Wtc7 Southwestern Area, Source of smoke? Options

[SanderO]

.....
On the surface it appears that over 30% of 7WTC support would have to fail [At the same time] to initiate total collapse.
...

I don't think it has to be at the same time. Whatever the critical amount of structural failure... loss of aggregate strength... it can occur incrementally... picking off one member at a time until the remaining ones cannot support the loads. The it collapses.

A cascading failure propagates at a sub critical value and the system still functions... until it passes the critical point and then the system rapidly fails.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_failure

refer to the graphic in the above link.

[elreb]

KP50, I have nothing new to add to the discussion and await the results of the research of the "team" in this forum.

You sure don’t scare easily…

Go out and buy 2000 chopsticks, a bottle of Elmer’s glue, some SS wire and build a model of 7WTC.

4 chopsticks with horizontal trusses can support one cinder-block.

Place at least 10 pounds of weight on each floor. Maybe plaster of Paris and wire mesh.

Now start cutting out column 79 and see what happens.

[SanderO]

You can't scale structures and make models to test as you propose... force, time, gravity and strength of materials are not scalable. Correct?

[elreb]

You're up to 40% now, because you ignored what I typed.

Next time I come on, I'll increase it again if you don't stop mentioning your evidence-free theory.

When it gets to 100%, you can't post any more.

Ask…NASA, Northrop Grumman, Hughes, Lockheed Martin-Boeing… who actually build models and test them.

You see the glass as half empty, others see the glass as half full, but a Mechanical engineer sees the same glass and says “it is over-designed for the amount of fluid it holds”

Question: Why don’t you respond to Kawika and his 9 foot transfer truss that is almost 4 inches thick at the flanges?

[SanderO]

Some models are useful...physics and strength of materials cannot be scaled. Ask NASA.

I don't know what you are referring to. The twin towers had columns which had 5" thick plates and they fell over.. they broke apart at the connection not the plates themselves. In some cases there were some welds between the plates which failed.

Failing does not mean the entire assembly is reduced to tiny pieces. And why must I have to have an answer for everything? Or how am I supposed to explain the fate of one section of steel in one photo?

Elreb... you seem to dismiss everything I write as rubbish. Fine. Ignore it. I explained that you can't scale structure and you seem to be implying that one can. You are wrong if you think you can.

Here's paper about scaling

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b.../Papers/S34.pdf

This post has been edited by SanderO: Nov 28 2012, 06:40 PM

[elreb]

Why, why, why can’t you stick to 7WTC?

You apparently, do not have “substantiated” answers for anything.

Your words = you can't see, I can't rule in, I can't dismiss, I don't see, I have nothing, I simply do not know, I have no idea, and on and on!

STOP posting your “Rubbish”.

I hope your clock will just clock out.

[onesliceshort]

Regardless of the mechanism for failing the trusses... and the yield strength and factor of safety... my theory proposes not a beam warping and walk off a beam seat... but began with a failure in the transfer truss(es)... which I believe were the ones on the east side which happened to be under the east penthouse and support columns 79 and 80. This failure would account for the drop of the east penthouse BEFORE the rest comes down.

Yes, exactly what I just posted. Your "theory" is no different from the NIST "theory" in that both rely on
fire/heat ober a prolonged period of time. [b]And both "theories" exaggerate and invent the heat source for which both have no proof whatsoever. End of story.

YES! I did suggest a heat related weakening of the steel from combustion and I agree there is no visual evidence of this combustion.. ( ... but...)There could be other mechanisms for weakening the trusses... perhaps with no smoke signature. I simply do not know. And if there is no smoke signature it would rule out smoke creating fires. Natural gas burns but produces no smoke for example. I have no idea what a eutectic mixture burning would look like.

Ad now you're dumping a steaming pile of "smokeless fuel" on the lawn. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Nov 28 2012, 07:57 PM

[SanderO]

For Elreb
"However, it has been observed in several studies that the elementary geometrically similar scaling laws (also known as the Cauchy scaling laws) are not satisfied for the response of structural members subjected to dynamic loadings which produce large inelastic deformations and material failure [12]. Unfortunately, these departures from the predictions of the geometrically similar scaling laws can be significant and are not conservative. Several impact loading studies [1, 13, 19, 22] have shown that the deformations of a full-scale ductile metal prototype are about double those expected from the results obtained from experimental tests conducted on one-quarter scale geometrically similar models.

