It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by pteridine
Uncontrollable for demolition purposes.
Originally posted by exponent
I am glad you are able to link to sources, but perhaps you could tell us what actually happened to column to beam connections in the Cardington tests? Was there any deformation? Did beams expand?
Once you have done that, please tell us NISTs proposed initial failure mode for WTC1,2 and 7, and show me how the reproduction of these forces in the Cardington tests are somehow impossible in WTC1,2 and 7.
You mention WTC7 and yet do not know that FDNY was saying all afternoon that 7 was going to fall because of the damage it had and that they were not going to attempt to enter and fight the fires?
Naturally, I challenged Swampfox to prove his claim, using the NIST report. Surely, if WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, then the very thorough NIST investigation should make significant mention of it in the report - right?
He avoided showing me where his claim was supported in the NIST report, insisting that he would rather use the eyewitness reports from the day.
MacQueen took a sample of 60 firefighter quotes, analysed them and then tabled his results. Only seven firefighters made the claim that WTC 7 was going to collapse based on their own judgement. The rest heard from 'others' that WTC 7 was doomed. MacQueen then lists the seven transcripts and you can read for yourselves how dubious some of them are.
Question: How qualified are firefighters to judge the structual integrity of a damaged building?
Swampfox hasn't shown why he belives that WTC 7 was in danger of falling all afternoon. He can only supply witness statements, and all of them appear to be, uninformed, second-hand information relayed to those particular witnesses.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Challenging me to use a report that I have more than once called an "educated guess" to back myself up over FDNY statements. Gotta wonder about the thought processes involved there......
I guess MacQueen and Tezzie would have felt better had every member of FDNY stopped what they were doing to go play tourist and look at WTC 7. As if the losses they suffered that day were not bad enough, these guys are appearantly upset that the survivors did not further endanger themselves to go take a look at a building that others had already looked at and felt was going to collapse.
I could post about the measurements made that day that showed Seven was moving, but Thed already did that.
Originally posted by pteridine
Volume 1 is 22 mb and volume 2 is 29mb. I'll post the pages that I referenced on request. U2U seems to be limited and won't accept even small attachments.
Originally posted by tezzajw
I didn't set the goal posts, thedman. NIST defined them in its report. I'm just trying to make sense out of the conflicting reports about the stability of WTC 7.
Originally posted by exile1981
Ok I have to ask are being obtuse on purpose?
You say the NIST report is false yet when someone tries to use witness statements to defend their argument you use the NIST report you claimed was false as your evidence to refute the witnesses.
You can not have it both ways. Either NIST is an accurate report that both sides of the debate can use as evidence or it's false and no one uses it to validate thier points.
What you were doing is called a circular argument and is considered bad form in debating.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Exactly and what has already happened? Fires in many steel-structured high-rises over the years have already happened and not a single one has collapsed due to fire before 9/11 or after 9/11. If you think steel-structured high-rises can globally collapse due to fire, please show the audience some examples (besides 9/11). I'm sure we all would love to see you prove your claim.
And do you realize or remember when terrorist attack magnitude intensified? Right after we occupied two different countries.
Rarely did you hear about terrorist attacks in the news before 9/11.
The towers weren't meant to collapse perfectly, that was the whole point. But WTC7 looks awfully damn perfect to me and even moreso than the demolition it's being compared to:
Fire is so uncontrolled and unpredictable yet we're lead to believe it can cause the above? Give me a break. What are you on? You are completely clueless or so far in denial that it blinds you.
Truth and facts hurt, don't they? Looks like you are the one that's been discredited.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Right, so we know how fire works...
...
But wait, you just stated that we knew how fire worked, so how can it be unpredictable and uncontrolled?
Do you want to choose a position about fire and stick with it?
It looks rather silly when you contradict yourself like the above quotes show.
If they knew how fire worked, then why didn't they realise that an uncontrolled fire would have heated Column 79 to the point of failing? To me, your statement is an admission that there wasn't enough redundancy for fire suppression measures in WTC 7.
Originally posted by impressme
It didn’t, in my opinion, that is part of the building design, I do not see any damage in your imposable to see smoke filled photos.
Sure, no building exists in the area that could cast that shadow.
Sure, it is, look how straight it is from top to bottom in fact these pictures could have been photo shop, care to prove they are not?
Originally posted by bsbray11
I have been talking about this deformation the whole time, as the ONLY type of failure that fires actually produce. Are you blind? If you have eyes then read my posts.
I said it DOESN'T result in SHEAR failures. How else do you think you're going to get a massive 47 story building moving at free-fall speeds? Did it sag to the ground? Really?
