Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Debate _ Wtc 7 And Sandero

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 5 2012, 12:25 PM

I've seen a lot of threads on the towers being discussed by SanderO on this forum. Lately WTC7 has been discussed. I'm not attacking this person, just his arguments.

First, what exactly did the NIST Report claim regarding WTC7? This is crucial as the NIST Report is the official report on what did and didn't happen to this building. End of story.

Any theorizing or speculation which isn't addressed in what the NIST Report contains is irrelevant.
Any speculation which may exaggerated claims made in the NIST Report is actually a defense of this arrogant rag.

Any other approach to this report is no different to the Stutt/Legge approach to the Pentagon. None of what they claim (apart from being proven erroneous on many levels) has ever benn verified nor is it part of the official narrative. It is irrelevant.

Let's see what the NIST FAQ page claims in light of many questions raised by the report and compare what SanderO claims.

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

SanderO claims that fire was a factor. NIST says

QUOTE
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.


QUOTE
Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections-that caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse-occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat.


These two videos address NIST's exaggeration and dishonesty regarding these claims (among others)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4dU_p9UTTs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

From NIST again, differentiating between the collapses of the towers and WTC7 (again emphasizing that fire was the cause of collapse.

QUOTE
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.
The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.


QUOTE
Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.


Getting the hint yet?

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08 21 08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWTDTZJ_gto&feature=youtube_gdata_player

SanderO claims that "fuel oil systems" contributed (exaggeratedly) to the heat and fires in the building...

NIST says..

QUOTE
Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building's loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.
Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor.


SanderO claims that "structural damage" was a factor along with the fires...

NIST says...

QUOTE
Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?

The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building-severing seven exterior columns-but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.


QUOTE
Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?

Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.


SanderO claims that the WTC7 substations explained the explosions heard, explained the damage seen by Barry Jennings and Hess and may also have contributed (immensely) to the fires and also the explosion filmed in the lower floors just before collapse.

NIST says...

QUOTE
Did the electrical substation next to WTC 7 play a role in the fires or collapse?

No. There is no evidence that the electric substation contributed to the fires in WTC 7. The electrical substation continued working until 4:33 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. Alarms at the substation were monitored, and there were no signals except for one event early in the day. No smoke was observed emanating from the substation.
Special elements of the building's construction-namely trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs, which were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below-also did not play a significant role in the collapse.


Got it?

Relevant videos:

WTC7 on 9/11 - Strange Occurrence Within the Last 20 Minutes - 03:20 mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biIIqKybSZE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Explosion heard just before collapse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-ftINnhT0Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player


NIST explanation of Jennings/Hess accounts:

QUOTE
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.


In other words, they're liars.

Barry Jennings' account of WTC 7 explosions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Michael Hess, WTC7 explosion witness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Explosion witnesses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Finally, there is no physical proof that heat caused the collapse nor were any steel samples checked for explosive/exotic explosive residue.

QUOTE
Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?

Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.


So the question is SanderO, if NIST has been reduced to claiming that office fires were responsible for bringing down WTC7, why would you be making exaggerated claims that actually reinforce the report in the same vein as the Legge/Stutt OCT Mark 2 approach to the Pentagon?

If your arguments and speculation are nowhere to be seen in this report they are irrelevant.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 5 2012, 10:52 PM

Well worth the look.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGe0E9cjUbI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvRKZO5o_dA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Posted by: SanderO Mar 5 2012, 11:51 PM

One,

I agree with the critics of the NIST explanation that the cause was column 79 on the 12th floor. My suspicion is that the cause was on the 6th and 7th floors where the mech floors were located.. Several of the core columns of the 70 stores above from 7 were supported on transfer trusses. The Con Ed sub station was below on the lower 5 floors.

If there was a CD it was likely on floors 6 and 7.

There is testimony that Silverstein said *pull it*. The implication is that the tower was rigged to taken down with explosives and he concurred with the decision. If this is true, when was it rigged? Why was it rigged? I don't have any answers, but I have proposed some things to think about.

The sub station might have had explosions from a high voltage spike from the tower 1 which was downstream. This would to be associated with the plane strike or some other electrical problem which caused the sub station in 7 to fail and release explosive gas and ignite fires from the fuel being pumped up from the basement to the gen sets on fors 6 and 7.

Something exploded below 8 before / as Jennings and Hess climbed down the stairs. They were doing so because the elevators has no electricity I presume and they took the emergency stairs. The explosions could also be from placed charges. Regardless, I suspect there was a well ventilated fire burning in the mech floors all day. It would not be seen as the mech area was windowless... fed by huge air grilles on the north side above the loading dock.

At 5:20 the tower began to sway a bit and then the east penthouse dropped right through the entire building... followed by the weat penthouse and the entire curtain wail. The collapse of the East and West penthouse was likely the tell tale sign that the core had collapse probably from the failure of the transfer trusses and the cantilever girders under the north row of core columns.

The core collapsed and pulled the floors inward separating them from the curtain wall which collapse as one skin from the 8th floor upward down to the ground where it then began to crush and meet resistance and the acceleration stopped.

I don't think all 81 columns were destroyed at once over 8 floors at the base of the tower as AE911T seems to claim must have happened. I do think the 6th and 7th floor *failed* and the core above it came down.

I believe what we are seeing collapse is basically only the curtain wall. The floor collapse had preceded the curtain wall by a fraction of a second as they were supported on girders framed into the core. The building was gutted or hollowed out by the collapsing core and we saw the shell come down.

So I think it's conceivable that diesel fires burning all day could have led to the transfer truss failure and then to the core above it to collapse down. I don't know if there is enough heat in the diesel fuel to do this, but I suspect that the location was the mech floor. I am not convinced that this is possible but it is worthy of consideration.

How would YOU take the tower down?

Why does any theory have to accept the NIST fairy tale? I reject that office fires could cause the tower to come down. it makes no sense. It may be possible that diesel fires burning all day might weaken the steel of the transfer trusses. What happened to the diesel fuel?

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 6 2012, 11:10 AM

QUOTE (SanderO)
The sub station might have had explosions from a high voltage spike from the tower 1 which was downstream. This would to be associated with the plane strike or some other electrical problem which caused the sub station in 7 to fail and release explosive gas and ignite fires from the fuel being pumped up from the basement to the gen sets on fors 6 and 7.


Irrelevant speculation void of evidence and already rejected by the official narrative outlined in the OP.

Why do you want to create an OCT "subplot" when NIST has been backed into a corner claiming that "office fires" brought WTC7 down?

QUOTE (SanderO)
Something exploded below 8 before / as Jennings and Hess climbed down the stairs. They were doing so because the elevators has no electricity I presume and they took the emergency stairs. The explosions could also be from placed charges. Regardless, I suspect there was a well ventilated fire burning in the mech floors all day. It would not be seen as the mech area was windowless... fed by huge air grilles on the north side above the loading dock.


Again, speculation void of evidence.

NIST rejected their testimony claiming that they wouldn't have survived (ie, they are liars) and they also made the claim that "the sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building" while ignoring the multiple witnessed and recorded explosions throughout the day and not investigating exotic accelerants.

You're just creating an OCT subplot which is irrelevant if it's not contained in the official narrative on WTC7.


QUOTE (SanderO)
So I think it's conceivable that diesel fires burning all day could have led to the transfer truss failure and then to the core above it to collapse down. I don't know if there is enough heat in the diesel fuel to do this, but I suspect that the location was the mech floor. I am not convinced that this is possible but it is worthy of consideration.


Did you read my post??

Irrelevant speculation.

NIST claims

QUOTE
Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.


Why would you want to create an OCT subplot about "deisel fires" when NIST has been backed into a corner by claiming that "office fires" brought WTC7 down?

QUOTE (SanderO)
Why does any theory have to accept the NIST fairy tale? I reject that office fires could cause the tower to come down. it makes no sense. It may be possible that diesel fires burning all day might weaken the steel of the transfer trusses. What happened to the diesel fuel?


Who said that I accepted the "NIST fairy tale"?

A "fairy tale" that claims that "office fires" brought down WTC7?

A "fairy tale" that you want to "beef up" by increasing the heat source? The alleged structural damage?
Denying testimonies of explosions? 

As I said, an OCT subplot in the same vein as the Legge/Stutt approach to the Pentagon. Irrelevant if it's not claimed or verified by the people we are trying to investigate.

Why not concentrate on the OCT claims being addressed in the links I gave?

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 6 2012, 12:12 PM

Where was Larry Silverstein on 9/11?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ScGZCqEyGM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

And just to expand on Larry Silverstein. The "pull it" statement is such a circular argument that it's simply not worth it but to simply accept the government loyalist argument that "it" referred to a "firefighting contingent/operation" is grammatically illogical.

More importantly, it's allegedly a lie depending on which of the following characters is telling the truth.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/22/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/

QUOTE
Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.


While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.


QUOTE
Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). 
The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
OSS - his decision was based on two other events that had never happened before but they weren't the only previous high rise steel structures to have caught fire. His decision was precautionary because weird shit was happening.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
OSS - A factor which NIST denied had any outcome on the collapse.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. 
OSS - did he know this on 9/11?
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.
OSS - no mention of fuel oil fires - office fires

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)
.


He was one of the commanders who told the firefighters on the ground not to mention the explosions?

In his interview with WeAreChange:

QUOTE
I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it. - FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro (fire department commander on 9/11)


Then of course we know that the media was informed of the collapse/imminent collapse of WTC7 not "3 hours" before the collapse but minutes.

BBC World News Reports World Trade Center Tower 7 Collapse Before it Happens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx4p9pUREZ8&feature=youtube_gdata_player


CNN Reports World Trade Center Tower 7 Collapse Before it Happens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PqbGfCcef0&feature=youtube_gdata_player


WTC 7 Prior Knowledge - Firefighters Said 'Imminent Collapse' ... It Has Happened WCBS Live

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5bqMn0aq64&feature=youtube_gdata_player


My solution? Subpoena all of these people. See who's the last one standing.

Who informed the media and how was their prediction so accurate?
Who was the reporter allegedly talking to about Silverstein?
Who, if anybody, was Silverstein talking to?

Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 6 2012, 09:16 PM

"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.
"

Very interesting, Slice. I never knew anything about Shapiro, or the above quote, prior to reading your post.

In my opinion - it's a hunch more than anything - Silverstein's comment (to "pull it") was planned, calculated, and deliberately ambiguous. It was framed in such a way that it would attract attention from 9/11 Truth only to be debunked at a later stage. Similar to Rumsfeld and Bush's slips of the tongue regarding missiles hitting the Pentagon and explosives taking down the Twin Towers.

Having said that, I tend to agree with you. There's no wriggling out of it for Silverstein. Aside from all the other evidence that implicates him in this plot, his remarks just make him look even more like Gonzo.

Posted by: SanderO Mar 6 2012, 10:23 PM

Larry could ask his insurance company for a reading on a CD but there are no controlled demolitions permitted in the NYC and the insurance company would know that... and Silverstein should have known it as well.

There is so much fog here. I imagine that Silverstein was advised that the building was a write off because of the extensive fire. Who know how they could tell that the foundations were damaged. I think that sort of assessment was NOT made on 9/11. I don't know bow that would have been done under the circumstances.

On the other hand if the sub station was severely damaged as I suspect, and there were extensive fires and damage to the mech floors above the substation AND the key structural elements supporting the columns for the office floors above... even if the fires extinguished themselves... that would have been one scary building to try to rehab or take down. Maybe they did think that after 1 and 2 came down from what they believed to be fires AFTER surviving the plane impacts that 7 could likewise collapse.

It certainly hasn't been proven that office fires could destroy the twin towers and the case for office fires and 7 is even thinner.

I'm thinking NIST was covering up something about thew damage on the mech floors. Why? I think they wanted to pin it on fires and not discuss the whacked out design decision to build atop the sub station which could make the PANYNY and the engineers liable for a E&O lawsuit big time. So they came up with typical pesky office fires on a typical floor which was pure hooey.

I think that in both thw twins and 7 there was some liability on the part of the designers for their unorthodox structural design. Everyone seemed to be covering for the profession including the ASCE.. AIA and so forth..because they all had promoted how brilliant the design was... and they'd all have goo on their faces and that wouldn't look to good. So it was blame it on fires and sweep it under the rug.

Now this doesn't matter if it was a few bombs (I think it wouldn't take many) or totally out of control very hot fires... the structure were mucho vulnerable to collapsing like a house of cards ONCE conditions were met. That HAD to be hidden from the public.

Just sayin'

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 6 2012, 10:54 PM

QUOTE (mrmitosis)
In my opinion - it's a hunch more than anything - Silverstein's comment (to "pull it") was planned, calculated, and deliberately ambiguous. It was framed in such a way that it would attract attention from 9/11 Truth only to be debunked at a later stage. Similar to Rumsfeld and Bush's slips of the tongue regarding missiles hitting the Pentagon and explosives taking down the Twin Towers.

Having said that, I tend to agree with you. There's no wriggling out of it for Silverstein. Aside from all the other evidence that implicates him in this plot, his remarks just make him look even more like Gonzo.


Yeah, I think there are a lot of smoke and mirrors involved in this scenario. But, there's something suspect about this journalist (who is a fervent Bushite) openly making this claim. And the whore media turning a blind eye to it.

All I know is that the foreknowledge of its collapse has never been satisfactorily explained. And that he lied.

LMAO @ "gonzo" biggrin.gif

Posted by: hdog Mar 6 2012, 11:08 PM

Well put oneslice. Only the NIST reports matter.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 6 2012, 11:24 PM

SanderO, I actually agree that NIST's acquiescence to the OCT may have been bought on this premise (for the ambitious underlings, brown noses and the rest who worked backwards towards a desired conclusion) but they've claimed that office fires alone brought down the structure.

They didn't use any steel samples, didn't investigate the use of exotic accelerants, lied about the shear studs, exaggerated temperatures, denied witnesses who were inside the building and out, lied about audible and visual explosions, etc.

They released a 10,000 page report and gave 3 weeks for a response. Their report contains scores of names but those people were only involved in studying subsegments.

WTC7 needs to be kept simple. Office fires. End of story. If you or others want to dissect every nut and bolt and "crack the case", you're wasting your time. I don't think we will last another ten years. So why try to complicate matters when the argument is very simple. Could office fires bring down this structure?

Not trying to bust your balls but "fuel fires", "structural damage" and the "substation" are irrelevant.
It's just like those, like Stutt and Legge, who claim there are "extra seconds" on the FDR of "Flight 77". An unverified OCT friendly subplot. Irrelevant.
Or those, like Sarns and apparently Gage who was "influenced" by him, who believe in "NOC impact". Irrelevant.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 6 2012, 11:29 PM

QUOTE (hdog @ Mar 7 2012, 04:08 AM) *
Well put oneslice. Only the NIST reports matter.


Thanks hdog.

It' bizarre envisaging somebody marching up to NIST and demanding answers as to how office fires could bring down WTC7......"but don't forget the fuel oil fires, structural damage, possible substation explosions from transformers..and uh...never mind.."

Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 7 2012, 07:44 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Mar 6 2012, 09:54 PM) *
LMAO @ "gonzo" biggrin.gif


Is it politically incorrect to point out that Silverstein is as ugly as the sins he is guilty of? happy.gif

Notice how Shapiro goes out of his way to rehearse a narrative in which controlled demolition was CONSIDERED, and then - in the next breath - explains that he personally never heard or witnessed any indication whatsoever that CD actually HAPPENED. In between, he manages to outline the MERITS of this hypothetical controlled demolition, and how it could have saved lives along with other garbage. In the meantime, he omits to explain just HOW a building could be rigged for destruction within 7 or 8 hours of the initial plane strikes, even though (presumably) he regards this as REALISTIC and ACHIEVABLE under the time constraints...otherwise, why would Silverstein be discussing this type of plan with his insurance company and/or the New York authorities?

So, Shapiro congratulates Silverstein for THINKING ABOUT the practically impossible task of rigging the building for destruction, GLOSSES OVER the fact that the lease owner psychically ANTICIPATED that the building would fall in the manner of a CD anyway, and then BERATES any 9/11 Truther who might consider this set of circumstances as rather strange.

Poor Shapiro - such a confused individual!

Posted by: mrmitosis Mar 7 2012, 07:44 AM

Double-up-agous.

Posted by: onesliceshort Mar 7 2012, 10:52 AM

Shapiro also claims that the WTC7 collapse was "quiet".

QUOTE
While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.


Even if you ignore the multiple explosion witnesses just as/before the structure collapsed..

Sound Evidence for WTC 7 Explosions and NIST Cover Up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIF6P8zBG8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

...you still have Shapiro actually trying to say that tons of steel falling to the ground was "quiet".

There's also the matter of discussions on record in the area of "covert demolition" being discussed at the 2001 symposium of the American Chemical Society.

QUOTE
At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives…. nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management.

...

The feature of "impulse management" may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.
In other words these materials, in any form that they are used, are perfect for covert demolition in which one would want to reduce the loud pops of conventional demolitions.


Speculation I know, but the technology was there.



Posted by: SanderO Mar 7 2012, 05:51 PM

That would on the order of 200,000 tons falling to the ground quietly? ha???

Posted by: KP50 Mar 19 2012, 03:55 AM

Thanks to OSS for pinning down SanderO on his relentless evidence-free speculation. It needed doing.

Posted by: hdog Apr 15 2012, 02:46 PM

QUOTE (KP50 @ Mar 19 2012, 08:55 AM) *
Thanks to OSS for pinning down SanderO on his relentless evidence-free speculation. It needed doing.


What happened when the calculations of the FDR didn't support a pull-up at the Pentagon? The government loyalists came up with their own flight paths. Similar thing with SanderO.

Posted by: elreb Apr 15 2012, 06:04 PM

QUOTE (KP50 @ Mar 18 2012, 09:55 PM) *
Thanks to OSS for pinning down SanderO on his relentless evidence-free speculation. It needed doing.

On the most respectful of terms…"OSS" is right

Posted by: SanderO Apr 15 2012, 07:03 PM

OSS,

Are you supporting NIST's report and claims about WTC 7?

I do not find the column 79 failure they describe as plausible .. caused by failure of shear studs and the thermal expansion of a girder which walked off the beam seat leaving the column unbraced. Ha?? Rubbish I say.

Heat DOES weaken steel.

The theory about the collapse of bldg 7 is speculation. But it is based on features of the design and the observations of the actually collapse.