It is well known that several phenomena do not satisfy the requirements of geometrically similar scaling. Material strain rate sensitivity, gravitational forces and linear elastic fracture mechanics do not satisfy the requirements of the elementary scaling laws [12] and there are no doubt other phenomena too. Generally speaking, material strain rate sensitivity is a highly non-linear phenomenon so that any departures from the scaling laws due to this effect are not significant provided the scale range between the small-scale model and a full-scale prototype is not too large, as illustrated in section 11.3.2 of Reference [12]."

and

"All of the above is rather simple; of course, if I've made any errors, my bad (up to and including the whole thing being wrong! but I don't think so). In any case, it show the pitfalls of building short and small models with an intent to collapse. It could be every bit as difficult as engineering tall buildings to stand! I've brought this up before, but naysayers like Darkwing and Pavlovian Dogcatcher (and 'experimenters' like psikeyhackr) have not acknowledged it, that I've seen.

The question keeps coming up: if progressive collapse is such a straightforward phenomena, why is it so hard to reproduce physically and why are there no backyard models to demonstrate it, like there are (a few) which demonstrate arrest? It's mostly because the objectives are opposed and real-world materials favor arrest when short and collapse when tall.

It is easy to build a model which arrests. I can throw 4x8' plywood sheets into a pile hapahazardly and it won't even start to lean until it hits 3 feet high, if then. I can't make a 3 ft pile of 4x8s or worse yet cinder blocks collapse any further without heavy power equipment. Dropping more of the same from above will not do it. They're effectively incompressible. Not skyscrapers which are >90% void space!

Is it possible, through the same process, to erect a quarter mile high skyscraper? Nope. Even though it would be solid and provide zero office space and support no load but itself (plywood, not even that). Even if there were a footprint the size of the towers and a relatively neat stacking job done, I doubt the quarter mile height could be achieved. It would just fall down at some point during construction.

So it's easy to build small things and tough to build large ones, if your aim is to keep them standing. Conversely, if the intent is to have them collapse, it's tough to build small things. This is really so very simple once the basic notions of scaling influence are understood. The tabletop collapse modeler is faced with engineering challenge not dissimilar to that faced by architects and engineers designing very tall buildings, only in reverse.

This is nothing new and has been mentioned in this forum many times. There is no excuse to ignore it and continue to clamor for physical models; it is certainly OK to try to address it (the scaling and materials issue) in some way but good luck, these are very solid and elementary principles. Anyone clamoring for physical models, yet with no awareness or appreciation for these principles is unequivocally demonstrating an inability to grasp and apply the principles towards successful scale modeling. They will not understand where correspondence can and cannot be established, where real world constraints force adoption of sub-optimal aspects and what it takes to counter those aspects and still avoid invalidation in matters of correspondence.

If you don't understand why building a physical progressive collapse experiment is far more difficult than making an arrest and, conversely, why making a really tall but stable building is far more difficult than making one which collapses during construction, then you really have no business clamoring for said models. You are only foolish for rejecting analytical and computational models in absence of a corroborating physical model. You are very likely to err in applying lessons learned from isolated and abstracted simple experiments."

OSS

Why can't you see that TTF is very different from the NIST beam elongation and walk off on the 13th floor at column 79? These are completely different mechanisms.

I've noted MANY times that I can't prove the cause of the TTF but belief heat could weaken the steel and produce the observables. I did not cite evidence of this heat. I called for further investigation... it is a theory... an hypothesis...
OK?

This post has been edited by SanderO: Nov 28 2012, 08:18 PM

[onesliceshort]

Just to put some meat on the bones and because SanderO can't be assed to dig for himself..

OSS and others seem to have focused their efforts on reading the smoke and the absence of it to assert that there was insufficient heat from fires to weaken the frame at any location especially at column 79 as NIST claims in their NCSTAR report.
Assembling the smoke evidence is without doubt important but it does not address the meaning of the motion of the tower as it came down. What can explain this motion?

Your "theory" is no different from NIST's.

You said..

My theory is that the failure began on 6&7 on the east side somewhere in the region where the 2 transfer trusses were located. Once the transfer trusses failed the neighboring structures picked up the truss loads and then they failed from over loading and in very short order there was nothing supporting the core above flr 7 and it plunged down to the ground, gutting the inside of the tower.

The structure on the east and west sound then caved in, and or fell outward once freed by the failed central area which it was tied to... as the rest of the structure collapsed with no support from fl8 to the ground.

And...

The collapse was led by the east penthouse over columns 79 and 80 which were supported by transfer truss 3.

Columns 79 and 80 appear to be supported by trusses 1 and 2.

(IMG:http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/748/imagezgy.jpg)

The only difference between what you're proposing and what NIST is proposing is the mechanism but you're both proposing a "heat based theory" in the exact same area.

1. You completely disregard the multiple images that show neither fire nor smoke in this area throughout the day. You claim that we can't see "deep inside" the building and that the black smoke diesel would produce may have escaped through another area yet can't be arsed to investigate. That and the fact that no windows broke on the mech floors to the north, west or east of the building.

