UAF World Trade Center 7 Draft Report

a reply to: carsforkids

Cannot you actually form a coherent argument addressing the questions asked of you? Or all you have is linking to random truth movement propaganda.

As far as CD on the the exterior columns. The video evidence contains no sparking and flashing visible at the windows. No visible action from a shockwave with the force to cut steel columns. For cutting charges, no visible breaching/melting of the façade.

Then you have to get past wiring and detonation systems surviving hours of fires.

Then there is a certain expected sound level indicative of an explosive with the force to cut steel columns. Because the explosive has to be strong enough to create a shockwave with the pressure to cut steel columns.

Also. No evidence of “glowing” metal from the visible columns of the WTC 7 pile.

Then AE truth claimed the fires were no hotter than normal office fires? Is that false? I guess that rules out floor to floor, column to column thermite fueled fires that burn at 3000 Fahrenheit?

What do you not get there is zero evidence of CD

a reply to: Jesushere

They are not really skeptics, they are true believers in the fantasy and false claims of NIST.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Jesushere

They are not really skeptics, they are true believers in the fantasy and false claims of NIST.

Still waiting on you to provide credible proof of your pet pet theory that nukes brought down the WTC,

a reply to: Jesushere

Out of curiosity on how your posting on Metabunk is going. And out of curiosity how the argument is proceeding? Can you link to your posts on threads at Metabunk?

a reply to: carsforkids

Another rant. No facts. Let’s recap.

You started with this.

originally posted by: carsforkids
Here is a building most likely of an inferior building code
collapsed by fire.

Now that's a fire!

And here is a building of superior design than the one above
collapsed by W/E.

Fire?

Anyone who refuses to acknowledge the difference isn't being honest
with themselves.

Which would be a classic conspiracists “look at this”. With no context. An emotional plea based on no stated / logical argument.

With a statement with no proof by you, “And here is a building of superior design than the one above collapsed by W/E.”

The you were asked by mrthumpy

Please give a detailed description of the differences in design between the two buildings

In the face of someone asking you to clarify. With a chance to answer in a logical and fact filled argument. You reply

WHY?

I see no reason for that when I already supplied the vids.

You do see the difference in fires don't you?

So? Somebody asks about building design. You being supposedly in the construction trades answers, “I see no reason for that when I already supplied the vids.“. Which has nothing to do with addressing building design.

After much back and forth, you state:

The obvious answer is fire code gentleman.

In thinking you could supply pertinent information on fire code, I posted this:

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: carsforkids

I am not sure what your implying? It seems you think there is a connection between fire intensity and fire proofing?

FIREPROOFING" AT THE WTC TOWERS
10/01/2002
www.fireengineering.com... -wtc-towers.html#gref


I inspected core columns up to the 78th floor but was unable to access them above that point. These inspections revealed that the bond of fireproofing on core columns had failed in many locations and the fireproofing was falling off the columns in floor-high sheets. Photo 3, taken in 1994, shows a core column from which the fireproofing had fallen off in a sheet that is several stories high. The red circle and date was the Port Authority's response to the missing fireproofing. This resulted because the steel had not been properly prepared at the time of the initial spray application. Rust scale had not been removed prior to applying the fireproofing. The fireproofing had adhered well to the rust scale, but the rust was coming loose from the steel (photo 4).

In addition, there were a number of areas in the elevator shafts where fireproofing on core beams had been knocked off by elevator cables or had been damaged by foot traffic during installation of the elevator equipment (photo 5).
Fireproofing on joist-to-wall connections was also deficient. The long-span joists were supported by an angle seat welded to the face of the exterior columns. The fireproofing applied in some places was so thin that the angle seat, the shape of the bolts connecting the joist to the seat, and the bolts holding together the spandrel panels could be readily discerned. According to building drawings, these areas should have had a fire rating of four hours. For such a rating, properly applied fireproofing should be at least one to 11/2 inches thick. At this thickness, the bolts and even the angle seat itself would not be discernable (photo 6).