1. The core from flr 8 was supported by 3 transfer trusses which were on floors 6 & 7
2. The row of columns at the north facade were supported by cantilever girders, again on floor 6.
3. The core columns above floor and the row of columns inside the north facade did not have a direct axial load path to the foundations because the Con Edison sub station was *in the way*
4. WTC 7 was NOT in the least bit a conventional high rise frame. That is a false statement by NIST. It was similar in a sense to the twin towers in that it had long span column free floors... though they were not supported by light weight trusses. a *conventional* high rise frame has a grid of columns usually about 25'x25'
5. Heat will affect the strength of steel making it weaker, which is why steel has fire protection applied to it... to provide a period of time to fight the fires and for occupants to escape.
6. The con ed sub station at the bottom of WTC 7 went off line at 8:46 am the precise moment of the plane strike in tower 1. Here is the Con Ed Report:

"UNCLASSIFIED
Commission Sensitive
There were two substations in WTC 7 building, serving the twin towers, and one
substation by the South Street Seaport. A total of eight 13 kW feeders were located at the
WTC.

Timeline on 911112001:
08:46 a.m. Two WTC open/auto (O/A) 13 kW feeders went off
09:02 a.m. Two additional WTC open/auto (O/A) 13 kW went off
09:52 a.m. Four additional open/auto (O/A) 13 kW feeders went off
10:28 a.m. Status: '
Cortlandt 8 of 15 feeders were off
Battery Park City 6 of 8 feeders were off
Bowling Green 6 of 16 feeders were off
Park Place 1 of 12 feeders were off

Con Ed can lose any 2 feeders, and not lose a network grid. It is very expensive to make this investment and have such a robust system. The NYSE was located in the Bowling Green network. Since all 8 feeders were lost prior to WTC South tower falling, it was possible the lights had gone out before. However, the Port Authority controlled the
equipment in the towers and Con Ed did not know exactly what happened inside the towers. They did have maps of the towers and were prepared to help the Port Authority in the event they were needed."

When the sub station went down, it was likely due to high voltage spikes which cause explosions in the transformers

Exploding sub station:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkDCS8xeobg
Transformer explosions
"Transformer and oil-filled high voltage equipment may give rise to very strong explosions. A severe electrical fault inside the transformer may well generate pressure that the transformer casing cannot withstand, such that it ruptures. Due to the high temperature and energy released from the arc, the insulating oil will decompose and highly explosive gas mixtures will result (mainly Hydrogen and Acetylene). Upon transformer rupture, gas and oil mist will be ejected to the surrounding area, mix with air and a secondary explosion may occur. If transformers are located indoors or in subterranean stations the pressure loads can amount to more than a bar overpressure. In subterranean stations pressure waves may propagate through tunnels and corridors without weakening and pressure loads can become substantial in areas located far away from the actual explosion."

7. The mech floors above the sub station contained the aforementioned transfer trusses, cantilever girders as well as emergency generators powered by diesel from day tanks on those floors replenished from the 20,000 gallon tanks in the basement. No diesel was recovered from the 20,000 gallon tank. it leaked or burned and likely burned as it was pumped up to floors 6 & 7 where is possibly spilled and was burning as a result of the fires from the transformer explosions below in the sub station. The fires on floors 6 & 7 burned for 7 hrs... way more than the typical 2 hrs fire rating of sprayed on fire protection even if it wasn't dislodged.

8. Barry Jennings went up to the EMC on for 23 to find it empty. He and Hess then decided to abandon it as it was unmanned and they assumed that there had been a decision to leave it. The power was off as of 8:46 am. They then decided to leave but the elevators were not working and took the stairs. When they reached just above floor 8 they witnessed explosions below them. The emergency stairs were located within the core. These were likely explosions from the Con Ed substation or on the mech floors 6 & 7 just below their location. This was BEFORE tower 1 collapsed at about 10:15.

9. Whatever fires there were, were un fought all day, as the water mains were destroyed at 8:46 and the sprinkler system could not pump water up into the building's pressurized system.

10. The east penthouse was the first visible sign (to the naked eye) that the tower was coming down. It can be seen to descend right down through the entire visible part of the tower (east part of the core) by the pressure pulse observed in the windows right down the tower.

11. The FDNY and the DOB most likely advised evacuation as they were aware of the fires on floors 6 and 7 which were well supplied by massive air intake grilles on the north side... burning all day cooking the transfer trusses and girders. When a building is likely to collapse they evacuate the area. They did. The tower collapsed. Good call.

10. Immediately after the east penthouse disappears, the West penthouse dropped through the building. It was above the West side of the core.

11. Before the facade descended there is evidence that the core was no longer there (9 and 10 above).

12. Observations of the curtain wall's descent.. the famous 100 feet (8 stories) at free fall show an pronounced inward bowing of the north facade (curtain wall). This was not a dipping of the center.. or the center of the curtain wall collapsing ahead of the east and west sides as that would have caused the window frames to distort and shatter the glass. The glass does not break and so the facade was bowing inward at the frame to frame connections. Inward bowing is only possible if there was noting behind the center of the facade. And it is therefore likely that the collapsing core had pulled the perimeter columns inward along with the spandrel beams and broke the relatively weak bolts and clips which held the light weight curtain wall to the frame.

13. It likely that what we see coming down (at FF for 100') was JUST the curtain wall. It likely that the curtain wall below floor 8 along with the structure below floor 8 had collapsed into the largely open Con Ed sub station... when the transfer trusses gave way and the core above dropped right on the sub station and to the ground. The curtain wall then dropped with no resistance for 100 feet... 8 stories at FF until it hit the ground and decelerated.

The above is a speculative theory.

What is the significance of this and why did NIST not come up with this explanation (assuming it was true)? I suspect it was because the design was *insane*... innovative... and in retrospect vulnerable to a global collapse if the sub station exploded... from any cause. Therefore this theory would open up the developers, the engineers, architects and builders and the DOB to a negligence lawsuit (similar for the design of the twins). High rise buildings are not supposed to collapse like a house of cards and with Bldg 7 all the money was on the integrity of the 3 transfer trusses and the 8 cantilever girders. That's kinda like putting all your eggs in one basket. It wasn't a column failure, or shear studs... it was a failure of those transfer trusses and girders. And there was nothing *typical* about them in any high rise building. In fact, this was equivalent to building a 40 story high rise on a bridge span.

NIST engaged in a cover up of the facts about the design and the likely cause of collapse to protect the designers and engineers and to bolster the fire caused by the hijacked plane damage of tower 1. The fire damage from the collapse of tower 1's falling debris had nothing to do with the collapse of building 7. The voltage spike caused by the plane strike did. But that would expose the hair brained design of the WTC.

William Rodriguez experience an explosion an instant before the plane strike below him in the sub basement of tower 1. This was also caused by the plane and the voltage spike travels at the speed of light and the sound from the plane impact took slightly over 1 second to reach him as it travels at 1180 ft/sec through air. He heard the plane a second after it struck... but the explosion at the moment of impact! There were 8 sub stations in each tower... including in the sub basement.

Plans of WTC 7 can be seen here:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fema_report.html

This theory matched the observations and the structural information. If you find a problem with it. Please identify it.

Posted by: Tamborine man Apr 16 2012, 01:53 AM

The 'non-fakery people' will of course claim this video to be "real".

The 'fakery people' will claim that this video could possibly be "real"

or possibly be "unreal" - until more corroboration comes to light.


In the meantime, i'll sit smugly on the fence on this one, recalling

these wise words:

'A PSYCHOLOGICAL TIP

Whenever you're called on to make up your mind,
and you're hampered by not having any,
the best way to solve the dilemma, you'll find,
is simply by spinning a penny.

No - not so that chance shall decide the affair
while you're passively sitting there moping;
but the moment the penny is up in the air,
you suddenly know what you're hoping.'





Cheers

Posted by: SanderO Apr 16 2012, 07:30 AM

When a steel structure comes down, you have to destroy the steel... cut it, melt it (weaken it) destroy the connections of the frame members so that the frame loses integrity... undo (if possible...the connections)... or explode enough of the structure so the remaining structure does not have the sufficient strength to support the entire building or structure.

AE911T asserts that all 81 columns had to be destroyed over 8 floors instantaneously to account for the observation of the 2.25 second 100 feet free descent of the building seen on the videos. While this could cause a similar observable... it hardly makes sense. Such demolition would be so loud... 81 columns x 4 (the columns were 2 stories each = 324 explosions all at once. Be real... this was not observed. 324 silent cutter charges all completing their cuts at precisely the same instant without any movement as they sut the cross sections of the columns smaller and smaller.... weakening them? I don't think so.

How did they cut explode the 57 perimeter columns just inside the glass line without severely damaging the curtain wall?

Most likely the collapse involved some sort of progression of weakening of the structure (axial support) which eroded the FOS to below one. As long as the aggregate FOS remain above 1 the structure had enough yield strength to support itself and the loads on the floors. The process of FOS erosion could involved any number of factors or any combination of them.

In the case of the twin towers there was some level of destruction of the axial load path (columns) from the plane impacts. Not so for bldg 7 which was not struck by a plane and falling tower 1 debris did not appear to destroy any columns .

Bldg 7's demise was at 5:20 pm almost 8 hrs after the WTC event began.

AE911T considers the event a collapse... one caused by explosion demolition, but a collapse never the less. Unlike the twin towers they do NOT claim its 45,000 tons of concrete slab floors were exploded in mid air. But they also don't explain how a collapse would cause all the concrete to be ground to grit sized *dust* (it wasn't really dust size particles and bits) If the 81 steel columns were *taken out* simultaneously at 5:20 over 4 floors... the collapse that ensued created the debris signature seen... a pile of steel beams and columns from the collapsed frame and the crushed contents... but few to no slab sections recognizable as such. When such huge buildings collapse the slabs and contents apparently are crushed up to fine sized particulates.

AE911T also bases their frame demolition claim on the illogical statement that the evidence of such is not there because it was all removed. How convenient!... You can't see evidence of the crime because the criminals removed it. But trust me.. it was there. That's hardly better than belief in the tooth fairy.

OSS tries to equate my theory of heat weakening with the heat from the office contents fires seen ranging around the OFFICE floors well above the sub station and the mech floors on 6 & 7. NIST completely side steps this area for some unstated reason... which I believe was because they were actively covering up one of the potential (and in my opinion likely) causes of the collapse - 7 hour diesel fires on the mech floors cooking the transfer trusses and the cantilever girder, which undermined the entire core at the level of floor 8.

There is no dispute that heated steel has a lower yield strength than room temp steel. Therefore the question is was there sufficient heating of some key structural elements to cause a progressive failure? A truss is the first place to look. If one truss *panel* fails... for whatever reason... the entire truss will fail very rapidly as loads are redistributed to remaining truss panels which are overwhelmed. If the 3 trusses let go, a very rapid progression of failures will occur and the core above will have no axial support.

The fuel load appears to have been not office contents, but 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel pumped up to floor 6&7 where these trusses were located. I am asserting that one consider that this fuel burned for 7+ hours slowly eroding the yield strength of the steel of the transfer truss panels to the point of failure. It seems plausible to me that this would be sufficient heat to do the job. It even could have been done intentionally... perhaps... one explosion to create a breech in the fuel system... ignite the fuel pouring continuously onto the floor and wait... I suspect it was not and was a result of explosions in the sub station below. And this goes to what I believe NIST was doing with their idiotic report... covering up for the flawed design... building a tower on a huge substation and supporting it on 3 transfer trusses. Yes it was likely fire that caused this tower to come down. But it was like no other high rise steel frame... And the fires were precisely in the vulnerable region. A walked off beam would not collapse the entire tower, but a failed transfer truss would.

It might be argued that the sub station explosions alone did not take the trusses out. This is true. It took the 20,000 gallons of fuel which was pumped up there emergency power to burn for 7 hours. That was a Guiliani decision associated with his (and his advisers) insistence that the EMC center be in that building. That may have been the stray that broke the camel's back. You didn't see that decision come under scrutiny after the collapse? Hell no... it was office fires!

This theory makes the NIST report and the OCT a cover up...but not the same one as many are asserting it to be. It does however go back to the plane strikes of tower 1 as being the first of several dominos to fall. The sub station may have been a predicted outcome of a plane strike by those who flew the plane into tower 1. I would find it hard to believe. it's predictable in hindsight or what a forensic analysis is about.

The collapse of the WTC exposed the hubris, greed and insane decisions associated with those designs... in my opinion reveals incompetence and negligence of PANY, the engineers and builders of the project and the architects and the DOB which allowed those ticking time bombs to be built and inhabited by people... who trusted officials and professionals to perform due diligence and care with respect to life safety issues in buildings.

"A building code, or building control, is a set of rules that specify the minimum acceptable level of safety for constructed objects such as buildings and nonbuilding structures. The main purpose of building codes are to protect public health, safety and general welfare as they relate to the construction and occupancy of buildings and structures..."

Who failed to protect the public with those designs?

Posted by: kawika Apr 16 2012, 11:46 AM

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Apr 14 2012, 03:53 AM) *
The 'non-fakery people' will of course claim this video to be "real".

The 'fakery people' will claim that this video could possibly be "real"

or possibly be "unreal" - until more corroboration comes to light.


In the meantime, i'll sit smugly on the fence on this one, recalling

these wise words:

'A PSYCHOLOGICAL TIP

Whenever you're called on to make up your mind,
and you're hampered by not having any,
the best way to solve the dilemma, you'll find,
is simply by spinning a penny.

No - not so that chance shall decide the affair
while you're passively sitting there moping;
but the moment the penny is up in the air,
you suddenly know what you're hoping.'





Cheers


Penthouse is on the west side. Reversed video, flashes added. Total rrrrrrrrrrrubbish.

A very poor attempt to generate hits at YouTube.

Posted by: paranoia Apr 16 2012, 03:08 PM

the original poster of the original version of that video is a user here at this forum, check here for discussion about the clip:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21634

unfortunately he never adequately explained where the video came from or how he got it, so its authenticity and its exact intent remain a mystery. and as kawika has pointed out, the video itself contains inconsistencies that make it suspect, so its clear that at the very least the video/audio was manipulated and or doctored.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 16 2012, 03:59 PM

OSS...

You can read up on the analysis of the collapse of WT 7 here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/science-and-subjectivity-in-the-wtc-collapse-histories-t622-15.html#p18853

Posted by: kawika Apr 16 2012, 05:02 PM

Here is the Con-Edison testimony about the feeders.

http://cryptome.sabotage.org/nara/coned-04-0226.pdf

I don't see anything in here about transformer explosions or fire at WTC7.

I don't see anything here about WTC7 power being off before CON-ED shut it off at 4:15pm.

SanderO, please elaborate about your transformer explosion/fire contribution to the demise of WTC7.

Posted by: 23investigator Apr 16 2012, 08:16 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 17 2012, 06:32 AM) *
Here is the Con-Edison testimony about the feeders.

http://cryptome.sabotage.org/nara/coned-04-0226.pdf

I don't see anything in here about transformer explosions or fire at WTC7.

I don't see anything here about WTC7 power being off before CON-ED shut it off at 4:15pm.

SanderO, please elaborate about your transformer explosion/fire contribution to the demise of WTC7.


Dear 'kawika'.

Thankyou for your post,

It certainly puts a sense of proportion on the situation, the superb 'human effort', to rectify it.
There would have been many courageous acts performed in that achievment.

As you have expressed it does seem from the report that power was maintained upto 'building 7', until it was elected to disconnect it.

Robert S

Posted by: 23investigator Apr 16 2012, 08:24 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 17 2012, 06:32 AM) *
Here is the Con-Edison testimony about the feeders.

http://cryptome.sabotage.org/nara/coned-04-0226.pdf

I don't see anything in here about transformer explosions or fire at WTC7.

I don't see anything here about WTC7 power being off before CON-ED shut it off at 4:15pm.

SanderO, please elaborate about your transformer explosion/fire contribution to the demise of WTC7.


Dear 'kawika'.

Thankyou for your post,

It certainly puts a sense of proportion on the situation, the superb 'human effort', to rectify it.
There would have been many courageous acts performed in that achievment.

As you have expressed, it does seem from the report that power was maintained upto 'building 7', until it was elected to disconnect it.

Robert S

Posted by: SanderO Apr 16 2012, 09:10 PM

Not exactly.

Con Ed was not responsible for power to Bldg. The report is silent on why the 13kv feeders went down but Con Ed does have the ability to re route power feeds with up to 2 sub stations down.

There were reported explosions at the lobby level right after the first plane struck. The lobby was 6 stories high and just south of the sub station. If those reports are accurate... the cause of those explosions has to be established.

Further the entire sub station didn't have to fail or explode to do serious damage as happened in the explosions in the sub basement sub stations of tower 1 in 1992.

I wouldn't put it past Con Edison to not report accurately what happened inside that sub station... especially if their equipment contributed to the collapse of the tower... you don't expect them to come out and take responsibility for that... especially when the official explanation (which was pure hooey) was that fires above flr 13 at column 79 did it.

What sort of evidence is there that THAT sub station was not damaged and did not have some equipment explode after the plane strike but before tower 1's collapse and was kicking out it's normal amount of electricity to the grid?

Ay one point in the report it states that at 10:40 am the only location in lower Manhattan without power was the WTC complex... but in another paragraph they state that they shut the power to WTC 7 at 4:15. They state they have no control of the power within the complex and had no knowledge of what was going on. The report is obviously meant to say as little as possible ... and was mostly about the restoration of power not the loss of the sub station on 9/11.

Even the Con Edison report cited shows that the were several 13KV feeders were going down that morning... beginning at 8:46. Why were they gong down?

You tell me...

Posted by: kawika Apr 16 2012, 09:42 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 14 2012, 11:10 PM) *
There were reported explosions at the lobby level right after the first plane struck. The lobby was 6 stories high and just south of the sub station. If those reports are accurate... the cause of those explosions has to be established.


Please show us the testimony about WTC7 lobby explosions. I have never heard of this after reading many first responder accounts after arriving at WTC7.


QUOTE
What sort of evidence is there that THAT sub station was not damaged and did not have some equipment explode after the plane strike but before tower 1's collapse and was kicking out it's normal amount of electricity to the grid?


There are no photos of fires in the substation. Given that there were many videos and photos taken around the north side of the station, you would expect to see evidence of a fire if one had occurred.

