Originally posted by esdad71
Go to page 6, and it gives the initial analysis, but I suggest you read it all.
I took a look at the whole report - I'll begin my comments at page 6.
The title of page 6 is 'Working Collapse Hypothesis for WTC 7'. Their working hypothesis is that his is a classic progressive collapse. I'm sure
we can all agree that hypothesis means assumption. Thus NIST is working from a starting point that does not include the possibility of a controlled
demolition. At the bottom of the same page it says:
"NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7
was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition."
That this statement is on the Working Hypothesis page is of great importance in my opinion. Most would take this to mean that NIST didn't see any
evidence of bombs, etc. However since this is on the Hypothesis page it could also be taken to mean that this fact is part of their hypothesis. Thus
their working assumption is that NIST has found no evidence of bombs, etc. If this is the case it closes off any investigation into bombs, missiles
or controlled demolition. I know many will attack me for getting into semantics, but I'd like to hear a lawyer's point of view on how this page is
I wish Train was still reading this thread - the NIST report refutes everything he said about damage to WTC 7. Page 14 sums up the damage from the
collapse of WTC 2:
- Some south face glass broken at lower floors
- Dust covered lobby areas at floors 1 and 3
- Power on in building, phones working
- No fires observed
Page 15 sums up the damage after WTC 1 collapsed:
Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 Promenade
- No heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating
- SW Corner Damage – floors 8 to 18
- South face damage between two exterior columns - roof level
down 5 to 10 floors, extent not known
- South Face Damage –
• middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• large debris hole near center around 14th floor
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more
damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby
No mention of heavy damage to the first five floors. No photographic evidence contained within shows any damage to the first 5 floors.
The report goes on to describe the fires in WTC 7 - again no fires observed in the first five floors. Page 26 sums up the timeline - this is
confusing as the timeline ends at 8.2 seconds, the apparent start of the global collapse. The time it took for the building to fall from that point
Many of pages of truss diagrams follow - I'm no expert so I won't comment. Page 38 details the Fuel System for Emergency Power in WTC 7.
Floor 5—which did not have any exterior windows and contained the only
pressurized fuel distribution system on the south, west and north floor
areas—is considered a possible fire initiation location, subject to further data
and/or analysis that improve knowledge of fire conditions in this area.
• The two 6,000 gallon tanks supplying the 5th floor generators through a pressurized piping system were always kept full for emergencies and were
full that day.
• This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5.
Keep the above in mind when reading the following - the Observations on the Fifth Floor:
The 5th floor was the only floor with a pressurized fuel line supplying the emergency power generators.
• Two 6,000 gallon fuel tanks supplying a pressurized line possibly contributed to fires; tanks were found to be damaged by debris and empty several
months after collapse.
• In a 1997 facility condition survey, fireproofing was observed to be prominently missing on 5th floor framing above main lobby; possible repair
• A majority of the 5th floor was not protected by sprinkler systems, with the exception of mechanical space to east and office area to north side
of building; no evidence of sprinklers in enclosures on 5th floor (also on floors 7, 8, and 9) which housed OEM generators and day tanks. Seventh
generator room may have been sprinklered, conflicting data.
So WTC 7, home of the CIA, Secret Service, SEC, the NYC Emergency bunker and many others, has one major fuel line running through it, on the 5th
floor, and this floor has no fireproofing, and was not protected by sprinkler systems? Does this strike anyone else as just a little strange?
Wouldn't any building with a pressurized fuel line running through one floor have at least sprinkler systems on that floor, let alone fireproofing?
Now say this building is a whole city's emergency operation center - perhaps even more reason to have the building properly protected and fortified
Oddly the report ends there. I realise this is a work in progress, but with all due respects esdad I don't see anything definitive about this
report, and neither do the authors. So far this report is full of speculation and mixed observations. It tends to raise more questions for me than
it did answer them. Perhaps you could give your take on the report to make things clearer for me?
And to Shadow - what was your initial reaction upon seeing WTC 7 fall for the first time?