At least for the towers, they were designed under one set of codes, then there was a code changed during/around the time of their constructing. Can you be specific on what set of codes your are referring to? Then I think the port authority was in a position to pick how they implemented code.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Construction of the World Trade Center

Design elements
Edit
Structural design
Edit
As an interstate agency, the Port Authority was not subject to local laws and regulations of the City of New York, including building codes. Nonetheless, the Port Authority required architects and structural engineers to follow the New York City building codes. At the time when the World Trade Center was planned, new building codes were being devised to replace the 1938 version that was still in place. The structural engineers ended up following draft versions of the new 1968 building codes, which incorporated "advanced techniques" in building design.[87]

So what year of codes are you referring to? And how much / how closely did the Port Authority follow the 1968 code change?

And you are still ignoring the WTC buildings were built to minimize cost by minimizing concrete usage beyond normal practice. The WTC buildings had longer floor spans beyond normal practice, with less mid length support than common practice. And WTC 7 had odd angles floor connections not normally used.

After pointing out WTC buildings had deficient fire insulation. And trying to address that WTC 7 in no way had superior design, your reply was

Deficient fire insulation compared to what? The fires in the
WTC buildings certainly don't seem to exhibit any deficiencies
do they? In fact it looks to me like the insulation performed
perfectly compared to that building in Brazil. I wonder can you
even admit that? No I suppose not. Too scary.

You seem to imply fire insulation can suppress fires like a sprinkler system? I am still at a loss on what your logic was?

Anyway.

To sum up.

You played look at this with no structured argument.

You brought up code first, then didn’t want to actually discuss code.

You stated WTC 7 had a superior design. Then when the discussion turned to WTC 7 did not have a superior design because

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: carsforkids

I think the answer is the WTC buildings minimize concrete usage beyond common practice. The WTC buildings had longer unsupported floor spans beyond common practice with no mid length supports. Used less columns beyond common practice. Meaning little or no mid length columns. The WTC building were known to have deficient fire insulation. WTC 7 had odd angle floor connections not used in most building designs. The long floor lengths made the WTC more susceptible to thermal stress. WTC 7 spanned over a large subterranean electrical substation.

And WTC 5 shows fire related failures were very possible in WTC buildings.

You started to rant and make personal attacks?

And stated this?

None of what you just posted means squat partner.

So? To you? Building design has nothing to do with how a building reacts to a fire? Your saying an all steel structure with deficient fire insulation vs a building built with reinforced concrete columns are going to provide the same building performance?

--FAIR WARNING--

IMPORTANT: STRICT RULES

Within the 9/11 Conspiracies forum, the Terms and Conditions will be strictly enforced, along with the following additions:

Name Calling: Tossing around indiscriminate name calling such as "OSer," "Shill," "Troll," "Truther," and all the other related nonsense will not be tolerated. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

Personal Attacks: Taking focus off the subject matter and toward each other will not be tolerated in any form. You will experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

Thread Derailment: Posting of any irreverent or ridiculous information that disrupts the flow of productive discussion will not be tolerated. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

Trolling: The repeated posting of content that supports any specific position, without interacting with members regarding that position will be considered Trolling in the 9/11 Forum. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

Minimal Posts: Any minimal post that is nothing more than "atta-boy" agreement, or "nope" disagreement will not be tolerated -- if you post, contribute something. Depending on the severity, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

External Sources: There has been way too much copy-and-paste of massive amounts of content from external sources. You should never post more than FIVE (5) paragraphs from each external source. If you post more, we will indiscriminately cut it down to two or three paragraphs. If you do this repeatedly, you may experience an immediate account termination with no warning.

And As Always ... Do NOT reply to this Post

a reply to: neutronflux

Dude can you at least answer the question so I don't get banned?
Because that would suck.
Please?

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: neutronflux

Dude can you at least answer the question so I don't get banned?