NIST suggested actual shearing, something different than shown at Cardington or in any scientific study, and they DIDN'T test their hypothesis. That's the problem. All theory, no test, proof. They even rebuilt the truss/perimeter connections and put fire under it and still didn't reproduce the proposed mechanism.
Originally posted by exponent
Why do you think there is a contradiction?
Tell me, given a 10 inch long piece wood, if you ignite one end, you should be able to answer the following questions:
There certainly wasn't enough redundancy for fire suppression measures in the WTC, that's because the water mains were destroyed by the towers failing. What an odd thing to say.
Incidentally NISTs failure mechanism is not what you describe.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Of course you contradicted yourself. You made two contradictory statements about the behaviour of the fires. You claimed that we know about how fire works, but that it is also unpredictable. It's fine with me if you wish to backpeddle though.
The only question that I'm prepared to answer is what the hell does a 10 inch block of wood have to do with a 47 storey, steel framed building?
Of course, I don't blame you for trying to drift the topic.
That's exactly my point. If, as you state, everything was known about the fires, then it should have been known that WTC 7 would have been destroyed by any uncontrolled fire. Remember that NIST stated that without the damage, WTC 7 would still have fallen, due to the fires.
You claim that everything was known about fires. So why wasn't the potentially devastating scenario factored in to the firefighting precautions? If the standpipes were destroyed, as they were, then why weren't there other measures in place, to fight the fires?
Well, lay it out for me - I must have read the report wrong. Which Column, other than 79 was the one that failed first, according to NIST?
Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by esdad71
NIST is garbage...why? Because all of you say so?
Truth hurts doesn’t it.
We do not know and NO ONE REALLY KNOWS why it took 7 hour to blow up WTC 7. As far as your kink theory I have not seen any reliable photos that proves there was a kink in WTC 7. So stop spreading DISINFORMATION!
Sunder identified several existing, emerging or even anticipated capabilities that could have helped prevent WTC 7’s collapse. He cautioned that the degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated. Possible options for developing cost-effective fixes include:
More robust connections and framing systems to better resist effects of thermal expansion on the structural system.
Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse, which is the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. Current model building codes do not require that buildings be designed to resist progressive collapse.
Better thermal insulation (i.e., reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel and to minimize both thermal expansion and weakening effects. Insulation has been used to protect steel strength, but it could be used to maintain a lower temperature in the steel framing to limit thermal expansion.
Improved compartmentation in tenant areas to limit the spread of fires.
Thermally resistant window assemblies to limit breakage, reduce air supply and retard fire growth.
www.nist.gov...
Originally posted by esdad71
First, you are not qualified to say that the information in the NIST report was false.
Originally posted by esdad71
Multiple pictures easily found in books and the internet show the kink.
Originally posted by esdad71
WTC 7 was a hybrid building that was built upon something older.
Originally posted by esdad71
As far as my boat, it is far from sunk and I think some people just started dancing up front. We are all going to have a party why you feel mad and sad....
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by esdad71
First, you are not qualified to say that the information in the NIST report was false.
You are not qualified to say who is or is not qualified to say that information in the NIST report is false. We are all qualified. Especially where quoted in the OP, NIST states that WTC1 caused the ignition of fires in WTC7. That is complete and utter falseness as publicly available images prove that wrong. Both towers (especially WTC1) are clearly still standing as the fires on the lower floors are visible inside WTC7:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bf2bd1d82650.jpg[/atsimg]
Another view of the fires on the lower floors:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c1224da02971.jpg[/atsimg]
Now if one thing in the NIST report is false, how can the rest be trusted?
Originally posted by esdad71
Multiple pictures easily found in books and the internet show the kink.
While the rest of us actually post pictures and links to back up our claims, how about you do the same?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/42afa53d7271.jpg[/atsimg]
I don't see a kink in the above image. Care to post one that you think shows a kink?
Originally posted by esdad71
WTC 7 was a hybrid building that was built upon something older.
Sorry, but it doesn't matter what type of building you think it is. In order for every single support column to fail at the exact same time, you need precisely timed explosives. There's no such thing as precisely timed fire.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a39ae149b0f6.gif[/atsimg]
Originally posted by esdad71
As far as my boat, it is far from sunk and I think some people just started dancing up front. We are all going to have a party why you feel mad and sad....
Nah, it's still sinking. Until one single person can demonstrate how a building can fall more perfect than a controlled demolition and demonstrate how fire can take out every support column in a building simultaneously, then everything you type out of your keyboard is speculation and theory at best. Might want to hold off on that party for now.
Originally posted by esdad71
Fires burned for over 7 hours. Please show me some video of fires PRIOR to collapse and post them. This is complete fallacy also. Here is youir kink though....