QUOTE
Ay one point in the report it states that at 10:40 am the only location in lower Manhattan without power was the WTC complex... but in another paragraph they state that they shut the power to WTC 7 at 4:15. They state they have no control of the power within the complex and had no knowledge of what was going on.


WTC7 was not within the complex. It was a separate system from WTC7, that is why WTC7 was on all day and could be shut down independently at 4:15.

QUOTE
Even the Con Edison report cited shows that the were several 13KV feeders were going down that morning... beginning at 8:46. Why were they gong down?


How about they were being attacked before or just as the planes were striking the towers, like William Rodriguez testified? But this thread is about WTC7 substation transformers, not about the transformers at WTC1 and 2.

You have theorized that the demise of WTC7 was due to some activity in the WTC7 substation. Please stay focused upon that.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 17 2012, 04:54 AM

There are absence of photos of the sub station means nothing. There are many things at the site which have no photos that day. People were not going around the site with the cameras taking pics of everything. No photos of any of the mech floors of the twin twin towers... no photos of the sub basement refrigeration plant. And so on. No photos doesn't mean X didn't take place.


kawika... your theory is that someone set off bombs to take the various feeders off line just as the plane struck? And what would be the purpose of that?

WTC 7 was certainly part of the complex.

Jennings and the FDNY I believe stated there were sounds of explosions in the bottom of WTC 7 early in the morning.

I offered an explanation as to what Rodriguez heard. I can't know for sure, but it makes sense and needs to be considered and looked into perhaps.

1. He was in one of the sub basements when the plane struck. He couldn't see it but if he heard it as he claims, it would have taken 1. 3 seconds for the sound of the plane strike to reach him.

2. He claims to have heard a large explosion just before he heard the plane strike coming from below him in sub basement which house transformers for the electrical system... the same system that had exploded in 1992.

3. Transformers can and do explode from voltage spikes and electricity travels at speed of light and so a voltage spike caused by the plane severing main electric risers to the sub station on the 108th flr would cause a short, a voltage spike with could explode equipment in the sub basement at the instant of the plane strike. It also exploded transformers on flr 108 at the moment of the plane strike. Look at the video.

4. the sub station in bldg 7 supplies power to the sub station in tower 1 and 2 and the rest of the complex and other areas in downtown Manhattan. There are several transformers in it. Con Edison has the ability to re route power if sub stations go offline... up to 2 of them.

5. The fact that they were supplying power TO the sub station for re routing does not mean that the sub station was OK. In fact, it likely means that it wasn't. And at 4:15 when the FDNY had concluded that the building was a goner they cut the power going in

6. Jennings and Hess claimed that when the reached floor 6 /7 they experienced a massive explosion below them... which could only be IN THE Con Edison sub station. This was BEFORE tower 1 fell. This means that explosives were planted inside the sub station or that the sub station was experiencing explosions from voltage spikes and shorts.

7. Regardless of the cause of those pre tower 1 collapse... they caused massive damage and certainly could have stated fires on floors 6 & & where there were diesel day tanks. If the blast was as powerful as Hess claimed... this is a distinct possibility. CD buffs will claim these were from placed explosives. I am suggesting the explosions were from equipment failures and caused by voltage spikes which came from tower 1. Kawika do you understand how electricity works?

8. I have provided examples of exploding transformers. There were 2 in tower 1's sub basement in 92. These transformers are oil cooled, but the oil is flammable and explosive. It's certainly likely that it did explode.

9. No you couldn't see the fires or the equipment within the sub station because there were no windows! In fact, have you seen any photos of that sub station?

I offered a coherent theory consistent with observations of the collapse of the tower and the witness reports... and the Con Edison report of lost feeders that morning beginning at 8:46. Even AE911T claims the tower collapsed. The difference is I have identified where the collapse was initiated and what was a possible and I believe likely cause.

Of course AE911T (Gage) goes on about 81 columns being destroyed simultaneously over 8 floors to explain the free fall observation of 100 feet.

I offer the more plausible explanation supported by the evidence of movement of the tower for 60 seconds BEFORE any collapse of the transfer trusses and cantilever girders failing and then then core dropping right through the building. The East penhouse sat 41 stories above and was supported by one of those transfer trusses. LOOK AT THE PLANS. The East penthouse came down before the facade/curtain wall did. it can be seen to descend all the way down through the building before the facade/curtain wall begins to descend. Then the West penthouse which was over the other 2 transfer trusses descends. THEN the facade curtain wall comes down.

The was a massive ejections of smoke from the NW corner of the mech at 6&7 floors just before descent

The north facade/curtain wall shows pronounced inward bowing as it is descending. This can ONLY mean that the curtain wall had nothing behind it to hold it in a fixed plane. The floors and spandrels and structure behind the facade/curtain wall was gone by the time you see it descending.

The north facade/curtain wall was supported a row of columns and spandrel beams bearing on the cantilever girders in floors 6&7 41 floors below. A good hypothesis of the inward bowing is that those columns and spandrels were gone by the time that the north facade / curtain wall is dropping.

The clocked free fall descent was over a period of about 100' or 8 stories. This is the elevation of the top of the transfer trusses and cantilever girders which were within floors 6&7 mech floors. There were few columns below because the sub station was 5 stories tall. If the transfer trusses and the cantilever trusses failed it would leave an 8 story high unsupported core.

If the structure on 7&7 failed and collapsed down through the sub station... it would certainly could pull the perimeter columns and spandrels inward separating it from the facade/curtain wall. Why?

The facade curtain wall was attached to and rested on angle clips bolted to the spandrels which spanned from perimeter column to perimeter column. The spandrel to column connection was obviously much stronger than the facade /curtain wall to spandrel connections. Curtain walls are named appropriately. They are light weight and non structural and literally "hang" off the framed providing a weather barrier. It's conceivable that the facade /curtain wall connections failed at floors 6&7 as the structure on those floors plunged down through the sub station. In so doing the structure took with it the facade/curtain wall up to floor 8 with it at it collapsed inward... leaving nothing below the facade/curtain wall from floor 8 up... no resistance to slow it's fall.

It's possible that some of the columns on the east and west and perhaps the south perimeter and the spandrels were still connected to the facade curtain wall... but that only the north row went down with the core because of the cantilever girders having failed on floors 6&7. If this was the case it would leave the facade/curtain wall unsupported on the north side and it would be able to bow inward as seen.

Whatever the cause of the collapse... the explanation must match the observables. CD is not an observation. CD is a means to cause a collapse by failing key structural members and then the rest of the structure drops driven by gravity after a progression of failures consumes all the safety factor or reserve strength of the structure and no alternate load paths exist for load redistribution to the foundations. The theory of the failure of the key structural elements - transfer trusses and cantilever girders on the mech floors 6&7 is entire consistent which such a collapse and the observables on that day.

What's your theory?

Posted by: kawika Apr 17 2012, 10:50 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 15 2012, 06:54 AM) *
There are absence of photos of the sub station means nothing. There are many things at the site which have no photos that day. People were not going around the site with the cameras taking pics of everything.


I disagree. There are many photos of the substation and none show evidence of fire there. People were going around taking pictures of everything. Here are the names of people who took photos/videos of the north face of WTC7: George Miller, Vince Dementri, Shawn Hutchinson, Erik Freeland, Shepard Sherbell, NYPD, NYFD, Terry Schmidt and others still unidentified.


QUOTE
kawika... your theory is that someone set off bombs to take the various feeders off line just as the plane struck? And what would be the purpose of that?


Off subject, we are talking about WTC7. But to put forth a theory, how about to disable elevators and other electrical infrastructure? I am not saying transformers were affected, you did.

QUOTE
WTC 7 was certainly part of the complex.


I disagree. WTC7 was built in 1985, 14 years after the towers. It was outside the bathtub. It was privately developed/owned by Silverstein. There is no evidence that WTC7 was affected by the power outages at the towers.

QUOTE
Jennings and the FDNY I believe stated there were sounds of explosions in the bottom of WTC 7 early in the morning.


Yes, he did testify about experiencing an explosive event on the sixth floor landing, which means it may have come from below on the 5th floor. This is all we know at this time. Help us discover the rest of the story. Again, what does this have to do with a transformer explosion at the WTC7 substation, that you have so far not shown any evidence of?

QUOTE
I offered an explanation as to what Rodriguez heard. I can't know for sure, but it makes sense and needs to be considered and looked into perhaps.

1. He was in one of the sub basements when the plane struck. He couldn't see it but if he heard it as he claims, it would have taken 1. 3 seconds for the sound of the plane strike to reach him.

2. He claims to have heard a large explosion just before he heard the plane strike coming from below him in sub basement which house transformers for the electrical system... the same system that had exploded in 1992.


Are there transformers in the basement of the towers? I don't know. Again, off the WTC7 substation topic. If there are, show us some plans or something to make your case. But you should start another thread, for Towers Transformer discussion.



QUOTE
3. Transformers can and do explode from voltage spikes and electricity travels at speed of light and so a voltage spike caused by the plane severing main electric risers to the sub station on the 108th flr would cause a short, a voltage spike with could explode equipment in the sub basement at the instant of the plane strike. It also exploded transformers on flr 108 at the moment of the plane strike. Look at the video.


Regarding severed feeders in the core, Richard Huemann says otherwise. See this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJy7lhVK2xE



QUOTE
4. the sub station in bldg 7 supplies power to the sub station in tower 1 and 2 and the rest of the complex and other areas in downtown Manhattan. There are several transformers in it. Con Edison has the ability to re route power if sub stations go offline... up to 2 of them.

5. The fact that they were supplying power TO the sub station for re routing does not mean that the sub station was OK. In fact, it likely means that it wasn't. And at 4:15 when the FDNY had concluded that the building was a goner they cut the power going in


How does it likely mean it was not OK? Show us some evidence of a fire or explosion in the WTC7 substation.

QUOTE
6. Jennings and Hess claimed that when the reached floor 6 /7 they experienced a massive explosion below them... which could only be IN THE Con Edison sub station. This was BEFORE tower 1 fell. This means that explosives were planted inside the sub station or that the sub station was experiencing explosions from voltage spikes and shorts.


The explosion Jennings experienced could have come from the mechanical room on floor #5. The substation was floors one through three. One more time, show us some evidence that there was any abnormality at the substation.

QUOTE
7. Regardless of the cause of those pre tower 1 collapse... they caused massive damage and certainly could have stated fires on floors 6 & & where there were diesel day tanks. If the blast was as powerful as Hess claimed... this is a distinct possibility.


The diesel tanks have already been discounted by NIST. How do diesel tanks relate to transformer explosions? Jennings himself discounts the diesel tanks for what he experienced. The FDNY said there is no evidence of dark smoke indicating a diesel fire. SanderO, get back on the subject.


QUOTE
CD buffs will claim these were from placed explosives. I am suggesting the explosions were from equipment failures and caused by voltage spikes which came from tower 1. Kawika do you understand how electricity works?


I do not know how high voltage transformers work, but I would guess they have this problem of exploding transformers pretty well worked out by now. I do have eyes and I do not see any evidence of fire, smoke or explosion from the substation.

QUOTE
There were few columns below because the sub station was 5 stories tall.


The substation was three stories tall. The third floor lobby of WTC7 was on top of the substation. That is where the escalators rose to.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 17 2012, 11:00 AM


Posted by: SanderO Apr 17 2012, 11:01 AM


Posted by: SanderO Apr 17 2012, 11:01 AM


Posted by: kawika Apr 22 2012, 10:20 PM

What happened? Post 32, 33, 34, vacant.

Please show us some evidence to back up bare assertions.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 23 2012, 03:21 PM

I have no idea...

My theory... a theory is based on observables and bits and pieces I know about the structure. and some witness testimony.

I can't see inside the mech floors nor the sub station so I can't prove what was going on there... nor can anyone else without evidence... such as photos taken during the day of 9/11.

If photos of an intact sub station on 9/11 exist... be my guest... post them

I believe that NIST has made errors and more like deceived us with bogus *work*. I think what they produced in the end for both towers amount to a *deception" or a cover up... and likely not incompetence as they have many qualified engineers and scientist who could do the work that I have done 100 times better and the same applies for the work of those at the 911 Free Forums. That they didn't get it right AND that with b7 they took so long (to get it wrong) AND it doesn't resemble the collapse (their FEA animation is a joke!) leads me to believe that they intended to hide the real explanation. Some will say it was because they real deal was CD.

I am theorizing that they were hiding the stupid design and the decisions to build a tower of the sub station with all the fuel stored on site.

I don't think Con Ed wants to take any responsibility for the equipment blowing can causing the fires (to the diesel fuel) which cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.

I don't think Guiliani et al (Hauer) who pushed for the EMC to be there with the back up generators and the fuel stored on site wants to be responsible for that decision

I don't the think the NYC planning and zoning board, and the DOB want to be held responsible for approving the construction of an office tower over a sub station which could explode and ignite fuel stored on site and cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.

I don't the think the PANYNY (developers and orginal owners) want to be held responsible for developing an office tower over a sub station which could explode and ignite fuel stored on site and cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.

I don't the think the Emery Roth & Sons (architects I believe) and probably the same engineers, John Skilling and Les Robertson want to be held responsible for design the structure of an office tower over a sub station which could explode and ignite fuel stored on site and cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.

I think a lot of people did not want these decisions scrutinized and have to explain their decisions.... and what I believe amounts to negligence.

So blame it on office fires and the falling tower caused the the plane hijackers... or give all the aforementioned a pass and blame it on some bombs... and hang on to the MIHOP theories and let the creeps off the creeps mentioned off the hook.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 23 2012, 03:53 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 22 2012, 10:20 PM) *
What happened? Post 32, 33, 34, vacant.

Please show us some evidence to back up bare assertions.


I am not going to go into an online back and forth debate sniping quotes and so forth. I put forth a thesis and it's as coherent at the CD ones which have less "evidence". Take it or leave it.

My interest in 9/11 is to get a new investigation. I can't do it from my desk top computer... And I have no interest in that. I can see mistakes made by others and point them out... on various forums. I am not infallible and only an architect... with only so much time and limited technical experience.

I provided my reasoning... that's about as much as you'll get. If you don't feel it's worthy of pursuit or interest... ignore it and like many others label me an dis info agent or a NIST shill. I don't care because neither of these labels is true.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: kawika Apr 23 2012, 08:24 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 21 2012, 05:21 PM) *
I have no idea...

My theory... a theory is based on observables and bits and pieces I know about the structure. and some witness testimony.

I can't see inside the mech floors nor the sub station so I can't prove what was going on there... nor can anyone else without evidence... such as photos taken during the day of 9/11.

If photos of an intact sub station on 9/11 exist... be my guest... post them


Late day video of the substation showing no indication of transformer fires:

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

@ mark 2:48, see substation grill work, no fire/smoke damage
@ mark 3:23, see substation grill work, no fire/smoke damage
@ mark 4:02, see substation grill work, no fire/smoke damage

Conclusion: No substation transformer explosions at WTC7


QUOTE
I am theorizing that they were hiding the stupid design and the decisions to build a tower of the sub station with all the fuel stored on site.


Must not be a valid argument, cuz they built the new WTC7 right over the new Con-Ed substation. See photos about 3/4 of the way down:

http://cryptome.org/eyeball/wtc-01-07/wtc-01-07.htm


QUOTE
I don't think Con Ed wants to take any responsibility for the equipment blowing can causing the fires (to the diesel fuel) which cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.


Pretty risky strategy-- Con-Ed is still suing for damages to its substation.

QUOTE
I don't think Guiliani et al (Hauer) who pushed for the EMC to be there with the back up generators and the fuel stored on site wants to be responsible for that decision


Originally the collapse was blamed upon the Salomon diesel tanks. Had nothing to do with Silverstein's 24,000 gallons, which fueled the OEM emergency generators (19K was recovered).

Who owned the two, 6K tanks Salomon operated? You'll be surprised to find out exactly who this was. Hint: Not Silverstein.

Again, there is no evidence any diesel was involved.


QUOTE
I don't the think the Emery Roth & Sons (architects I believe) and probably the same engineers, John Skilling and Les Robertson want to be held responsible for design the structure of an office tower over a sub station which could explode and ignite fuel stored on site and cooked the trusses which caused the core to drop and the tower to collapse.


Irwin Cantor was the structural engineer. You need to do a lot more research if you are going to solve the mystery of WTC7.

Conclusion: CD looks like the only thing that could do what we witnessed: ~7 seconds collapse, 2.2 seconds of free fall, straight down, symmetrically; badly eroded steel. Fire cannot accomplish all of these.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 23 2012, 11:04 PM

Thank you for posting this video.

If you study it you can see exactly what is burning extensively... floors 6 & 7 and observe the thick black smoke pouring out of the south windows... probably diesel smoke or transformer oil which burns black. You see this at several times in that video...

I did not see the sub station but I did set some pretty good evidence that the 6&7th floor structure was being cooked by very extensive fires throughout the entire floor.

That footage does nothing to *debunk* my theory... it supports it.

The sub station was well inside the location of the north grillageand well below it. An explosion needn't have blown up the entire floors 6&7. it only had to destroy the transformers..perhap damage the slab above and allow hot gas to escape up to floor 6 where it could ignite the diesel.

The transformer explosions did not destroy the structure but they were the beginning of the extensive diesel fires on the floors above. I don't think you understood what i was proposing by exploding sub station transformers. And it needn't have been all of them.

Con Ed suing... it's a hoot... they are trying to collect up the line. It would be great if this actually got into a court and there were all the lawyers for the parties I mentioned all pointing the finger to the other saying... they did it not us. hahahhahahaha The US government didn't give con ed any money.... only victims like people... I'll be at that trial if there is open court.

You don't know when and how the steel was eroded. You assume that the eroded steel is what caused the collapse...

I'd like to see the steel from the transfer trusses and cantilever girders. That's where you'll find BUCKLED steel... not eroded steel.

You don't know how much heat was generated by the destruction of the 41 stories of concrete slabs and the what sort of exothermic reactions could have taken place with all the ground up iron, aluminum, sulfur, water and lot's of heat...that sounds like a formula for thermite (not nano thermite) itself. Why not?

Irwin Cantor... Irwin Cantor, one of the building's original structural engineers... fine same deal... equally incompetent and liable.

and lookie what I found on google:

"But Irwin Cantor, one of the building's original structural engineers, who is now a consulting engineer and member of the City Planning Commission, said the diesel-related failure of transfer trusses was a reasonable explanation for the collapse....