Because that would suck.
Please?

I think the first questions was what fire codes where your referring to between WTC 7, the Plasco collapse, and the Brazilian high rise collapse. And, how WTC 7 was “Superior” in design.

Then that was followed up with WTC 7 was more susceptible to fire related collapse because:
WTC 7 was built cheap as possible, and maximize space to maximize profits. The port authority could pick and choose what codes to follow from a 1968 draft of codes. The previous code update was 1938. How much high rise steel structure performance data did the 1968 draft have to draw from? The WTC was known to have deficient fire insulation. WTC 7 did not have concrete columns that had saved other high rise buildings in the past. WTC 7 did not have any columns along the lengths of its long floor spans. The length of floors spans were longer than common practice. Concrete usage was minimized beyond normal practice. WTC 7 had uncommon angles for floor connections.

So. Instead of you understanding WTC 7 was very susceptible to the same fire related connection failures as seen in WTC 5, you started with personal attacks.

And replied with the brilliant response of

None of what you just posted means squat partner.

a reply to: neutronflux

Then that was followed up with WTC 7 was more susceptible to fire related collapse because: WTC 7 was built cheap as possible,

No it wasn't why are you spreading lies miho? Did you happen to
notice WTC 7 isn't even on fire?

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: mrthumpy

What do you mean what do I mean?

Weakened in what way? What is it you think the fire wasn't capable of?

So carsforkids: doesn't know what the differences in design were between the examples he gave but claims that WTC7 was superior

Doesn't know what he means by weakened but is sure the fire wasn't capable of causing that weakening

But definitely knows all about construction

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You

Just don't get it. NIST progressive collapse I ripped apart last night. Mick knows it. What do you see in the two images?

Do you have a quote as such from Mick West?

Do you have a link to what your referring to as “last night”?

For the Hulsey report.
The movement of the penthouse and roof top objects do not match the video evidence.

The Hulsey model is missing key elements of the collapse witnessed in the video evidence.

The Hulsey modeling is strangely manually drawn, and the full capabilities of the software used by Hulsey was not utilized.

Hulsey’s model ignores collisions and resistance of the collapsing building in his modeling.

Hulsey’s modeling project spent $300,000.00 to model the obvious. If your remove columns with disregard for real word evidence, your model will collapse.

Hulsey lists no references to the video, audio, seismic data for any real life mechanism that would cause all the columns to fail at the same instance.

See how he got lippy with me.

Since he can't debunk my claim, he said this.

Either he's not getting or trying to deflect attention away.

I responded with this message
Mick Kostack says this below the page.
While this simulation of World Trade Center 7 is still not 'perfect' it resembles much better the specific characteristics observed in the documentation of reality than the older model. This simulation confirms mostly the findings of NIST, it is safe to say that the columns 79 to 81 were the first columns which gave way because of the removal of other columns.

Kostack building tipped over to southeast did not make whole sense in 2017, it now does because Hulsey analyses also showed WTC7 tower would tip over in the same direction.

Hulsey and Kostack both simulated the NIST collapse conditions (based on their study) and there building also toppled over towards the southeast.

Mick ran away after realising he can't debunk what i am saying.

If Mick claiming fire did it why did the Kostack model tilt southeast just like the Hulsey model!! NIST computer model there building did not topple southeast.

I have debunked most of Mick ridiculous claims on his Youtube channel.

Weird that you're only posting those two short lines from the conversation. I wonder what you're hiding

a reply to: carsforkids

If WTC 7 was a superior design, then start listing specific design features that made it more fire proof? As in actually provide a credible argument backed by cited and verifiable facts?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: carsforkids

If WTC 7 was a superior design, then start listing specific design features that made it more fire proof? As in actually provide a credible argument backed by cited and verifiable facts?

Why would I do that? I have full confidence in what I said! If you want to
refute something feel free. I stand by what I said. Do you see the
difference in fires? You know one not being a fife?

originally posted by: carsforkids

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: carsforkids

If WTC 7 was a superior design, then start listing specific design features that made it more fire proof? As in actually provide a credible argument backed by cited and verifiable facts?