Images available.

2. You completely disregard statements and documentation from the FDNY and ConEd regarding these alleged "diesel fires". Everything from FDNY personnel entering this area of the building as late as 1pm and reporting neither fire nor smoke, to the FDNY denying that "diesel fires" were evident prior to collapse.

Statements available.

3. You completely ignore basics such as fireproofing and claim that "raging fires" aren't necessary when in reality 3.5hrs of constant heat is necessary before your theory can even be contemplated.

Images and physics available.


Exactly the same as NIST. Exaggerate and twist your way towards a hypothesis and ignore the basic ingredient necessary. Heat. Lots of it over a prolonged period. The "team" has proof that both you and NIST are talking out your asses.

10am

http://archive.org/details/CBS-NetDub313

http://archive.org/details/CBS-NetDub317

http://archive.org/details/NBCAtlanta465

http://archive.org/details/NBCAtlanta464

http://archive.org/details/CBS-NetDub318


10:15am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUQjphJLuck

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/4402/imagewph.jpg

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/4402/imagewph.jpg

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2641/imagexjz.jpg

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/555/imageaqnr.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5-V3pw_cAI


10:30am

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/2456/imagexlc.jpg

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/5473/imageilz.jpg


11am

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/564/imagejgrg.jpg


11am-12pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZduP7HTM3cg

11:15am

"Visual evidence indicates that the smoke plumes seen in Figure 199 and Figure 1100 were due to vehicles that were ignited at numerous locations following the collapse of WTC 1. Several burned out vehicles can be seen on West Broadway between the east side of WTC 7 and the Post Office Building... Review of several photographs showed that there were at least six burned automobiles, two postal trucks, and a fire truck on this single block. Another view of West Broadway taken from one block further north near its corner with Park Place is shown in Figure 1101."

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/4606/imageiai.jpg



http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/4999/nwcsway00093.png

http://www.911omissionreport.com/nist_report.pdf

L-18

"At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m. (allegedly)
• Firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building
• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8
• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving
• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed

"Late morning early afternoon"

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/4755/imageiau.jpg


http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/4/imageexy.jpg


Before noon

http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/8117/imagecflm.jpg


"Sometime after 12pm"

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/556/imagehjl.jpg


@1pm

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1051/imagermqt.jpg

"NCSTAR 1A pg 52
The absence of diesel fuel fires on Floor 5 was consistent with the information from interviews that sometime after 1:00 p.m., OEM and FDNY staff climbed the east stairway of WTC 7 and did not see much damage on Floors 4, 5, or 6 from their viewing location. They made no mention of fire, heat or smoke."

@1pm

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2589/imageplb.jpg


1-2pm

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/5797/imageiwgw.jpg

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2439/imagexur.jpg

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/9796/imagekfyl.jpg

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/65/imageavt.jpg

http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/3249/imagenzt.jpg


1:45pm

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/3850/imageuvj.jpg


2pm+

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/410/imagexfo.jpg


http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5439/imagerjj.jpg


http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/5015/imagextd.jpg

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/5904/imagedtn.jpg



@4:15mins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z2fYF3Abb4

Same scene different cameraman (fire between WTC5 and 6)

http://archive.org/details/WNBCDub1096


http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5978/imagegvxx.jpg

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/9815/imageivp.jpg

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/7913/imagezcw.jpg


http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images...yPhotos8101.jpg


http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images...yPhotos8104.jpg


http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images...yPhotos8105.jpg


http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/4711/imageusl.jpg


2:30pm

http://archive.org/download/ArqueliaGalarz...ie-DSCN0364.jpg


http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/2985/imagenmcv.jpg


@2:45 (first sign of smoke on west face)


http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/9277/imagels.jpg

@3pm

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/9001/imageftoy.jpg

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/4023/imageaoj.jpg

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/8964/imageldp.jpg

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/745/imagegiw.jpg

http://archive.org/download/TerrySchmidt_I...dt_IMG_1511.jpg

http://archive.org/download/TerrySchmidt_I...dt_IMG_1512.jpg


Some images may overlap here...