He (Cantor) said he believed that diesel tanks were not envisioned in the original design of the building. ''It ended up with tenants who had diesels,'' Mr. Cantor said. ''I know none of that was planned at the beginning.''

Oh my the transfer trusses... who could have guessed...?

Interesting that the engineer's theory was dismissed by NIST and you and others... but the diesel tanks were an after thought he had nothing to do with so... don't blame him. Mr. Cantor was painfully candid in that remark.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 23 2012, 11:28 PM

Kawika... your research made my day... the video and then Cantor who actually was speaking the truth...

What does it take to get you guys to open your eyes and see a bit objectively.

Can't you see the massive floor wide fires on 6&7? What time of day was that? Pretty soon after tower 1 had collapsed and the mech floors are roaring hot... probably before noon.

What is your theory for those fires on 6&7?

You don't think the same mistake can be repeated? It can be hubris and even an attempt to avoid scrutiny of the blunder. A sub station is hard to get planning approval for in NYC.... so it was a grandfathered use... And by doing it all over it again and assuming that lightning can't strike twice.... why not?

Bad logic my friend...

You can bet there are no transfer trusses over it...

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 24 2012, 11:34 AM

QUOTE (hdog @ Apr 15 2012, 07:46 PM) *
What happened when the calculations of the FDR didn't support a pull-up at the Pentagon? The government loyalists came up with their own flight paths. Similar thing with SanderO.


Bingo.

Can't believe this thread is being stirred up again...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21924&view=findpost&p=10804012

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21924&view=findpost&p=10804024

And Elreb, you're really grating on me. If you have any accusations or proof of what you're insinuating about me just because I use a "nick", like the majority of people on this or any other forum, post it.

Or shut the fuck up.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 24 2012, 02:18 PM

Government loyalist? How'dya come up with that one?

I have roundly and soundly and unequivocally criticized the conclusion of NIST and FEMA and the 911 Commission Report. I have gone so far as to call their work a cover up of what actually happened.

It's just that I don't support explosive controlled demolition as the explanation for the destruction... certainly not the collapse phase. I've said many times that the explainable by physics, science, and engineering collapse phase COULD have been kicked off by engineered devices... incendiaries or bombs... but I don't see the evidence for these causes.

In all three cases my research and best guess is that there was a progressive (over time) weakening caused by several factors which acted synergistically to drop the FOS of the core columns in the twins and the transfer truss panels of chords in B7 to below 1 at which point the structure was completely incapable of supporting the load of the floors/structure above which came rapidly down..

The twins saw the floors in the below the plane strike zone overwhelmed by the tens of thousands of tons of materials from the floors above crashing down up them and busted apart and did so progressively to till all the floors were destroyed... then the core without bracing buckled from its own weight... The facade peeled off also with no bracing. Nothing theoretical about this.

B7 saw the core plunge down through floors 6&7 where the transfer trusses were... pulling with it the outside the core floor girders, beams and slabs and leaving the curtain wall with no support and it then plunged 8 floors at FF til it hit the ground.

Kawika posted a new video taken of B7 and you can see early on in the day extensive diesel fueled fires all around the south and east side of flrs 6&7. These were the fires that cooked the t trusses. Even the engineer Irwin Cantor, I learned yesterday believes the extensive diesel fueled fires weakened the t trusses and let to the collapse (as I have described it). THIS IS NOT WHAT NIST SAID.

But since it's not a CD thesis... I am labeled a government loyalist.

Lovely. OSS... No hard feelings... Truthers are a bit paranoid at times...

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 24 2012, 03:51 PM

QUOTE
Government loyalist? How'dya come up with that one?


I hadn't read it with that in mind SanderO. I took it in reference to the campaign of disinformation against Pilotsfor911Truth and the NOC witnesses.

I think I'm the only one to have stepped back from calling you an "agent" (IIRC).

All I've said about WTC7 is that NIST have been reduced to claiming "fires and fires alone" brought down the building. That should be the point of attack and I don't see how giving them a way out a la Frank Legge and his irrelevant OCT subplot is going to help. End of story.

Edit: have to laugh though at the "truther" label in derogatory terms rolleyes.gif

Posted by: kawika Apr 24 2012, 05:03 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 22 2012, 01:28 AM) *
Kawika... your research made my day... the video and then Cantor who actually was speaking the truth...

What does it take to get you guys to open your eyes and see a bit objectively.

Can't you see the massive floor wide fires on 6&7? What time of day was that? Pretty soon after tower 1 had collapsed and the mech floors are roaring hot... probably before noon.

What is your theory for those fires on 6&7?


Try again.

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

@ mark 3:11 you can see the fires. There is no fire on 7. It is long since burnt out. There is fire on #8 moving along, according to NIST, at about every 15 minutes, looking for fresh fuel. There is no fire on 9,10, or 11. Some fire on 12 and pretty good on 13.

NIST says fire on floor 12 (framing for 13) was the start of the progressive collapse. Yea, Right! In an area where fire had burnt out more than an hour before.

These images were captured between 4 and 4:45 PM.

LOOK CLOSELY-- the thin window frames and ceiling grids are still intact. Gypsum walls with flimsy steel studs still standing. Are you trying to tell me this fire was hot enough and long-lasting enough to compromise heavy steel columns, beams and girders?--That had 2 hour fireproofing on them? Come on already, will ya?

Are you trying to tell me that the trusses, made of even heavier steel, probably 5 or 6 inches thick was compromised by furnishings? Or diesel-- which is nothing but a hydrocarbon?

In another post you claim to see black smoke from the south face. You can't see the south anywhere in this video. You are seeing the east face and that is standard office fires. There is no diesel on these floors.

Instead of making bare assertions, how about you help us get the fire load calculations and the drawings showing the furnishings for these floors?

You claim to be an architect in NYC but will you have the courage to start challenging the agencies that have the drawings? I'm chewing on these bureaucrats every day trying to dig up new information.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 24 2012, 06:14 PM

You can't see but 10 feet into the building which is as wide as a football field. Yes I am saying that in the central area where the t trusses were located. the mech areas ... the diesel tanks etc... YES I am saying that the fires were much hotter.

BUT I am assuming because no one can see inside. And I happen to agree with the structural engineer on this... the diesel cooked the trusses and there's at least some visual evidence in some of that vid of extensive oil fuel fires... the very black smoke.

Your reading of the evidence is not convincing me.

I claim to be an architect? What sort of rubbish is that? I am an architect and I worked for Emery Roth and Sons in 1970 the architects of the WTC. I know Richard Roth.

I am not a fire science engineer but I did attend a seminar conference at the Christian Regenhard Center this past year where various experts critiqued NIST's fire investigation and have been communicating with a former (fired) NIST investigator James Quintierre, who is a professor of Fire science or something similar.

I am doing what I can do find out what happened... and I am presenting my findings and research and not parroting AE911T... which clearly has made numerous mistakes.

OSS:

The theory of collapse of B7 that I have proposed does not give any cover to NIST. I do not for a minute believe that office fires around column 79 or any column could lead to the collapse of B7 or the twins.

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 24 2012, 07:01 PM

QUOTE
The theory of collapse of B7 that I have proposed does not give any cover to NIST. I do not for a minute believe that office fires around column 79 or any column could lead to the collapse of B7 or the twins.


But you want to add diesel fires to the mix?

QUOTE
You can't see but 10 feet into the building which is as wide as a football field. Yes I am saying that in the central area where the t trusses were located. the mech areas ... the diesel tanks etc... YES I am saying that the fires were much hotter.

BUT I am assuming because no one can see inside. And I happen to agree with the structural engineer on this... the diesel cooked the trusses and there's at least some visual evidence in some of that vid of extensive oil fuel fires... the very black smoke.


If you don't believe office fires could bring down the building, and that NIST is talking out of its rear end, why not go down that road instead of throwing them a rope?

Posted by: SanderO Apr 24 2012, 07:39 PM

OSS,

There's an awful big difference between the fuel load of a fire fueled by thousands of gallons of diesel at approximately the same location for perhaps 7 or 8 hrs and that of "office contents" which would burn up in half an hr.

Yes heat does weaken steel. If there is enough heat... the steel DOES lose some of its strength.'

NIST was pushing sag in in the twins' trusses... and expansion of a girder which ... walked off a beam seat.

With B7 my theory is the failure of a truss panel or chord. If you fail one of them the whole truss is a goner. And the T trusses supported the core. And the 2 story T trusses were effectively a bridge over the 6 floors of the Con Ed substation.. up to floor 8. There was only the T trusses between the bottom of the core.. and the ground.. so if the T trusses went the core could drop 8 floors... 100' the same 100 feet of the free fall collapse. Coincidence? I'd say it's a damn good place to look for the "no resistance for 8 floors or 100 feet".

Are you interested in understanding what happened or are you convinced you know what happened already?


Posted by: elreb Apr 24 2012, 09:13 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Apr 24 2012, 05:34 AM) *
Or shut the fuck up.

I concede to OSS...he is correct

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 24 2012, 10:10 PM

QUOTE
There's an awful big difference between the fuel load of a fire fueled by thousands of gallons of diesel at approximately the same location for perhaps 7 or 8 hrs and that of "office contents" which would burn up in half an hr.


SanderO, which part of this sentence don't you understand?

"If you don't believe office fires could bring down the building, and that NIST is talking out of its rear end, why not go down that road instead of throwing them a rope?"

It's no different than NIST solely concentrating on the initiation of collapse of the towers and the worldwideweb Colombos filling in the blanks. If NIST didn't say it, it's irrelevant.

Or if the NTSB supplies black box data that's "missing some seconds" and some old fart and his "friend" claim they've "solved it", it's also irrelevant. It means nothing.

Or if some keyboard commandos claim "NOC impact" or feel peeved that nobody's buying their evidence void A3Skywarrior/missile story to the detriment of real evidence, it's irrelevant.

Or if some NPTers are determined to use valid evidence accumulated at all 3 locations and throw it in the shitter because of pure ego and stubbornness, that the perps let hundreds in on the plan (we know how much the perps just love that their neck is on the line with all of those loose ends) - it's irrelevant.

Pure unfounded speculation that may buy the perps another few years of good people chasing their own dicks and writing debunk after debunk for a bunch of people who won't consider it unless it's on a 10 minute maximum Youtube video doesn't really appeal to me at the moment SanderO, so no, I don't want to hear it.

Cheers

Posted by: SanderO Apr 25 2012, 06:32 AM

CD is pure speculation... as far as I am concerned and I think it is a huge diversion. I don't know what your point is. I think we have now some decent understanding of the collapses of the twins and B7 and the mechanisms are not what NIST claims.... and they are not what the truth movement claimns. I don't see that helping NIST or a diversion. But heck you can think whatever you want.

I am basically an arch chair researcher... I am not conducting experiments in a lab. I am not interviewing witnesses or those who were involved in what I feel were the decisions which led to the collapse...though I have written to Leslie Robertson and tried to speak with him

911FF (Tom, femr2, achimspok, OWE) and others have assembled the most data and in depth analysis of the motion of the collapses from the visual record. I don't see anything like that at AE911T or elsewhere. I don't consider their work a diversion.

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 25 2012, 09:00 AM

Can somebody else have a go at explaining to SanderO the contradiction of cornering a body or a person with a very weak answer to a very serious accusation and cultivating more speculative doubt which actually defends the accused?

"Fires and fires alone" brought down WTC7 according to NIST. 

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

QUOTE
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.
The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.


QUOTE
Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.
As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building's loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.
Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor.


You're actually trying to tell me that your speculation on "diesel fires", which NIST rejected outright is going to help the cause? How??

Stop playing dumb SanderO. I've had the decency to try and thrash this out in an adult debate, please do me the favour of giving me a simple answer to a simple question.

How will your speculative claims on diesel fires and alleged structural damage to WTC7 help us?

Please don't insult my intelligence by asking if I "believe NIST". You know that's not the issue. At all.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 25 2012, 11:30 AM

OSS,

I presented my *theory*. It happens to align with what the structural engineer of the building stated was a likely cause: Diesel fueled fires acting on the transfer trusses. Irwin Cantor is not NIST.

All fires are not the same...

I've made it perfectly cleat that fires from office contents could not destroy even a single girder let alone the one of the massive struts or chords of the transfer truss. I also made it clear I am not a fire expert. But it seems to me that diesel fires burning for 8 hrs concentrated below or around a key strut in those trusses could fail them.

I can't do a calculation and I can't conduct such an experiment.

The fact that NIST dismisses this was explained or is explainable by the fact that NIST engaged in fabricating what amounted to a cover story. They concealed the cause and who or what may have contributed to it.

I am not asserted that Al Qaeda caused the collapse. But I did provide a scenario which showed how the plane strike might have damaged the sub station.

No one has shown a shred of evidence that the sun station transformers did not explode. On the contrary I cited a rather dodgy report that Con Ed mentions they lost a bunch of 134kv feeders beginning precisely at 0846 that day.

I've asked others to explain how or why those 13kv feeders went down beginning at 0846. Not a single answer or speculation.

Kawika posted his research of the fires at he lowest floors of the building which clearly shows the most extensive and worst fires scene are coming from the 6&7th floors and thick black smoke is pouring out.. a tell tale of diesel fires:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzi8Ull24KQ

See any similarity in the smoke? And that was only 400 gallons.

So the question is why is my *theory* such a threat to your *theory* or beliefs... or visa versa..

I suspect it is as follows.

When assemble a theory which you believe is fact based... and in the case of 9/11 part of a large conspiracy such as MIHOP all the various events MUST be part of the MIHOP. If one of the events can be shown to be a MIHOP the thinking goes that all of them were. So proving that the Pentagon was an *inside job* is a kind of proof to many that the WTC also was an inside job.

On the other hand if one can show that one of the WTC "events" was not an inside job it seems that perhaps the others weren't either. I understand this sort of meta logic.

ON yet another hand... how many hands do you have???.... it's conceivable... that something less elaborate and perhaps a combination of things can explain the events.

It's conceivable that some elements of LIHOP were at work.. that the "results" were unpredicted and went too far. And it's concievable that when the hijackings took place with some fore knowledge intel had plans on how they would change the situation to suit their own agenda... such as the hero stories of flight 93 and the faked attack of the Pentagon. It's all speculation, but there are many possibilities.

I think that if they didn't expect the buildings to collapse... and many didn't and certainly all the people who used them didn't... when they did... it exposed some design and engineering flaws decisions AND made those responsible for those decisions at least partially negligent regardless of who flew what planes in to those towers. And this was something that needed to be covered up... because

1. if they had any foreknowledge even letting the planes damage the towers would be disgusting and criminal
2. They hadn't understood or studied what could happen if they did. Think here of letting show bombers detonate none lethal devices for maximum PR for the GWOT... or the Xmas bomber... or the Times Square bomber... I can speculate the dolts in CIA and DOD had no idea the towers would collapse... that they expected a few plane hits and were going to stage their FEMA hero sh*t.... The whole thing got away from them at the WTC.

I think Shankeville and the Pentagon were DOD / CIA shows to maximize the PR impact. I don't know or understand much about the plane that hit the towers... but there were large jets that did....and it wasn't the impacts that made them fall... that was only ONE component of the damage which led to their collapses

I don't for the "inside job* perps it mattered whether the towers fell or B7 came down. Two huge towers struck... unfought fires and behemoths to be unoccupiable for the foreseeable future was more than enough PR to start their wars. I also think that killing some innocents would not bother them... but not 3,000. I think that is more than even the DOD/CIA would do to Americans. I know they dropped nukes on Japan.

My speculation is no more off the wall... perhaps less so... then the *inside job* which claims was to:

destroy pentagon accounting records
destroy enron files
destroy SEC cases
destroy financial fraud evidence
to steal gold from vaults
to collect insurance claims
to silence John O'Neil
to rid the PANYNJ of an asbestos problem
to safe the cost of taking the towers down stick by stick

Are the powers that be looking for opportunities for advancing full spectrum dominance over the states and the world? To control and appropriate energy resources and of course the population around the globe... and to assist their allies? You betcha.

Are there people (dispicable) within the US government in powerful decision making policy positions who have dual loyalties? You betcha

Are people and institutions acting selfishly" You betcha

When I see solid evidence... it must be included in the explanation of what happened. There is no solid evidence that all 81 columns for 8 floors were exploded.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 25 2012, 11:32 AM

I would like to see the actual reports of the fuel recovery. That quote is not evidence to me... Sorry.

Are you believing that a building weighing north of 200,000 tons collapsed and the tanks were not breached?

I have a bridge to sell you.

I also have to note how you dismiss NIST theories about fire and so forth (I do too)... bit then quote them as bastions of truth and facts without even noting how these references bolster the very NIST theories which you dismiss as nonsense.

NIST's work needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt. When they supply documents one can assume them to be not fakes... but when they create documents... such as FEA animations you can assume they are in support of their theory. And this is not unlike most of the materials truther present... not all, but most. Are you reading this David Chandler and Jon Cole?

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 25 2012, 10:02 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort)
You're actually trying to tell me that your speculation on "diesel fires", which NIST rejected outright is going to help the cause? How??

Stop playing dumb SanderO. I've had the decency to try and thrash this out in an adult debate, please do me the favour of giving me a simple answer to a simple question.

How will your speculative claims on diesel fires and alleged structural damage to WTC7 help us?

Please don't insult my intelligence by asking if I "believe NIST". You know that's not the issue. At all.



QUOTE (SanderO)
I also have to note how you dismiss NIST theories about fire and so forth (I do too)... bit then quote them as bastions of truth and facts without even noting how these references bolster the very NIST theories which you dismiss as nonsense.



Nope, nothing to see here. Thanks SanderO.