Why would I do that?

Because you claim it strengthens your argument

a reply to: carsforkids

You

Why would I do that? I have full confidence in what I said! If you want to
refute something feel free. I stand by what I said. Do you see the
difference in fires? You know one not being a fife?

Again...

So? To you? Building design has nothing to do with how a building reacts to a fire? Your saying an all steel structure with deficient fire insulation vs a building built with reinforced concrete columns are going to provide the same building performance?

Or one building with less support columns is not more susceptible to damage by thermal stress and deformation?

Placing the WTC 7 fire in prospect

www.911myths.com...

5.5.3 Fires at WTC 7
Currently, there is limited information about the ignition and development of fires at WTC 7, as well as about the specific fuels that may have been involved during the course of the fire. It is likely that fires started as a result of debris from the collapse of WTC 1.
According to fire service personnel, fires were initially seen to be present on non-contiguous floors on the south side of WTC 7 at approximately floors 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 19. The presence of fire and smoke on

lower floors is also confirmed by the early television news coverage of WTC 7, which indicated light-colored
smoke rising from the lower floors of WTC 7.
Video footage indicated that the majority of the smoke appeared to be coming from the south side of the building at that time as opposed to the other sides of the building. This is corroborated by Figure 5-17, a photograph taken at 3:36 p.m. that shows the south face of WTC 7 covered with a thick cloud of smoke, and only small amounts of smoke emanating from the 27th and 28th floors of the west face of WTC 7.
News coverage after 1:30 p.m. showed light-colored smoke flowing out of openings on the upper floors of the south side of the building. Another photograph (Figure 5-18) of the skyline at 3:25 p.m., taken from the southwest, shows a large volume of dark smoke coming from all but the lowest levels of WTC 7, where white smoke is emanating. The mode of fire and smoke spread was unclear; however, it may have been propagated through interior shafts, between floors along the south façade that may have been damaged, or other internal openings, as well as the floor slab/exterior façade connections.
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.
A review of photos and videos indicates that there were limited fires on the north, east, and west faces of the building. One eyewitness who saw the building from a 30th floor apartment approximately 4 blocks away to the northwest noted that fires in the building were not visible from that perspective. On some of the lower floors, where the firefighters saw fires for extended periods of time from the south side, there appeared to be walls running in an east to west direction, at least on floors 5 and 6, that would have compartmentalized the north side from the south side. There were also air plenums along the east and west walls and partially along the north walls of these floors instead of windows that may have further limited fires from extending out of these floors and, therefore, were not visible from sides other than the south.
As the day progressed, fires were observed on the east face of the 11th, 12th, and 28th floors (see Figure 5-19). The Securities and Exchange Commission occupied floors 11 through 13. Prior to collapse, fire was seen to have broken out windows on at least the north and east faces of WTC 7 on some of the lower levels.
On the north face, photographs and videos show that the fires were located on approximately the 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, and 13th floors. American Express Bank International occupied the 7th and 8th floors. The 7th floor also held the OEM generators and day tank. Photographs of the west face show fire and smoke on the 29th and 30th floors.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You

Just don't get it. NIST progressive collapse I ripped apart last night. Mick knows it. What do you see in the two images?

Do you have a quote as such from Mick West?

Do you have a link to what your referring to as “last night”?

For the Hulsey report.
The movement of the penthouse and roof top objects do not match the video evidence.

The Hulsey model is missing key elements of the collapse witnessed in the video evidence.

The Hulsey modeling is strangely manually drawn, and the full capabilities of the software used by Hulsey was not utilized.

Hulsey’s model ignores collisions and resistance of the collapsing building in his modeling.

Hulsey’s modeling project spent $300,000.00 to model the obvious. If your remove columns with disregard for real word evidence, your model will collapse.

