:

Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money

For the purchase:

Larry Silverstein purchased the property rights of all 7 buildings of the WTC six weeks before September 11, 2001 with a single down payment of $100 million, despite high vacancy rates of offices at the WTC.

source: www.law.com...

WAIT!!! Up the payout to date to

...nearly $5B...

source: Starkman, Dean. "Jury Rules for Silverstein on Trade Center Insurance", Wall Street Journal, December 7,2004, p. A11.

In 2007, 6 years after the attacks, Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a $1 billion lawsuit ($250 million in unpaid claims and $750 million in damages) against Royal & Sun Alliance Group Plc and its U.S. affiliate.

www.cpnonline.com...

Originally posted by etshrtslr
Stiney,

Just a bit of friendly advise. Griff is an engineer and unless your educated in engineering I suggest you listen to what Griff says on engineering matters.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I suggest not listening to me and getting more than one opinion though. You never know when I could make a mistake. But, thanks anyway.

Originally posted by Griff

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I suggest not listening to me and getting more than one opinion though. You never know when I could make a mistake. But, thanks anyway.

We all make mistakes one time or another. Its the fact you present the information in an fair an unbiased way IMHO. Yes I do agree to always get more than one opinion.

Originally posted by etshrtslr
Stiney,

Just a bit of friendly advise. Griff is an engineer and unless your educated in engineering I suggest you listen to what Griff says on engineering matters.

I haven't denied what he said and backed up because I'm not aware of any qualified source that could do so; what I said was that it was not relevant. I agree that steel is better for skyscrapers, because it helps it survive strong winds and such, but the issue is how they compare in fires to concrete structures. Griff states that the weight it can carry is directly proportional to how well it would perform in a fire. There are absolutely no calculations backing that up, it does not seem rational to me, and it directly contradicts what we observe in multiple examples including the Windsor building in Madrid that supposedly proves the opposite.

I would be interested to see Griff's response to this:

"[Concrete] can endure very high temperatures from fire for a long time without loss of structural integrity," says Alfred G. Gerosa, president, Concrete Alliance Inc., New York City.

Concrete requires no additional fireproofing treatments to meet stringent fire codes, and performs well during both natural and manmade disasters.

Concrete vs. Steel

Please explain to me why there is fireproof insulation added to steel if it already handles fire better than concrete, which does not require fireproofing. Or explain to me how this article is inherently flawed and how you are more qualified on the matter than the people cited in it, Griff.

Again, I am not denying that steel structures would generally be stronger in general when it comes to holding up weight, but if the steel structure can be easily warped by fire, the calculations referring to its "strength" would have to change drastically. Are you going to deny that calculations would need to be adjusted accordingly once certain disasters take place, like fire?

[edit on 25-4-2007 by Stiney]

This is interesting...I didn't know this...

When Silverstein was binding his insurance for WTC he used the insurance broker Willis Group Holdings Ltd.

This is interesting only in that the standard provisions used by Willis (the Wilprop form), take the time to define the term "occurence" very clearly.

In fact, every coverage that was bound using the Wilprop form only paid on the 9/11 disaster as ONE OCCURENCE because of the clear definitions set forth.

It was only the companies that INSISTED on using their OWN FORM that were forced to pay out 9/11 as two seperate occurences, because their form didn't take the time to define "occurence" as clearly. (Ironically, after the disaster, those same insurance companies were scrambling to prove that they DID, in fact, give in and use Silverstein's form!)

Court Rules Against Silverstein WTC Claim
The legal issues, while complex, have seemingly come down to which of two forms the parties intended to use as a binder when they agreed to cover parts of the WTC risk. Swiss Re has always maintained that all parties made reference to a form prepared by Willis, the WilProp Form, which makes reference to an "occurrence or series of occurrences," and would seem to rule out the "two event" theory. Silverstein's position holds that a form prepared by Travelers was used, which does not have this restrictive language.

This, in my opinion, does not seem like the act of a brazenly bloodthirsty and greedy man who is about to orchestrate the slaughter of thousands for his financial gain.

If his shameless plan was truly to reap the insurance windfall from this planned event, why on earth would he go through an insurance broker using a form that, in the end, could cost him as much as $3.5 billion right off the top?

He would have gone through these agreements with a fine tooth comb to ensure that he wouldn't get "cheated" in the courts. There is a ZERO PERCENT chance that he would look past that costly verbiage.

Am I missing something?

HERE is another old article that describes the agreements.

WAIT!!! Up the payout to date to "...nearly $5B... "

Heh, Pootie, are you paying attention? Did I not say that it was 4.6 billion? How is 4.6 billion not "nearly 5B"? It's 5 billion, rounded off.

And how much did it cost to rebuild?

Based on what I read, it was 9 billion. Have you got anything that puts it lower than that?

Do you know that 4.6 billion is less than 9 billion?

Where is the profit?