I may be a numbnuts on architectural engineering but I can read you like a book.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 26 2012, 07:40 AM

OSS,

I am not sure what you are reading in me. I presented a theory to explain the collapse of B7. It's not the NIST theory because it involves a completely different location and different mechanism. But yes... the destruction of the structure I propose is weakening caused by heating of the steel. I also state there could be damage from explosions... transformers or even placed devices. But there is no physical evidence of this. There's only a few ways to take down a structure such as B7:

1. remove some of the axial supports... which includes cutting away at the cross section of the columns or the transfer trusses and cantilever girders supporting the columns
2. remove the beams/girders which support the floor system (floors collapse leaving the columns unbraced and unstable and then they collapse (like the core of the twins)
3. weaken the steel by heating it
4. destroy welds and bolted connections so frame loses its integrity

I do not dispute the 100' of free fall. I explain how it could occur.
I do not dispute the reports of explosions - I offer an explanation as to what was heard
I do not dispute the testimony of Jennings and Hess - I explain what they may have experienced
I do not dispute the rapid onset of collapse - I explain how this occurs as a result of FOS dropping below 1 from items 1-4 above
I do not dispute that eutectic burned steel was found -I offer an possible explanation
I do not dispute that the *metoer* was found - I offer an explanation as to how it was formed
I do not dispute the huge dust cloud seen at the end of the collapse - I explain what it was and what drove it
I do not dispute the presence of high temps post collapse in the debris pile - I offer an explanation
I do not dispute the form of the collapse largely onto the bldg's foot print - I offer and explanation
I do not dispute that office fires were not the cause of the weakening from heat - I provide another source and location
I show (thanks kawika) the finger prints of extensive diesel fires on the mech floors
I explain the inward bowing of the north face
My theory is consistent with the 60 seconds of swaying observed before the collapse
My theory is consistent with the dropping first of the East Penthouse, followed by the West penthouse
My theory is consistent with the observation that the East Penthouse dropped right down through the core in the 23 observable floors
My theory offers an explanation as to why NIST et al created a cover story - not the deception of destroying Enron and SEC files
My theory does care who flew the planes into the twins - It explains the consequences

While you may not agree with my explanation. I have accounted for all the observations.

On the other hand, the CD proponents claim that 81 columns for 8 floors were taken out by CD without a shred of physical evidence.

You don't like the theory because it means that perhaps the tower came down without CD... a consequence of a chain of events which begins with the shorting of the 13kv feeders to the sub station caused by the plane strike. And even if the planes were drones of part of an inside job...you find it preposterous that this would be the plan to destroy B7... short the feeders with a plane strike.

You want to believe that everything was planned and purposeful and nothing was accident or a consequence of something else... even something planned... like attacking the twin towers.

You want to believe that whomever planned the plane strikes intended them to only APPEAR to be what caused or led to their collapse... that the only way for those towers to collapse was with explosives.

Your refuse to accept the notion that the people who planned to fly planes into the towers didn't care of the were completely destroyed or that their collapse along with all the damage to the buildings near by was not planned but an unforeseen result.

All you guys can wrap your head around is 2.25 seconds of free fall means the buildings were CDed.

And anyone proposes another explanation is a government shill.

You're pretty transparent in your logic.

What's interesting here in the discussion about the destruction of the WTC on this site... is that not a single structural or mechanical engineer has come forward to critique my theory.

I don't know the technical background of OSS and I don't dispute the intelligence of anyone. I don't go on about aviation and avionics matters because I don't have the expertise. But not so from those who oppose and ridicule my presentations... And not a one has bothered to read the work at the 911 Free Forums. This is hardly a debate or even a discussion.

Notice how detailed the technical analysis is of the plane performance, flight profiles, avionics data and the absence of same with respect to the destruction of the twin towers by members of this forum. Don't you see the contrast?

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 26 2012, 09:48 AM



QUOTE (SanderO)
I don't know the technical background of OSS and I don't dispute the intelligence of anyone. I don't go on about aviation and avionics matters because I don't have the expertise. But not so from those who oppose and ridicule my presentations... And not a one has bothered to read the work at the 911 Free Forums. This is hardly a debate or even a discussion.


QUOTE (onesliceshort)
I may be a numbnuts on architectural engineering..


Just two posts up. A very simple short post.

QUOTE (SanderO)
I am not sure what you are reading in me


That you would continue with your speculation and avoid the simple answer to a simple question.

You know what it is but I'll repeat it again (if you've read this far you'll see it - fingers crossed)

How do you feel that your OCT friendly speculation on the collapse of WTC7 will help us ignernt twoofers?

Noted that you assume I don't occasionally frequent Femr2's site, where most members ignore you there too. And from where I've actually quoted Femr2's work to counter your speculation in our former discussions.

You claim to take offence to the "government shill" accusations even though I'm talking to you with respect (annoyed but respectful), yet you don't see the hypocritical stance in branding people here "twoofers" for not pandering to your speculation.

Let's put the cards on the table SanderO.

You believe that fuel fires, structural damage and gravity brought down the towers. As does NIST.

You believe that diesel fires, office fires and structural damage brought down WTC7. Going beyond
what NIST has been reduced to claiming.

You believe that the collapses were possibly an unforeseen accident.

Now my cards. You claim not to be a government shill but you're touting the official version of events.
You may not be a government shill in the sense of Cointel/paid but you are shilling the government story.

You're even going beyond what the government stooges are claiming.

Worse still, you're preaching to people who want the same stooges forced to show their cards.

Now, answer my question SanderO. Please.




Posted by: kawika Apr 26 2012, 12:00 PM

SanderO, please stop trying to convince me you know significant details about WTC7 to be drawing conclusions.

You keep saying the substation is six floors tall. It is three stories.

You keep saying the trusses failed because of diesel fuel fires, but the tanks were underground and on the first floor core area where neither could have been damaged from falling debris.

You say transformers were exploding, but Con-Ed themselves say the power was still on until just before 5PM.

You cannot show any substation fire damage and discount visual evidence when I show you excellent video of the substation grillage along Barclay Street.

You identify the east face smoke calling it the south face.

And you can't seem to stay on the subject, continually looping back to the towers when discussing WTC7.

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 26 2012, 12:14 PM

Thank you Kawika thumbsup.gif

Posted by: SanderO Apr 26 2012, 02:06 PM

Kawika,

I wrote the transfer trusses were on 6&7 and there were no columns below them . OK? If the sub station was 20 feet tall it matters not because the transfer trusses had not column below them except at the ends. which is why they were used. Why are you trying to be so clever. The core area below 6&7 could not have the continuation of the 24 core core columns above 6&7... Get it? TRANSFER TRUSSES.. Why don't you ask Irwin Cantor. I am going to do it when I see him.

Genius the tanks were down there for multiple reasons one of them being the weight. But they were storing fuel which was pumped up to the 6&7th floor emergency diesel fired generators. There were smaller *day tanks* on 6&7 which likely had a pressure switch or a float switch which kicked the pumps in the basement on and up came more diesel fuel... just like at the Citgo station... below grade fuel tank... pumps fuel into your above grade Mazda.

I can't show any fire damage 20 feet past the curtain wall. I don't have x ray vision. In the video you posted there is copious amount of thick black smoke pouring from these floors and they appear to be on fire all along the entire floor... or the portion that can be seen on the video. What a lame comment. You can't show explosions either... in any of the towers... But David Chandler mis identifies debris ejections as explosive squibs.

East or south... you can see both east and south faces in one shot and fire and smoke are coming from both though the cameraman is facing west. You debunking is silly.

Since you can see and know where the explosives were placed ... pray tell... what floors, which columns. Stop the suspense... tell us your explanation of what happened.

Come on Kawika explain what happened... ya know how the demo guys went in after Larry gave them the OK... and it took 1/2 hr... get serious...

Posted by: kawika Apr 26 2012, 03:29 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 24 2012, 04:06 PM) *
Kawika,

I wrote the transfer trusses were on 6&7 and there were no columns below them . OK? If the sub station was 20 feet tall it matters not because the transfer trusses had not column below them except at the ends. which is why they were used. Why are you trying to be so clever. The core area below 6&7 could not have the continuation of the 24 core core columns above 6&7... Get it? TRANSFER TRUSSES.. Why don't you ask Irwin Cantor. I am going to do it when I see him.

Genius the tanks were down there for multiple reasons one of them being the weight. But they were storing fuel which was pumped up to the 6&7th floor emergency diesel fired generators. There were smaller *day tanks* on 6&7 which likely had a pressure switch or a float switch which kicked the pumps in the basement on and up came more diesel fuel... just like at the Citgo station... below grade fuel tank... pumps fuel into your above grade Mazda.

I can't show any fire damage 20 feet past the curtain wall. I don't have x ray vision. In the video you posted there is copious amount of thick black smoke pouring from these floors and they appear to be on fire all along the entire floor... or the portion that can be seen on the video. What a lame comment. You can't show explosions either... in any of the towers... But David Chandler mis identifies debris ejections as explosive squibs.

East or south... you can see both east and south faces in one shot and fire and smoke are coming from both though the cameraman is facing west. You debunking is silly.

Since you can see and know where the explosives were placed ... pray tell... what floors, which columns. Stop the suspense... tell us your explanation of what happened.

Come on Kawika explain what happened... ya know how the demo guys went in after Larry gave them the OK... and it took 1/2 hr... get serious...


The cameraman is facing south or SE, never facing west. Get a map. Familiarize yourself with the layout, streets and his entry and exit points.

When you see Mr. Cantor ask him to please show me the drawings used by the decking installer, the fieldwork drawings, the 2001 drawing. That would be a huge start. If he would assist me in making FOIL headway at the DOB that would be helpful.

I don't think his building design was defective. From what I can see, it was overbuilt. For example the infamous column 79 (floor 12) was 730 pounds per foot and then they welded two, 2" thick x 26" plates to the flanges to make a box column. Down at the lowest levels, col 79 had 5" thick side plates on it.

I've heard this nonsense about the fuel being pumped up, running constantly fueling the fire. Don't you think the system had pressure sensors on it? It was a double wall pipe so my guess is it couldn't get breached and run constantly thinking the generators were asking for fuel. Would the pumps work at all if the generators weren't running? Why would they need to be if the power from Con-Ed was still on?

Please review NCSTAR 1-9, Vol 1, Page 61, PDF page 105. If you are going to have raging diesel fires you have to have diesel being pumped upstairs. If you have power on in the building the emergency generators would not be running and thus no fuel being pumped.

Not going to get into any discussion about CD with you. I am focused on diesel fires that you assert were responsible for the collapse of WTC7. If I can help you understand that better that is my task. I want to find out what happened.

Posted by: elreb Apr 26 2012, 05:36 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 26 2012, 09:29 AM) *
Don't you think the system had pressure sensors on it? It was a double wall pipe so my guess is it couldn't get breached and run constantly thinking the generators were asking for fuel. Would the pumps work at all if the generators weren't running? Why would they need to be if the power from Con-Ed was still on?

Ask CIT

Posted by: kawika Apr 26 2012, 05:56 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Apr 24 2012, 07:36 PM) *
I have personally installed over 50 industrial diesel generator systems and never saw any of them catch on fire.

They are generally hard piped in Sch. 40 black steel which is tuff stuff.

Only a running generator could catch itself on fire and if you watch the following video it shows the fire burning its own wires and shutting off the fuel system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHRYD2Wv6lY


Thanks for that visual.

They initially proposed that the fuel distribution system would remain pressurized, a fire would start on the floor(s) and the diesel fuel would be spraying from a broken pipe while the generators continued to run, keeping the system calling for fuel. This is a wild stretch for me.

NIST abandoned this idea saying even diesel would not provide the necessary temperatures.

The bottom line is all evidence points away from generators being running.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 26 2012, 08:42 PM

Elreb is the ultimate expert on diesel generators.

Here's one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHRYD2Wv6lY

Your concept of what I proposed is so limited. I've posted vids about power transformers exploding and one or more exploded in the sub basement of bldg 1 in '92. I posted information about the flammable nature of the insulating / cooling oil and the fact that it releases explosive gas. I speculated that the sub station explosions which Jennings claimed were quite powerful could have cracked the floors and even the sched 40 piping and resulted in a stream of diesel being pumped onto the floor and ignited by the fires.

Kawika's video showed thick black smoke... a telltale of diesel fires.. and I posed a video showing this to be the case..

Why do you guys have such a hard time considering this scenario? Because Elreb installed 50 generators? Out of how many tensa of thousands?

Someone presents a coherent theory based on the observables and the structure and you simply dismiss it because you installed 50 generators?

I don't mind being wrong and I am often wrong. But the take downs are ad hom attacks and nit picking nonsenseand no one has proposed where the bombs were set, what columns etc.

It's hard to take that sort of "research" seriously... or those who think like this as serious researchers.

Posted by: elreb Apr 26 2012, 10:33 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 26 2012, 11:56 AM) *
The bottom line is all evidence points away from generators being running.

I went back and changed my negative responses about OSS.

Sorry mate…he was right all along.

I’m a Mechanical Engineer, Mechanical designer, Master Plumber and a Master Mechanic.

I really do not need to listen to dribble from some woodchuck claiming I’m not qualified to comment on what I have done for a living for 45 years.

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 26 2012, 10:44 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Apr 25 2012, 02:13 AM) *
I concede to OSS...he is correct


Hahaha!

You've just gone up in my estimates 10 fold.

He's also lecturing Kawika who's been buried in countless FOIA documentation on WTC7 and probably knows the place inside out by now.


Posted by: elreb Apr 27 2012, 01:49 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Apr 26 2012, 04:44 PM) *
Hahaha!



Ask CIT

Posted by: KP50 Apr 27 2012, 04:37 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 27 2012, 12:42 PM) *
I don't mind being wrong and I am often wrong. But the take downs are ad hom attacks and nit picking nonsenseand no one has proposed where the bombs were set, what columns etc.

It's hard to take that sort of "research" seriously... or those who think like this as serious researchers.

I think it is time for you to state that you are definitely wrong in this case then. You have been humbled on this thread by people ripping your theory to shreds and posting evidence which refutes your theory and you pull out the "ad hom attacks" card? Shame on you although you do appear shameless in the way you post your copious rubbish (there's an ad hom for you) all over this forum.

So come on big man, admit that you've lost this one and don't embarrass yourself any further.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 27 2012, 08:39 AM

KP50...

Not quite yet... Elreb posts some information about his experiences. The fact is we don't know how the generators were set up and if there was break or crack from a explosion... remember the one that Jennings referred to... of unknown origin... which could have caused the diesel to leak.

There is a statement by the Engineer of the building who believed that it was diesel fires which weakened the T trusses.

I am not the least bit embarrassed nor have I been shown to be wrong in the theory. You guys trash NIST on one hand and then use them to trash me on the other! You guys trash Gage his remarks /position about the pentagon and then claim he did brilliant work at the WTC. You guys are suffering from cognitive dissonance and group think....

My positions are consistent. NIST got the explanations for the destruction in all three towers incorrect. They got the observations wrong and they produced an office fire cause for all three collapses. Their FEA animation is laughable but they explained that by claiming it is a theoretical scenario of how a column 79 failure could result in global collapse. You didn't see them do that for a T truss failure because it would open up the can of worms about the diesel fuel fires. Same old from them... don't look for evidence and so they don't see it.

I've also stated that the T trusses could have been exploded... but I don't see any evidence of this... The visuals look like a rapid onset from progressive failures of the structure on floors 6&7... the 60 second swaying of the entire tower before the collapse of the East penthouse right though the building.

So what are you claiming is wrong? That there were no diesel fueled fires? What is your evidence of this? A NIST self serving statement? And a hearsay statement about recovery without any back up documentation for this. Wouldn't you expect busted fuel tsanks to leak into the earth no not be recovered? Have you see fuel recovered from leaking fuel tanks into the ground? Show us a 10,000 gallon recovery.. Show us the recovered tanks... everything was completely busted up and you're claim that some tanks survived? Are you serious? I ran out of bridges to sell.

Were there not explosions witnessed by Jennings and Hess below them when they were at level 6/7 in the stairs around 10 am?

The ones who can't seem to admit they are perhaps wrong are those who are pushing the controlled demolition theory of the collapse of B7... the easy black box...I don't have to explain anything explanation... 8 floors of structure destroyed by explosions.... 324 columns made to disappear in an instant... and the 100' FF drop of the towers ... ergo "inside job". Really guys... this is hardly credible. Great work Richard Gage and Chris Sarns et al.

Now some good work has been done debunking NIST by the truth movement. But exposing a lie or a falsehood or a cover up is not a theory or an explanation for what actually happened...

WHAT WAS THE MECHANISM(s) for a MIHOP CD? I have not read a single one from this forum or from AE911T and their band of engineers and experts.

I proposed a sequence which doesn't even rule out placed devices... but might not require them.... and I am called everything under the sun. and told to apologize and stop embarrassing myself. That... is hysterically funny.

What I explained is supported by the visual record, the witness testimony and knowledge of the structure and engineering design... and physics of course AND is the same explanation by the building's engineer... which is not the official story by a long shot and I am expected to.... admit I am wrong and you guys have proven this?

I think it's time for you guys to open your eyes to other possibilities... and other lies and deceptions and reasons for cover ups by the officials...

But perhaps the kool aid just tastes so good????

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 27 2012, 09:21 AM

QUOTE (SanderO)
But perhaps the kool aid just tastes so good????


The the govt loyalist site juice is starting to leak there Sandy boy!

QUOTE (SanderO)
It's hard to take that sort of "research" seriously... or those who think like this as serious researchers.


http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

QUOTE
Did the electrical substation next to WTC 7 play a role in the fires or collapse?

No. There is no evidence that the electric substation contributed to the fires in WTC 7. The electrical substation continued working until 4:33 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. Alarms at the substation were monitored, and there were no signals except for one event early in the day. No smoke was observed emanating from the substation.
Special elements of the building's construction-namely trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs, which were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below-also did not play a significant role in the collapse.


That was quoted in the OP. your first post was about your theory that transformers caused the explosions that witnesses heard (ignoring or not having the decency to read the OP). The official story, through NIST and Con-Ed rejects this. So, we're left with the original question. What caused those explosions?

Does it mean that I believe NIST? Of course it doesn't. It simply means that the source of the multiple explosions has never been explained. Those videos of explosions are contained in the OP and throughout the forum.

Barry Jennings actually witnessed the physical damage in WTC7 before the collapses. The OCT never explained this. Your attempt at an explanation fails on two fronts. NIST/Con-Ed and presenting precedent (your videos show impressive explosions sans damage).

Your claims about diesel fires are not only rejected by the OCT, but by somebody on this very thread who explained the major flaws in your claims based on his eons of experience with diesel generators.

So, we're left with the original OCT claim. That "office fires" brought down WTC7.

As for your claim that nobody here is being realistic or has provided evidence of CD, bar the anomalies listed above, you even said yourself...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21924&view=findpost&p=10804022

QUOTE
I agree with the critics of the NIST explanation that the cause was column 79 on the 12th floor. My suspicion is that the cause was on the 6th and 7th floors where the mech floors were located.. Several of the core columns of the 70 stores above from 7 were supported on transfer trusses. The Con Ed sub station was below on the lower 5 floors.