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/7587/imagejay.jpg

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/9908/imageovo.jpg

http://archive.org/download/TerrySchmidt_I...dt_IMG_1511.jpg

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7430/imagebwgr.jpg

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/931/imagexwq.jpg


3:10pm

http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/4433/imagexdv.jpg

3:12pm

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/9908/imageovo.jpg

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/6852/imagexpp.jpg


3:20-3:40pm

Hess window black smoke

http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/2562/imagejtj.jpg

3:40pm

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/7587/imagejay.jpg

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/5674/imagecgr.jpg


Allegedly 3:40pm (Dementri)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRKCSmnR3ow


Allegedly 3:47 - 4:07pm

Floors 7 and 8 burnt out

http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/4582/imageetp.jpg

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1637/imageldz.jpg

ConEd

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/7430/imagebwgr.jpg

Hess window (floor 8)

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/7669/imageggc.jpg

http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/7892/imageosu.jpg

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/4708/imagekeqt.jpg

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/5420/imagefwk.jpg

Loading ramp

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/931/imagexwq.jpg


http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/7587/imagejay.jpg


Floor 8 almost burned out

http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1471/imagekwm.jpg

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/2153/imagewmf.jpg


4:38pm

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/2597/imagebpw.jpg


http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf

Finally, the FDNY personnel that we spoke to did not see any indication of burning liquid fuels before the building collapsed."

Take your pick from the images and tell me when the alleged fires startedon the east side of WTC7. I know when they started and when they died.

Make sure you read the following before you reply:

The necessary heat and conditions:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10806812


The transformers:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10805731


The sulfur source (not):

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10806944

[onesliceshort]

Read the posts before you reply SanderO

OSS.
Why can't you see that TTF is very different from the NIST beam elongation and walk off on the 13th floor at column 79? These are completely different mechanisms.

That's in reply to me? Read again..

The only difference between what you're proposing and what NIST is proposing is the mechanism but you're both proposing a "heat based theory" in the exact same area.

[elreb]

I've noted MANY times that I can't prove the cause of the TTF but believe heat could weaken the steel and produce the observables.
I did not cite evidence of this heat.
I called for further investigation... it is a theory... an hypothesis...

If you want to keep on pushing your evidence-free theory in this thread I will increase your warning level until eventually you are banned.

You ignored what I typed… stop mentioning your evidence-free theory.

It is obvious that you are thumbing you nose to KP50

In “Fact” you are thumbing you nose at this forum!

Where is your research?

[SanderO]

This is not a discussion....not even a debate. Although my qualifications have nothing to do with the theory I proposed I've been a NYS licensed architect since 1982... and I never took drafting in high school.

OSS my TTF theory has nothing to do with the region that NIST claimed the collapse took place. Transfer trusses were 100 feet below it. How you see this as what NIST presented eludes me.

Good night.

[elreb]

Mutualism is a relationship in which each individual derives a benefit.

Otherwise known as co-operation [Service-resource relationship]

[onesliceshort]

OSS my TTF theory has nothing to do with the region that NIST claimed the collapse took place. Transfer trusses were 100 feet below it. How you see this as what NIST presented eludes me.

Good night.

That's it? That's your response?

The only difference between what you're proposing and what NIST is proposing is the mechanism but you're both proposing a "heat based theory" in the exact same area.

The east face of WTC7 SanderO. We're talking 6 or 7 floors. The images are there. The FDNY statements are there.

At least NIST had a few puny "office fires" to exaggerate. You have nothing to support any fires hot enough or long enough to affect that bigass piece of steel that kawika posted. Nothing!

[KP50]

60% now for Sandero who is lucky I don't get much time to visit the forum ...

[elreb]

As to water

Fire water systems are almost always on a loop system.

Each Fire hydrant has its own isolation valve.

If a hydrant or a leg of the system got damaged, you simply close one or several valves and the system is back on line.

It should be noted that the flow switch on the 47th floor had been isolated from the system on 9/5/2001.
(IMG:http://www.unitedwaterproducts.com/images/graphics/fire-flo-awwa-hydrant.png)

[elreb]

I think that we have a substantial amount of data to start breaking things down and put a package together.

Functionally, NIST has provided a lot of useful information, yet were directed to provide inaccessible - reach less - unapproachable – unachievable conclusions.

The “you run with us or you run into us” attitude is a giveaway to self-serving interests!

The simple fact that only the WTC was harmed is a clue. What are the odds?

OSS or Kawika could start a new thread that is focused on the bottom line.

I say that because they both are sharp cookies.

KP50 will stand guard to prevent trolls or related pests.

It is my personal belief that “7WTC” will break the camel’s back.

No theory…no hypo this…no bull…just data…

Conclusions that agree with experience.

[onesliceshort]

Just wanted to store this post for future reference

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...&p=14587709



edit by mod (paranoia): above link doesnt work, reposting a working link to what i assume was the intended post:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...&p=14587709

Reason for edit: posted link

[onesliceshort]

Just wanted to store this post for future reference

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...&p=14587709



edit by mod (paranoia): above link doesnt work, reposting a working link to what i assume was the intended post:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...&p=14587709

Cheers P!