Hulsey lists no references to the video, audio, seismic data for any real life mechanism that would cause all the columns to fail at the same instance.

See how he got lippy with me.

Since he can't debunk my claim, he said this.

Either he's not getting or trying to deflect attention away.

I responded with this message
Mick Kostack says this below the page.
While this simulation of World Trade Center 7 is still not 'perfect' it resembles much better the specific characteristics observed in the documentation of reality than the older model. This simulation confirms mostly the findings of NIST, it is safe to say that the columns 79 to 81 were the first columns which gave way because of the removal of other columns.

Kostack building tipped over to southeast did not make whole sense in 2017, it now does because Hulsey analyses also showed WTC7 tower would tip over in the same direction.

Hulsey and Kostack both simulated the NIST collapse conditions (based on their study) and there building also toppled over towards the southeast.

Mick ran away after realising he can't debunk what i am saying.

If Mick claiming fire did it why did the Kostack model tilt southeast just like the Hulsey model!! NIST computer model there building did not topple southeast.

I have debunked most of Mick ridiculous claims on his Youtube channel.

Weird that you're only posting those two short lines from the conversation. I wonder what you're hiding

Hiding nothing. Mick has decided not to post the info I provided. I not shocked by this, he is only interested in posting information he believes can debunk.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

Probably he couldn’t debunk what your saying is because you don’t give a clear argument?

You do realize that Hulsey confused NIST models, and mixed and match the models as he saw fit? Claiming one model was wrong when using data from another mode?


Now, can you actually address what is post? Instead of you ranting?

Do you have a quote as such from Mick West?

Do you have a link to what your referring to as “last night”?

For the Hulsey report.
The movement of the penthouse and roof top objects do not match the video evidence.

The Hulsey model is missing key elements of the collapse witnessed in the video evidence.

The Hulsey modeling is strangely manually drawn, and the full capabilities of the software used by Hulsey was not utilized.

Hulsey’s model ignores collisions and resistance of the collapsing building in his modeling.

Hulsey’s modeling project spent $300,000.00 to model the obvious. If your remove columns with disregard for real word evidence, your model will collapse.

Hulsey lists no references to the video, audio, seismic data for any real life mechanism that would cause all the columns to fail at the same instance.


I guess your getting lippy, and cannot come to terms with the flaws in Hulsey model.

There is know question in my mind, Mick understood it. Kostack WTC7 simulation titled the building southeast. Mick did want to talk about it so he left our conversation.

Quote: this i barely understood it. Its word salad. What are you attempting to say here?
"You do realize that Hulsey confused NIST models, and mixed and match the models as he saw fit? Claiming one model was wrong when using data from another mode?

Quote: Says who Mick West? Mick ignores there is a pivot when the Penthouse falls.
"For the Hulsey report.
The movement of the penthouse and rooftop objects do not match the video evidence.

You can see the right portion( backend) lifts and pivots outwards before falling through the roof. Mick for some reason thinks this never happened!!!



Quote: Do you expect us all to read your mind? Explain further what you mean, please
"The Hulsey model is missing key elements of the collapse witnessed in the video evidence.

Quote: Manually drawn? Hulsey computer modelled the building with Sap2000.
"The Hulsey modeling is strangely manually drawn.

Quote: Mick an idiot. Was already said to him the models of the building are just simulating column collapse scenarios. Mick claims you can't use static linear analysis to remove columns. He is 100 per cent wrong.
"Hulsey’s model ignores collisions and resistance of the collapsing building in his modeling.

a reply to: Jesushere

So? You got the data showing the modeling was computer driven, and not manually drawn huh?

What was Hulsey proving when he made columns magically disappear from his modeling with no bases for real life mechanisms observed at the WTC.

Hulsey had to use manual inputs to drive his simulation. Unless you can name what simulated event Hulsey used as a mechanism for collapse?

Hulsey forced his modeling. I guess he couldn’t simulate any event he liked?