If there was a CD it was likely on floors 6 and 7


If you claim that high heat contributed to the collapse through diesel fires, why dismiss the use of exotic explosives? Cutter charges throughout this vulnerable area?

We've been shafted on the physical evidence so we're left with witness evidence, observation and physics.

1. Witnesses, both aural and visual, described explosions within and without WTC7.

2. Steel structures cannot fall due to "office fires"

3. The building fell for 2.5 seconds at freefall speed.

4. There was prior knowledge of the collapse broadcast on MSM (with one journalist actually reporting that Silverstein had enquired about bringing the building down to fire chiefs - bullshit or not he'd be one of the first witnesses called by me)

Your theories are irrelevant.

Posted by: kawika Apr 27 2012, 11:15 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ Apr 25 2012, 03:49 AM) *
Most diesel engines have the fuel injection pump mounted on the engine itself.

The fuel tank itself does not necessarily pump fuel to the engine.

Normal fuel feed lines average around 1" IPS.

Sch. 40 Black Steel pipe can easily handle 150 PSI and can withstand 2600 degree F.

If it is screw pipe, fittings can crack, however the pipe itself does not.

Line pressure to a fuel tank is generally less than 10 PSI.

In multiple applications, a Main tank would supply several Day tanks.

Day tanks generally have a float switch pump that sucks fuel based upon its drawn down level.

This application actually places the pump at the day tank and not at the main tank. This design allows one main tank to supply multiple day tanks.

Mario Andretti only had 19 victories…so what does he know about driving?



At WTC7 the fuel pumps were above the tanks on the first floor, well below the generators.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 27 2012, 11:52 AM

So gas (or any type of) explosions say on floor 6 or 7 above them might not damage the pumps... . And if there was damage to the pipes on 6&7 it's conceivable that the pumps could flood the floor with diesel from the tanks down below. It was a pressurized system... no?


OSS you are too much:


1. Witnesses, both aural and visual, described explosions within and without WTC7.

I agree there were explosions.. but not bombs... I assert the witness can't identify what the explosions were..not that they didn't hear them.

2. Steel structures cannot fall due to "office fires"

No they don't... we agree. Not hot enough. Office fires did not cause the steel to weaken, FUEL fires contributed.

3. The building fell for 2.5 seconds at freefall speed.

The observable part fell for 2.25 secs at FF acceleration. No dispute there. There was no resistance from flr 8 to the ground after floors 6&7 collapsed.

4. There was prior knowledge of the collapse broadcast on MSM (with one journalist actually reporting that Silverstein had enquired about bringing the building down to fire chiefs - bullshit or not he'd be one of the first witnesses called by me)

It doesn't surprise me in the least that the FDNY and the DOB were worrried that the building would collapse if there were extensive unfought diesel fueled fires burning in the mech floors where the T trusses were located. If they called Cantor he likely told them that the tower could collapse if the trusses went and to clear the area. That was the right call. And what would that have been? A PR release that the area was evacuated because they were expecting or concerned that the building would collapse. What happened? Asshole news producers went on air with a story to try to beat the competition.... sort of have it ready to roll when it happened. That's a guess... but a plausible explanation. Silverstein's remark may... I said MAY need context. Maybe he was concerned about losing a lot of money if the building was a goner... Who wouldn't be? He allegedly called his insurance co to see what would be covered... Would they cover him for the full amount if the fire was un fought? Maybe they said yes and his comment was to pull the FDNY from the building. He's a despicable person, but I don't see how he sent a team in a 5pm to demo the building. Maybe... Doesn't seem plausible to me.

Again... CD is a speculation and based on very slim evidence and no mechanism is offered from what what blasted or where and when this was done. The Jennings' explosion did NOT take down the tower.. did not even distort it. But it might have begun a process of weakening and destruction of the FOS until it had dropped below 1 and the tower collapsed.

My explanation uses the exact same observables as yours does.... don't you see that? But I offer a mechanism and shown possible chain of events.

Why are you so threatened by this?

I'd like to know about those who are *arguing* with me.... what is your occupation and technical background... I know Elreb installs gen sets. I am sure he understands that that the fuel delivery system to the generators was pressurized with "lift pumps" which pumped the fuel to day tanks on floor 6&7. The lift pumps cycled on when the pressure dropped or there was a float switch in the day tanks. There are several scenarios wherein the lift pump could flood the floors 6&7 with diesel from the tanks down below and next to the sub station... and pump thousands of gallons onto the floor where it could be ignited and burn all day. This is not rocket science.

If you want to claim that this didn't happen... where is the unused diesel? And how was it recovered? If it seeped into the ground and there were extremely hot temps... wouldn't it then burn up?... some of it? Most of it? Come guys.. let's make sense.

Who wouldn't want the collapse to be caused by leaking and burning diesel fuel:

a) Guiliani
b) Larry Silverstein
c) PANYNJ
d) Con Ed
e) engineering firm which designed the emergency generator and fuel system
f) CIA
g) DOD
h) SEC
i) NIST
j) ASCE
k) NYC DOB, Planning Commission, BSA (permitted the uses)
l) 911 truth movement

Posted by: elreb Apr 27 2012, 12:26 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 27 2012, 05:15 AM) *
At WTC7 the fuel pumps were above the tanks on the first floor, well below the generators.

Ask CIT

Posted by: SanderO Apr 27 2012, 12:58 PM

Elreb...

Sound reasoning... no one said the generators were the fault here. I suggested that the explosions ruptured the fuel delivery system to the generators. I stand by that and your comment does nothing to debunk what I suggested.

No one set explosions as diversions.. there were pressurized fluids in various tanks which exploded from the heat and fires...

Posted by: kawika Apr 27 2012, 01:33 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Apr 25 2012, 02:26 PM) *
This would totally remove the generator from the equation because there would be positive pressure only to the day tank. I would have to see the "As-builds" and not the pre-construction drawings.

Better yet, actually pictures taken by the Mechanical Contractor.

Most injector pumps are mechanically driven and why you do not want to run out of fuel. They go into air lock.

I have always wondered if someone set off explosives at the generators as a diversion!


Actually, one engineer in the building said he looked up from floor four to the 5th (mechanical room) and saw weird smoke. There was testimony about generators burning, from dust being sucked into their systems. I don't buy this though, they would have air filters on them and they would shut down.

The system, the way I understand it, was a pressurized loop, day tanks being only a small part. Day tanks would fill to capacity and shut themselves off.

There is much still to be learned and sorted out about this diesel fuel system.

The questions remain:

1. Were generators running when the building was damaged after 10:28 am?

2. Did fuel leak or get pumped out of the SSB tanks during or after the office furnishing fires? The FDNY said they did not see smoke indicative of diesel fires.

3. Did the SSB tanks get drained after the collapse? Maybe the pump was not damaged, being in the core and on first floor, perhaps it ran continuously and fuel was cleaned up when the debris was hauled away. (concrete dust soaked it up)

Posted by: SanderO Apr 27 2012, 01:52 PM

Who in the FDNY said there was no evidence of diesel fires. I will go ask him to view the video Kawika posted and say the same thing.

I don't believe all the grillage to the mech floor had filers or dampers. And if there was an explosion... which there was... the ducts would likely break allowing the air normally confined inside the ducts to mingle with the air on the mech floors.

Why did NIST take so long for their explanation?

I suspect is because they were running FEA sims which has office fire inputs to produce a collapse and one that began below the east penthouse somewhere. There sim does not gibe with the 2.25 secs of FF so they started the clock early to hide this FACT. They didn't expect and problems with their explanation from the usual including most of those on the list I provided above. Office fires can[t be blamed on engineering mistakes or incompetent bone headed decisions to site the fuel tanks and t trusses over the sub station.

I suspect that the bldg shot structural engineers knew exactly what happened are not ratting out their colleagues... just making sure they don't duplicate the same set of boneheaded decisions again.

Interesting that they did the new 7 on top of the sub station. Probably for several reasons:

1. No other sites for it... community boards would not approve it.
2. site location was a grandfathered use and they could keep it as of right.
3. No one wanted to bring up the original boneheaded decision to build B7 over the sub station and the the DOB decision to allow the diesel tanks to be placed there. Let sleeping dogs lie and let's do it again (lightning doesn't strike twice) so the original decisions would not be reexamined in light of the collapse of B7
4. Greed.. Larry owned air rights over the sub station and he paid for them or the PANY did and having the office use denied would recind the air rights. Taking from the rich!
5. The new towers were / are being WAY over built with concrete cores and masonry enclosed stair egress and no massive fuel tanks or EMC center. Problem solved.

Maybe.

Posted by: kawika Apr 27 2012, 02:43 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 25 2012, 03:52 PM) *
Who in the FDNY said there was no evidence of diesel fires.


"FDNY personnel reported that they did not see any indication of burning liquid fuels before the building collapsed."

There is no source given for this statement.

Link: http://investigate911.info/index.php?special=wtc7 (about 7/8's the way down)


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

http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf (see PDF page 18)

The source is probably buried in NIST's records somewhere. Ask Sunder. He said it not me.

Posted by: elreb Apr 27 2012, 03:16 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 27 2012, 07:33 AM) *
There is much still to be learned and sorted out about this diesel fuel system.

Ask CIT

Posted by: kawika Apr 27 2012, 04:35 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Apr 25 2012, 05:16 PM) *
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05155.pdf

Go straight to chapter 12 [page 175]

I will take me a while to sift thru it all…What a Rube Goldberg…16 generators, 5 storage tanks and 4 day tanks…


Like I said to you elsewhere, there is something strange going on here.

Silverstein had twice the gallon capacity of SSB, (24K vs 12K underground) but his system could only deliver 4.4 GPM vs 75 GPM for SSB. SSB had nine 1725KW generators, or 15,525KW. All the rest at WTC7 added up to just 3300KW.

But here is the kicker: SSB had 2-1/2 times the capacity of the entire WTC complex--15,525KW vs 6,000KW. OUCH!

Posted by: elreb Apr 27 2012, 05:01 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 27 2012, 10:35 AM) *
Like I said to you elsewhere, there is something strange going on here.

Ash CIT

Posted by: kawika Apr 27 2012, 05:59 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Apr 25 2012, 07:01 PM) *
I know most of the information is on this forum, however if we could put it all in one paragraph.

1. On what floors were the fires
2. On what floors were the generators
3. On what floor were the government agencies

Did/did not "Con-Ed" have their own generators?

Why the need for so much power?

If anything…WTC7 was over protected.


1. Fires were all over the place at different times throughout the day. The point is, the place where they claim the collapse started, floor 12, had burnt out over an hour before collapse.

2. Generators:
Link: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf (pdf page 14)

3. Government agencies:


Con-Ed did not have any generators that I am aware of.

Why so much power, INDEED!

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 27 2012, 07:05 PM

QUOTE (SanderO)
1. Witnesses, both aural and visual, described explosions within and without WTC7.

I agree there were explosions.. but not bombs... I assert the witness can't identify what the explosions were..not that they didn't hear them.


Nice wordplay changing cutter charges/controlled explosives for "bombs".

No witnesses to this huge explosion 9/11 - Location update

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bSiHIxMMD8

WTC7 Sound evidence for explosions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

WTC7 Strange occurrence within the last 20 minutes:

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

WTC7 collapse with explosion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-ftINnhT0Y

Michael Hess WTC7 explosion witness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64

WTC7 explosion witness Barry Jennings

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q

WTC Complex explosion witnesses (Aidan Monaghan)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8XBxw7k8rk
(last video explosions caught just before collapse of WTC2)

118 firefighters describe explosive events

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCw6Ps1ekMY

The firefighters testimonies to explosions in the twin towers

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf

Then there's this:

Truck bomb claims and arrest reports pre media sanitization (05:00)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8efGoRSLUG8

As above with NYPD radio transmissions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aKj6uJ5Mt4

So you say that the explosions were heard but you can definitively say that they weren't "bombs"? How so?




Posted by: SanderO Apr 27 2012, 07:52 PM

I can so so because and explosion from a bomb and an exploding transformer, for example, would be indistinguishable by probably 99.9% of the people.

I've heard one "terrorist bomb" in my entire life and no bombs in warfare or in the military as I have not served. I have heard bombs in the movies and on TV and pyrotechnics on 4th of July. I would say as rule witness testimony and especially audio is unreliable. Please consider as well that the mindset of people that day is we were *under attack* and so the first on hearing an explosion is ... bomb.

The bomb I heard was extremely loud and was at the Federal Bldg in 1977... FALN I think. I've heard a pole mounted transformer explode a few blocks from my home. It was extremely loud.. but not the same as the FALN bomb... but also in different acoustic environment. When the Con Ed transformer exploded by first thought was a bomb.

I've heard Graham MacQueen's presentation live. Good research but he made no attempt to identify what building components could explode. In a sense this is the same sort of case as NIST makes when it said they didn't have to look for explosive residue and didn't find any. If you don't look you can't find. I've not heard one truther acknowledge that buildings burning cause things inside to explode, that transformers can explode.. batteries can explode... all gas tanks can explode.. all caused by fire. There were many things which likely exploded that morning.

Yes or no?

Let's summarize:

Witnesses are unfamiliar with live explosions... any kind
Witnesses were in a... we are under attack mode... frame of mind.
Fire will cause things to explode in a building on fire extinguishers, tanks, pipes with water in them.... and so forth
truck bombs arrests are irrelevant to what sounds at B7

Posted by: elreb Apr 27 2012, 09:12 PM

Ask CIT

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 27 2012, 09:46 PM

QUOTE
Witnesses are unfamiliar with live explosions... any kind
Witnesses were in a... we are under attack mode... frame of mind.
Fire will cause things to explode in a building on fire extinguishers, tanks, pipes with water in them.... and so forth
truck bombs arrests are irrelevant to what sounds at B7


1. 118 of those witnesses were firefighters. They specifically said the words "explosions" and "bomb".

2. "Under attack mode" - irrelevant as to the definitive statement you make that they weren't bombs.

3. Of course I'm not saying that every single loud bang heard was due to explosives, I didn't post many videos claiming so because thry sounded like tyres and windows exploding. But you're claiming that every single explosion heard was not due to explosives. How so?

4. Truck bombs arrests are irrelevant?? We're debating whether there were explosives used in Manhattan, but the quickly buried story on the "van full of explosives" in Manhattan has no bearing on deciding one way or the other if those sounds were from explosives? How so?

Posted by: kawika Apr 27 2012, 10:12 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Apr 25 2012, 11:12 PM) *
From the reports that I have read and available to all readers…the fuel system was bullet proof.

I [elreb] have personally heard the "pop" sound of a fuse blowing from a transformer.

It does indeed sound like an explosion.

I [elreb] have also been next to a tree stuck by lightning. {Holy Shit}

As a former Marine Corp Sergeant, I also know what explosives sound like.

I do not believe in magic…humans blew WTC7 up!


Why do transformers have fuses on them? To protect against surges from damaging the transformer?

What happens when the fuse blows, does the transformer blow up? Catch fire?

I see not a single piece of evidence that such a thing happened at WTC7. And I cannot figure why they would permit a building to be constructed on top of such a hazard.

Posted by: elreb Apr 27 2012, 10:26 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 27 2012, 04:12 PM) *
What happens when the fuse blows, does the transformer blow up? Catch fire?

Ask CIT

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 27 2012, 11:37 PM

QUOTE (SanderO)
2. Steel structures cannot fall due to "office fires"

No they don't... we agree. Not hot enough. Office fires did not cause the steel to weaken..


Agreed. I cut the rest because that's covered in the OP.

And even if there was extra heat these videos debunk the expansion theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGe0E9cjUbI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvRKZO5o_dA

SanderO did you ever explain how your theory will help us koolaiders?

Set the scene..

SanderO: Okay you guys, I believe that you're lying about the fuel fires and that this would have added to the heat that would have caused "expansion" and collapse. What have you got to say for yourselves?

NIST: Thanks!

Posted by: SanderO Apr 28 2012, 06:35 AM

OSS,

I am interested in getting to the truth about what happened. I can't, nor can anyone else, know what the source of an explosion that someone heard that morning was... not even 150 fire fighters. This is pretty subjective...

I heard an explosion
I heard a bomb
I heard an explosion and it sounded like a bomb (going off)

There are things which explode in burning buildings which are not bombs
transformers DO explode (i provided some videos of this)
transformers in the sub stations of the WTC have exploded from fire in 1992
massive transformers in sub stations are cooled /insulated by flammable oil which when heated releases explosive gas
Con ed reported it lost 13kv feeders to B7's sub station at 8:46 when the plane hit tower 1
Jennings and Hess reported a massive explosion below them when they were in the stairs before 10 am
Massive explosion enough to rip the emergency stair apart and make it impassable seems destructive enough to break sched 40 piping carry diesel fuel.
All power was off in B7 when Hess and Jennings arrived at 23rd floor EMC (can we assume there was some power and light in the EMC as it was windowless (???) and they observed no one there and coffee in cups and so forth.
Were the stairs lit by back up battery power so they could descend from 23 to 6,7 or 8?

What can we stipulate as possible or probable related to the observations and the building and equipment:

explosions were heard
origin / type of explosions is indeterminate
explosion below flr 8 stair blew it apart before 10 am
schedule 40 piping can break from from mechanical impact of sufficient force (no such thing as bullet proof piping)
lift pumps in the lower part of B7 supplied diesel from the 20,000 gal tanks to the day tanks on demand (float or pressure switch)
Diesel tanks are not indestructible and would not survive intact the collapse of a skyscraper upon them
recovery of lost fuel from a broken tank would be difficult and indeterminate unless there was pooling of unburnt fuel
there was thick black smoke seen coming from floors 6&7 south and east sides (lee sides)
fires were un-fought from 8:46 until 5:20 collapse
steel is weakened by heat
there was no direct load path from core columns above floor 7 to the foundations
7 OEM generators and day tank
6 Switchgear, storage
5 Switchgear, generators, transformers
4 Upper level of 3rd floor, switchgear
3 Lobby, SSB Conference Center, rentable space, manage
2 Open to first floor lobby, transformer vault upper level, upper level switchgear
1 Lobby, loading docks, existing Con Ed transformer vaults, fuel storage, lower level switchgear
much of core above floor 7 was supported on 3 transfer trusses

8 perimeter columns on the north side were supported on cantilever girders from bearing on the north core columns on one side
a collapse or destruction of the transfer trusses would cause the core columns above to drop 8 stories with no resistance
9. the east penthouse was above the 2 transfer trusses on the east side of the core
10 the east penthouse descended through the entire visible height (20+ stories) before naked observation of the roof line descent (at FF) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx2Kx2AkXEg
11 the building swayed east and west beginning 60 seconds before the east penthouse drops - (this suggests that there was load redistribution taking place in remaining columns

"The 275-gallon tank associated with the American Express generator was located at the west end of the 8th floor. If full, the 275 gallons represent a potential of about 600 MegaJoules , which would be enough to cause a serious fire that could spread to other fuels (in truth, one gallon of fuel oil would be enough to cause a serious fire that could spread to other fuels) but not felt to be enough to threaten the stability of the building's structural elements. " that's just 1 gallon to spreead the fire to other fuel sources.. tanks and pipes.

For a discussion of the motion of B7 go here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-7-trace-data-t353-150.html

You'll learn that there was a period of traces on points of the facade which exceeded G. The meaning if obvious... for that period the motion was not falling but something else of some force added to the force of gravity.

B7 collapsed from a core failure... not all 81 columns simultaneously.

Posted by: kawika Apr 28 2012, 11:15 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 26 2012, 08:35 AM) *
All power was off in B7 when Hess and Jennings arrived at 23rd floor EMC (can we assume there was some power and light in the EMC as it was windowless (???) and they observed no one there and coffee in cups and so forth.


Sorry, no. Power was on when they arrived BY ELEVATOR just after 9:03 am

Power cut off (for whatever reason) at 10 am when the South Tower collapsed. Generators kicked on. This was reported by a WTC7 building engineer who was on the third floor lobby at that time. But he doesn't say how long they stayed running because he evacuated up Greenwich Street as the North tower fell.



QUOTE
explosion below flr 8 stair blew it apart before 10 am


Sorry, no. It was floor six (6). Jennings is very explicit about this.



QUOTE
Diesel tanks are not indestructible and would not survive intact the collapse of a skyscraper upon them


Sorry, no. The above ground tanks were steel. The underground tanks were fiberglass, tops were six feet below grade, completely surrounded by pea gravel. The loading dock floor above them was 28" thick and it was UNDAMAGED.

Which skyscraper are you referring to? WTC7 or WTC1? If WTC7 how does their crushing have anything to do with contributing to the collapse, or fire that supposedly contributed?

QUOTE
there was thick black smoke seen coming from floors 6&7 south and east sides (lee sides)


Sorry, no. Fire was coming from 8 and above. No indication of fire on 6 or 7 in the video I provided. Fire on 7 was long burnt out. Absolutely no indication of any fire on 6. Please stop regurgitating this nonsense to support the truss cook theory.

The dark smoke (in the shadow of the building) was coming from floor 8. No fuel on 8 to contribute to your diesel fire. More likely carpet and furniture, computers and others burning inefficiently.

Posted by: elreb Apr 28 2012, 01:30 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 28 2012, 12:35 AM) *
massive transformers in sub stations are cooled /insulated by flammable oil which when heated releases explosive gas

Ask CIT

Posted by: SanderO Apr 28 2012, 01:53 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 28 2012, 11:15 AM) *
Sorry, no. Power was on when they arrived BY ELEVATOR just after 9:03 am

Power cut off (for whatever reason) at 10 am when the South Tower collapsed. Generators kicked on. This was reported by a WTC7 building engineer who was on the third floor lobby at that time. But he doesn't say how long they stayed running because he evacuated up Greenwich Street as the North tower fell.

According the interview I heard of Hess and Jennings... they walked down the stairs from the 23rd floor because there was no power and it was before tower 1 collapsed. I was not there... that is what they said... they were.


Sorry, no. It was floor six (6). Jennings is very explicit about this.

Sorry no ... there is 2 different stories here... one that the had past the 8th floor meaning they were on the landing above the 7th and the explosion occurred and they managed to get up to 8. Frankly Kawika, you are nit picking proving nothing.

There was a massive explosion below the east stair which was most likely from the mech floor or the sub station below... you haven't offered an explanation of that explosion... but I have suggested possible causes.

Why are you denying what appears to be circumstantial evidence that something exploded in the mech floor or the sub station. Or are you saying that the explosion was part of the controlled demolition which eventually would take out 81 columns simultaneously so the top would drop at ff for 8 floors.

Go read the WTC 7 thread at the 911 Free Forum and argue with people who are far more conversant with what happened there than me.

Sorry, no. The above ground tanks were steel. The underground tanks were fiberglass, tops were six feet below grade, completely surrounded by pea gravel. The loading dock floor above them was 28" thick and it was UNDAMAGED.

Which skyscraper are you referring to? WTC7 or WTC1? If WTC7 how does their crushing have anything to do with contributing to the collapse, or fire that supposedly contributed?

My hunch is that the tanks did not survive with 40,000 tons of steel coming down on the,

Sorry, no. Fire was coming from 8 and above. No indication of fire on 6 or 7 in the video I provided. Fire on 7 was long burnt out. Absolutely no indication of any fire on 6. Please stop regurgitating this nonsense to support the truss cook theory.

The dark smoke (in the shadow of the building) was coming from floor 8. No fuel on 8 to contribute to your diesel fire. More likely carpet and furniture, computers and others burning inefficiently.


Sorry no... count the floors it was 6&7 in the video.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 28 2012, 01:58 PM

Can we accept that transformer do explode and cause fires????

I was wrong ... it "caught fire" after it exploded... Note it was one of those pesky 13KV transformers... the and Con Ed reported loosing 8 that morning... being at 8:46.... They just went off line quietly I suppose...

"Published: July 24, 1992 An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said. Six people were injured, none of them seriously, but the 110-story twin towers did not have to be evacuated, the authorities said. The fire was first reported at 10:02 P.M. in a 13,000-volt transformer in the Trade Center's refrigeration plant, which provides air conditioning and ventilation for the complex, the Fire Department and the Port Authority said. The electrical fire, which went to three alarms, was brought under control at 11:24 P.M., said a Fire Department official, Lieutenant Erick Weekes."








Posted by: kawika Apr 28 2012, 02:22 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 26 2012, 03:53 PM) *
Sorry no... count the floors it was 6&7 in the video.


At mark 6:09, count up from the double high windows, which are floors 3 and 4, the Hess window issuing smoke is floor 8, skip 3 no fires, to 12 which is burned out, 13 is still going.

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

I think your misunderstanding of the floor numbers stems from your insistence that the substation is six stories tall. It is only three.

I am quite sure of the above arrangement.

I know this is easy to confuse. Even NIST can't see that a floor that had no fire at 4:30 (floor 12) could not contribute to a magical expansion and walk-off of a critical girder (#2001).

Posted by: elreb Apr 28 2012, 02:59 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 28 2012, 07:58 AM) *
Can we accept that transformer do explode and cause fires????

The statement = “air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night”…

It did not say the transformer exploded…only that it caught on fire…after an explosion...[Caused by ?]

Yes, transformers can explode and most commonly when stuck by lightning.

On rare occasions, catastrophic failure can result from an internal short causing the mineral oil to expand from overheating. We are talking about 740 degrees F.

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 28 2012, 04:08 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 28 2012, 04:15 PM) *
Sorry, no. Power was on when they arrived BY ELEVATOR just after 9:03 am

Power cut off (for whatever reason) at 10 am when the South Tower collapsed. Generators kicked on. This was reported by a WTC7 building engineer who was on the third floor lobby at that time. But he doesn't say how long they stayed running because he evacuated up Greenwich Street as the North tower fell.





Sorry, no. It was floor six (6). Jennings is very explicit about this.





Sorry, no. The above ground tanks were steel. The underground tanks were fiberglass, tops were six feet below grade, completely surrounded by pea gravel. The loading dock floor above them was 28" thick and it was UNDAMAGED.

Which skyscraper are you referring to? WTC7 or WTC1? If WTC7 how does their crushing have anything to do with contributing to the collapse, or fire that supposedly contributed?



Sorry, no. Fire was coming from 8 and above. No indication of fire on 6 or 7 in the video I provided. Fire on 7 was long burnt out. Absolutely no indication of any fire on 6. Please stop regurgitating this nonsense to support the truss cook theory.

The dark smoke (in the shadow of the building) was coming from floor 8. No fuel on 8 to contribute to your diesel fire. More likely carpet and furniture, computers and others burning inefficiently.


Bump.

SanderO, Kawika has raised very damaging verifiable evidence that counters your theory. I'd have thought a more detailed point by point rebuttal of the issues he raised were in order.

You're the one who looks down your nose at researchers here but I only see other people backing up their claims.

Come on man, pull the finger out.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 28 2012, 06:54 PM

Elreb...

I am not an electrical engineer... I found this:

Why Do Transformers Explode?

"Transformers explode when an electric power line running to a transformer suddenly transmits far too much electricity for the circuits within the transformer to process. The most common way that this can happen is during a lightning strike. There are automatic shutoffs within the transformer when too much power reaches it. They turn off within 60 milliseconds of having detected an energy spike; unfortunately, this is about 5 times too slow to do any good. The extra electricity heats up and melts the circuit. The circuits are made to be heat resistant and are kept cool by several gallons of refined mineral oil in a closed chamber. Despite this, the circuit becomes red hot and fails in a shower of electrical sparks, superheating and igniting the mineral oil. The mineral oil combusts explosively, causing a loud bang and sending metal shrapnel that was once the transformer scything everywhere."rt


Too much electricity or perhaps a short circuit?

The electrical system had many transformer of different size to change the voltage for the various demands... But as you know some machinery requires not only a different voltage, but a specific amperage. Large compressor motors and so forth would require lots of amps and the transformer supply the electricity apparently exploded in 92.

I believe there were also transformer explosions at the top of tower 1. A guess because of the timing of the tell tale black smoke and it being 15 floors above the plane impact location. It appears almost immediately after the plane hit as captured on the few cams pointing up there.

My hunch is that the plane shorted out the main feeds to the sub station on floor 108/109.. and this went down to the main branch and feeds/transformers in the sub basement. There were I believe 8 sub stations which stepped down the voltage on 4 mech floors with 2 an each side of the core.

I don't KNOW that there were shorts, arching, power surges or explosions. But I would think this is likely. Or I think it is unlikely that there would be no shorts, arcing and explosions coming from the electrical system when the building has just had a jet line slice into it likely including part of the core which contain the risers.

I suspect there were also gas risers and these could explode as well.

To dismiss all explosions as coming from building systems is silly. Even the deputy fire commission said he didn't know what caused the explosions. How can one know for sure unless you are close enough to see it and then you won't be alive to tell what it was. If you do a bit of googling you can learn that power transformer can and do explode:

"Power Transformers – Transformers are large, box-shaped structures connected to multiple wires and are usually the largest single item in a substation. Transformers are usually located on one side of a substation, and the connection to switchgear is by bare conductors. Because of the large quantity of oil, it is essential to take precaution against fire hazards. Hence, a transformer is usually located around a sump used to collect excess oil."

So you have B7 with some sort of explosion before 10 am... unknown cause... and fires must have started.. consuming transformer oil... probably diesel... And you guys are trying to say that you believe the sub station was just purring along kicking out power till con ed cut it at 4pm?

Well you can go on believing that. I won't disabuse you of that belief. The building was burning for 8 hrs... and we don't have many vids of the south side.. or none inside as far as I've seen and none of that intact sub station that Kawika claims exist.

I don't have the time to scour the web for evidence. I proposed a plausible explanation which fits the observables... some of which are apparently disputed by Kawika. I don't know why this is so threatening and every single aspect of this theory is disputed even when the structural engineer of the building made a similar claim... WHICH IS NOT WHAT NIST SAID. This is not a NIST explanation.

The problem here appears to be that only CD is acceptable... placed explosives to the truth movement. Even if the twins were CD and someone triggered the events which took down B7 ...that is unacceptable. It's all or nothing. If your not with us, your against us.

I am interested in what happened.... and trying to find out.

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 28 2012, 07:35 PM

You haven't time to look for the "evidence" but you'll knock the evidence that Kawika just supplied?

You've got time to write a load of condascending drivel. You could have used that time to google something SanderO. Apart from that Popular Mechanics piece.

Posted by: elreb Apr 28 2012, 07:39 PM

RE = SO

I also am not an Electrical Engineer. I was a 2861 in the Marine Corp [Radio technician]. After that, I was a Union Pipefitter as I went thru college.

In your statement, which collaborates my statement = “The most common way that this can happen is during a lightning strike”.

In most cases, an explosion fuse will contain a short. If this system fails, the mineral oil could reach its boiling point at approximately 740 degree F.

It is the pressure of the expanding oil that erupts the transformer housing and if a high temperature is maintained and exposed to oxygen…it will indeed burn. [Think of cooking fried chicken]

For the record, I only limit my discussion to WTC7 and Con-Edison. They had few problems for over 35 years until 911!

If I had a question, I would wonder what or who caused the fires in a super protected government building? My father was a “Safety Engineer” for the US government for 25 years and stuff like this never happens.

Posted by: onesliceshort Apr 29 2012, 11:59 AM

Kawika, was there ever a project to document the WTC7 fires caught on camera/video with times, placement, testimonies, etc?

Posted by: kawika Apr 29 2012, 12:30 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Apr 27 2012, 01:59 PM) *
Kawika, was there ever a project to document the WTC7 fires caught on camera/video with times, placement, testimonies, etc?


NIST does a fire timeline. We are working on a timeline video relating to the magic girder walk.

NIST did an analysis of imagery. It was a special database called Cumulus which allowed them to assign attributes to the images and video clips. Then they could sort accordingly. The problem is, NIST appears to have only received a fraction of the available footage, so their analysis is wanting.

All references below are to NCSTAR 1-9, Vol 1.

Floor 12 fire

The fire on floor 12 was first recorded at about 2:08, along the southeast face. The photos continued until about 2:28.

There was a gap of available photos until about 2:57pm when the fire on floor 12 appeared near column 45 of the North face. (figure 5-119, PDF page 250). NIST theorized that the fire bypassed the NE corner, following an interior corridor to reach the offices on the north face. (PDF page 249)

At about 3:05 a helicopter took a photo of floor 12 fires near column 44, showing that the fire was moving to the east (PDF page 252)

By 3:10pm the fire was past the NE corner, evident on the east face. (PDF page 253)

On PDF page 253, NIST says the fires on floor 12 in the areas near column 44 lasted 15 minutes.

Conclusion: Fire on floor 12 had consumed all fuel in the NE corner by 3:30pm. This is confirmed by the Vince Dementri video tape taken at about 4:40 pm which shows the fire on floor 12 had burned out.

VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=679xhTZZyog

At mark 2:10, window falling out was ID’d by NIST as 2:15-2:30PM NCSTAR1-9, Vol 1, Page 201, PDF page 245. (figure 5-116)


Posted by: elreb Apr 30 2012, 12:29 AM

QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 29 2012, 06:30 AM) *
The fire on floor 12 was first recorded at about 2:08, along the southeast face. The photos continued until about 2:28.

There were no generators, day tanks or transformers on the 12th floor.

This was the heart of the “Securities and Exchange Commission”.

Fire Sprinkler Systems do not require electricity to operate. “Head” temperature range from 135 to 286 degree F and have a line pressure around 175 psi.

Paper self-ignites at 461 degree F.

Water would have to be over 1832 degree F to become combustible.

Posted by: SanderO Apr 30 2012, 06:28 AM

Sprinkler that are gravity fed don't but they do require pumps to lift the water to tanks. How do you get water up to such heights without lift pumps?

Posted by: elreb Apr 30 2012, 12:33 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 30 2012, 12:28 AM) *
Sprinkler that are gravity fed don't but they do require pumps to lift the water to tanks. How do you get water up to such heights without lift pumps?

Each system is different

You will lose .434 PSI per foot of rise therefore if the 12th floor were 120 feet up, you would lose 52.08 PSI

Most high rise buildings would have fire pumps and a remote Siamese connections on the exterior.

Fire engines can connect to these exterior fittings and use their pumps to drive the pressure back up.

Standard New York water pressure is around 80 PSI at a fire hydrant.

As a note: Water towers work in the reverse and gain .434 PSI per foot

So was the power on or was it off? You can’t have it both ways.

Posted by: kawika Apr 30 2012, 12:42 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ Apr 28 2012, 02:33 PM) *
Each system is different

You will lose .434 PSI per foot of rise therefore if the 12th floor were 120 feet up, you would lose 52.08 PSI

Most high rise buildings would have fire pumps and a remote Siamese connections on the exterior.

Fire engines can connect to these exterior fittings and use their pumps to drive the pressure back up.

Standard New York water pressure is around 80 PSI at a fire hydrant.

As a note: Water towers work in the reverse and gain .434 PSI per foot

So was the power on or was it off? You can't have it both ways.


There are photos of engines hooked up to standpipes next to WTC7. There are reports of them taking hoses into stairwells early on before there were any fires.

The official story was a main got broken after WTC2 fell rendering the rest of Manhattan hydrant challenged. Yet we see people washing at hydrants, water being poured on WTC5 and 6, other buildings on Liberty Street, fire boats tied up at the dock two blocks away pumping 60K gallons per minute, reports of car fires being put out north of WTC7 on W. Broadway right down to Barclay. But no water for fighting fires inside.

After the collapse they were dumping water on the pile from the Verizon bldg. and ladder trucks.

What gives?

Posted by: SanderO Apr 30 2012, 02:14 PM

I think the power was lost coming from the B7 sub station. Con Ed can maintain the grid with a few offline sub stations and I suppose they were switching things around a bit that day.

Water mains are of varying size like any distribution system... depends on how far up the line the break was. Since the mains are coming from north... downtown has relatively smaller branches. Obviously SOME mains ruptured and others didn't.

Posted by: kawika Apr 30 2012, 02:21 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 28 2012, 04:14 PM) *
I think the power was lost coming from the B7 sub station. Con Ed can maintain the grid with a few offline sub stations and I suppose they were switching things around a bit that day.

Water mains are of varying size like any distribution system... depends on how far up the line the break was. Since the mains are coming from north... downtown has relatively smaller branches. Obviously SOME mains ruptured and others didn't.


The water system failure makes no sense to me. They would simply isolate the break and the rest would be charged again. I have requested records about this, but they claimed there were no repair reports to share. The water distribution system also falls under the "critical infrastructure" exemption.

If you are in NYC, please go and talk to the water department to find out exactly what was up and running and what wasn't. Somewhere after 9/11 they repaired the lines. There have to be records.

Posted by: elreb Apr 30 2012, 02:28 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ Apr 30 2012, 06:42 AM) *
What gives?

I’m surprised that Stephen Spielberg hasn’t picked up on this and made a move called “The day nothing worked right”.

"Toast will always land butter side down" on 911

Due to the possibility of hostile cows, the toast was buried in a secret location.

As a note:

95% of NYC water is gravity feed and is on a looped system



Posted by: onesliceshort May 1 2012, 10:02 PM

QUOTE (Kawika)
reports of car fires being put out north of WTC7 on W. Broadway right down to Barclay. But no water for fighting fires inside.


Don't know if you're aware of this video Kawika

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmVRWNNRkP8

QUOTE
extended raw footage from two cameras (cut at 22:18) from about 11:20 am to afternoon sometime.. 911datasets.org release 25, 42A0113 - G25D23
some available in release 14, WNBC Dub3
Lenny Mulhern


WTC7 shots:

20:30, 33:25 - 33:55, 34:35 -  (falling window - timeframe purposes) - 35:35 (grey white smoke - "hole in the building" - other buildings gushing smoke)

And yes, there are shots of water being pumped to put out a car fire across from WTC7 from 20:30 onwards sometime (sorta lost track watching the poor bastards (firefighters) in the middle of that hell - and wondering how many are now ill)

Hope it helps


Posted by: kawika May 1 2012, 10:49 PM

I am familiar with this series. These were FDNY cameramen who had access to the front lines. They compiled them into a for-sale documentary called FIRELINE. The producer would not tell me details about the raw video. It appears that a sound track was overlaid onto this video. Sound and picture often do not synch.

Posted by: elreb May 1 2012, 11:15 PM

The good news is that the new WTC7 is the safest skyscraper in the US.


Posted by: SanderO May 2 2012, 07:44 AM

Some fire trucks contain thousands of gallons of water... and are replenished from hydrants and stand pipes. The high pressure streams of water appear to be from fire apparatus.

Posted by: 9/11 Justice Now May 2 2012, 09:56 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 2 2012, 09:44 PM) *
Some fire trucks contain thousands of gallons of water... and are replenished from hydrants and stand pipes. The high pressure streams of water appear to be from fire apparatus.


Watch the video here from 3:45 SanderO

WTC7 on 9/11 - Strange Occurrence Within the Last 20 Minutes

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

It kind of looks like a plume of smoke from demolition charge going off, what do you think?

Looks like they are cutting a column maybe so they can re distibrute the load and cause the centre columns too fall inwards






Posted by: elreb May 2 2012, 12:09 PM

Sounds good

Posted by: SanderO May 2 2012, 05:44 PM

You don't have to melt steel to weaken it.

Steel's yield strength drops as it is heated:

"3 – Steel

The yield strength of steel is reduced to about half at 550 ºC. At 1000 ºC, the yield strength is 10 percent or less. Because of its high thermal conductivity, the temperature of unprotected internal steelwork normally will vary little from that of the fire. Structural steelwork is, therefore, usually insulated.

Apart from losing practically all of its load-bearing capacity, unprotected steelwork can undergo considerable expansion when sufficiently heated. The coefficient of expansion is 10-5 per degree Celsius. Young’s modulus does not decrease with temperature as rapidly as does yield strength.

Cold-worked reinforced bars, when heated, lose their strength more rapidly than do hot-rolled high-yield bars and mild-steel bars. The differences in properties are even more important after heating. The original yield stress is almost completely recovered on cooling from a temperature of 500 to 600 ºC for all bars but on cooling from 800 ºC, it is reduced by 30 percent for cold-worked bars and by 5 percent for hot-rolled bars.

The loss of strength for prestressing steels occurs at lower stressing temperatures than that for reinforcing bars. Cold-drawn and heat-treated steels lose a part of their strength permanently when heated to temperatures in excess of about 300 ºC and 400 ºC, respectively.

The creep rate of steel is sensitive to higher temperatures and becomes significant for mild steel above 450 ºC and for prestressing steel above 300 ºC. In fire resistance tests, the rate of temperature rise when the steel is reaching its critical temperature is fast enough to mask any effects of creep. When there is a long cooling period, however, as in prestressed concrete, subsequent creep may have some effect in an element that has not reached the critical condition."

If the FOS of a steel member was less than 2 heating it to 550°C would see it lose half its strength.. the FOS would be 1 and literally at the edge of failure.

The average FOS for steel high rise structures is 1.42. My calcs for the twin towers' core steel is that it was as low as 1.65 and perhaps 1.85 and not higher than 2.0. Note that not every piece of steel in a structure will have the same FOS. If this is the case... then heating the steel to 600° C would fail the members with FOS of less than 2 and that is possible scenario.

With respect to the twins the FOS was reduced when some of the columns were destroyed by the plane impacts... few columns then supported the same load... FOS drops in the remaining columns. If FOS was 1.85 for starters, with destroyed columns it could be say... 1.33 and you can see how heat could bring the FOS below 1 and cause buckling...

You absolutely do not have to melt the steel to fail the structure from heat.

Posted by: elreb May 2 2012, 06:34 PM

What ever you say

Posted by: elreb May 2 2012, 08:15 PM

Where is OSS?

Posted by: SanderO May 2 2012, 09:30 PM

Elreb,

Did you read the figures quoted for loss of yield strength for steel? You don't believe it?

"The yield strength of steel is reduced to about half at 550 ºC"

If this is true... you don't have to melt steel to buckle it and cause a collapse.

A truss panel/chord is not an axial member (column) and can be either in tension or compression.

It's also true if bracing fails the unbraced length of the column it braces increases and its yield strength decreases.

"For the record: Only a vertical column inherits the weight of the floor above it."

This is not entirely accurate of clear. Columns in multistory structures support the loads on top (axially) and those applied/connected to the web and or flanges. All the floor loads were attached to the sides of columns with beam seats or beam stubs. The loads above were bearing down on the top end of the column (obviously).

Posted by: elreb May 2 2012, 10:28 PM

What happen to OSS?

Posted by: SanderO May 3 2012, 08:11 AM

OSS is a typo..should be OOS - open office space means column free long span office floor design...All three towers that fell had them.

When someone cites settle science and engineering the response is not... WHATEVER dismissively.

If this is a fact coupled with typical factor of safeties in steel high rises explains that the steel does NOT have to be melted, but heated to initiate buckling and column failure... leading to a progressive global collapse as failure propagates from one column to the next.

Whatever....

Posted by: onesliceshort May 3 2012, 08:52 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 3 2012, 01:11 PM) *
OSS is a typo..should be OOS - open office space means column free long span office floor design...All three towers that fell had them.

When someone cites settle science and engineering the response is not... WHATEVER dismissively.

If this is a fact coupled with typical factor of safeties in steel high rises explains that the steel does NOT have to be melted, but heated to initiate buckling and column failure... leading to a progressive global collapse as failure propagates from one column to the next.

Whatever....


I don't think that the earlier statement "I haven't time to look for evidence" (to support your own claims!) is very "scientific".

I'd just like to point out your contradictory claims on how difficult it would be to bring down WTC7 intentionally compared to your claims on heat being the deciding factor.

Example:

On CD..

QUOTE (SanderO)
AE911T asserts that all 81 columns had to be destroyed over 8 floors instantaneously to account for the observation of the 2.25 second 100 feet free descent of the building seen on the videos. While this could cause a similar observable... it hardly makes sense. Such demolition would be so loud... 81 columns x 4 (the columns were 2 stories each = 324 explosions all at once. Be real... this was not observed. 324 silent cutter charges all completing their cuts at precisely the same instant without any movement as they sut the cross sections of the columns smaller and smaller.... weakening them? I don't think so


Also on CD..(from separate posts)

QUOTE (SanderO)
If there was a CD it was likely on floors 6 and 7.

The explosions could also be from placed charges.

Now this doesn't matter if it was a few bombs (I think it wouldn't take many)


On fires bringing WTC7 down (again separate posts)

QUOTE (SanderO)
I don't think all 81 columns were destroyed at once over 8 floors at the base of the tower as AE911T seems to claim must have happened. I do think the 6th and 7th floor *failed* and the core above it came down.


If one truss *panel* fails... for whatever reason... the entire truss will fail very rapidly as loads are redistributed to remaining truss panels which are overwhelmed. If the 3 trusses let go, a very rapid progression of failures will occur and the core above will have no axial support.

And the fires were precisely in the vulnerable region. A walked off beam would not collapse the entire tower, but a failed transfer truss would.

With B7 my theory is the failure of a truss panel or chord. If you fail one of them the whole truss is a goner. And the T trusses supported the core. And the 2 story T trusses were effectively a bridge over the 6 floors of the Con Ed substation.. up to floor 8. There was only the T trusses between the bottom of the core.. and the ground.. so if the T trusses went the core could drop 8 floors... 100' the same 100 feet of the free fall collapse. Coincidence? I'd say it's a damn good place to look for the "no resistance for 8 floors or 100 feet".


If the building was so vulnerable to heat induced collapse in certain areas, how is CD, concentrating on those same areas so difficult?

Please remember that not only C4 is the only possible explosive on the table (as NIST dishonestly hypothesized).

Posted by: SanderO May 3 2012, 09:16 AM

OSS is also onesliceshort....

OSS... I agree that there are actually rather *simple* CD scenarios...if one understands the structure... and one wouldn't have to destroy all 81 columns for 3 floors simultaneously. What I am suggesting could have been accomplished over time by diesel flames in the *right places* could also be accomplished in an instant with an explosive device at those same *right places*. I do not rule this as cause. I rule out blowing up 81 columns over 8 floors simultaneously as a plausible hypothesis... just as I rule office fires at column 79 as a plausible hypothesis.

What we can't know is what was the fuel loading inside the core where the Achilles heels where located - the T trusses and the 8 cantilever girders which supported the core above. Was there enough diesel present to create enough heat to weaken those heels.

Further I have suggested a core LED collapse scenario which is very different from the global 81 columns failure which is the AE911T theory. I've described the mechanism and the sequence which follows on from a core drop from a T truss and cantilever girder failure... and this DOES seem to match the observables.

Kawika is trying to prove from a few vids of a few seconds that we can see there were no fires inside the mech areas well inside the facade on floors 6&7... and that the explosion Jennings heard could not possibly be related to sub station shorts and explosions.

True... We can't see in there, we have little direct visual evidence of what explosions were or of the nature of fires in areas we can't see. Therefore it is posed as an hypothesis... to be investigated and tested. I have not dismissed explosives as the initiating mechanism for the T truss and cantilever girder failures. I don't see evidence of it either.

However, if diesel fires could cause the failures on the mech floor and they could be traced back to sub station explosions/arcs/shorts.. then the CD theory falls and the collapse of B7 is not an inside job.

But perhaps the sub station was were the explosives were placed.. a convenient location and excuse... kinda. Or maybe the twins were CDed and they had no idea that it would cause voltage spikes and blow the B7 substation and cascade into its collapse....

Lots of cause and effects to look at as this was a complex inter related event and set of circumstances. The CD claim has cartoon/Hollywood like simplicity... possible... but seems to me to be less rather than more likely.

Noting the thermal performance of steel should not receive a *whatever* response as if this fact is of no consequence.

Why the denial and dismissive attitude?


Posted by: kawika May 3 2012, 12:45 PM

SanderO

QUOTE
Now this doesn't matter if it was a few bombs (I think it wouldn't take many)


As OSS says above, if it only took the failure of one girder on floor 12, or one column (79) why is a concentrated CD so hard to imagine? If the building is so vulnerable to a progressive collapse due to office fires, then a focused CD could certainly accomplish something similar.

I don't think it was focused. I think it was widespread, but conventional, loud explosives were not used. The evidence is the eutectic mixture reported by Barnett et al. The proof is the smooth, rapid collapse that did not even damage the Federal Building a few feet away. To accomplish this a lot of structure has to fail simultaneously.

Here is a picture taken by FEMA (probably WTC5 or 6) showing a melted column folded right over on itself. What caused this?

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8166/dsc00505ribbonfema.jpg

Posted by: onesliceshort May 3 2012, 01:19 PM

If that's WTC5 or 6, I'm lost!

One of the strangest images I've seen for a while.

Posted by: SanderO May 3 2012, 01:23 PM

When a structure fails from a cascading loss of columns ... it remains standing as long as the collective FOS is above 1... that is to say that the collective yield strength of the columns exceeds the loads they are carrying. The moment the FOS goes below one... there is a rapid and total column / axial load support failure and the entire structure that those columns support will come straight down. It's conceivable that the structure can begin to drop before all columns have completely buckled pulling the remaining ones laterally to the side because of asymmetrical loads placed on it and loss of bracing to resist lateral buckling (horseshoe column).

So progressive failure CAN show rapid onset of collapse post loss of reserve strength.

Yes it would be possible to CD the Achilles heels and not blow all columns... but AE911T seems to have a blind spot when it comes to understand the concept of cascading failures in structural systems. It's an all or nothing thing in their world.

Posted by: kawika May 3 2012, 04:00 PM

Here's another one. Probably WTC5 or 6.

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/8977/dcp0781wtc56wtfhappened.jpg


Here's one that looks like a WTC7 wind girder assembly, badly eroded.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2892/dsc00059windgirdersever.jpg

This exhibits the silent demolition mechanism I envision.

Posted by: SanderO May 3 2012, 04:31 PM

How bout this for image 1... there were extensive fires which softened the steel somewhat and a 20 ton chunch of steel came crashing down from 1000 feet high and hit the column dead center,

Image two looks like the steel was ripped in from tension.

Posted by: kawika May 3 2012, 11:37 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 1 2012, 06:31 PM) *
How bout this for image 1... there were extensive fires which softened the steel somewhat and a 20 ton chunch of steel came crashing down from 1000 feet high and hit the column dead center,

Image two looks like the steel was ripped in from tension.


Sorry, no. That would mean fires were raging in WTC5 and 6 before collapse of Tower 1. Tower one fell and then the fires raged at WTC5 and 6.

How does one get heat concentrated at a short length along a column to effect such a fold over?

Posted by: SanderO May 4 2012, 06:59 AM

We can't see inside the buildings to know the nature of the fires. I was speculating how such a deformation might take place...

There were obviously extensive fires seen after the roof and floors were hollowed out but the facade of the towers falling on them.

Perhaps fuel from the plane and some debris fell through the roof. I can't say this did or didn't happen or whether the fires began post collapse of the towers. We can see that there were large fires after the collapse.

If that column was from the center of B5 or B6 it needs to be explained and probably examined and analyzed. Buckling indicates loading exceeding yield strength.. no?

Posted by: onesliceshort May 4 2012, 10:26 AM

I'm really glad you posted those images Kawika (I've never really looked at the other WTC buildings)

This image:

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/8977/dcp0781wtc56wtfhappened.jpg

Is discussed towards the end of this video (though I recommend you watch it all)



NIST thermal image of WTC7 (keeping this in mind while looking at WTC5:




There's a detailed analysis here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch4.htm

QUOTE
Discrete sections of the steel framing were warped or twisted. There was no evidence of weakened connections in the areas of the building that were inspected. Some studs were missing and others were still in place in some areas, even in floor sections that had collapsed. In many deformed beams, there was no evidence of damage at openings cut into the beams, suggesting that web penetration reinforcement design worked as intended, although some localized buckling in beams and girders was observed throughout the burned-out regions. 

There was significant fire damage on floors 4 through 8. On some floors, the interior had been completely gutted by fire; on others, the fire damage was severe, but there was still evidence of office partition frames and other light-gauge metal products, except for the 6th floor, which suffered near complete destruction. Even the mid-height partitions were destroyed and had collapsed throughout much of the 6th floor. This level of damage was not evident on the other floors. 


And a resume here:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com.es/2011/06/other-collapses-in-perspective_04.html





QUOTE
One reason debunkers are fond of citing this structure is likely because they feel it lends credibility to the idea of a “pancake” type of collapse, or “global” collapse as it is also referred to. However, upon closer examination of the building, it becomes apparent why the structure collapsed the way it did.

The pancake collapse only progressed to the fifth floor. The fourth floor of WTC5 did not collapse.



Why didn’t the floors pancake all the way down to the bottom floor? Why didn’t the fourth floor collapse? After all, the fourth floor had to sustain the loads of four floors which had collapsed on top of it. It’s interesting to note that the ninth floor also did not collapse from the upper layer temperature of the fires on the lower floors. So why did only floors five through eight collapse? As we read in the FEMA report, there was no fire on the third floor, which meant that there was no heat to weaken floor four from below.

WTC5 third floor:



What say you SanderO?

Posted by: onesliceshort May 4 2012, 11:31 AM

Wtc5 firefighters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcO5z9hL0sQ

WTC5 and 6 fires

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaO2fON1H98

WTC5

00:40 (other bent girder linked to by Kawika?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDaqBecJhr8

Posted by: SanderO May 4 2012, 12:42 PM

The collapse of the floors in the twin towers was related to several factors.

1. open office space - large open spans with 4" thick light weight no stone aggregate floor with no columns supported by lightgauge trusses at 80" oc. designed for 58 psf live loads (down spec'd from 100 psf for office use.

2. B5 and B6 were conventional frames and like thicker and stronger slabs with columns on a 25' grid or similar. The plans posted do not show the columns so one can surmise from the pics.

3. Collapse of the floors for B5&6 would likely require a heavier initial mass to kick of the collapse and the building was only 8 stories. The mass in the twins to initiate the floor collapse is hard to determine but in tower 1 - 15 floors collapse down which was more than enough mass to destroy the 58 psf floor... and all those below one after another.

4. The mass to crush the floor below 95 was made available when the core buckled at the plane strike zone around floor 95. No such thing happened with B5&6. Their floors were crushed by falling debris.

The distorted columns and beams appear to be related to the extended fires which weakened them so that impacts and normal loads would buckle them. The floors appear to be destroyed from falling debris... not the loss of strength of the columns when the buckled. Just a guess.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 4 2012, 06:34 PM

The point that I was making was that the thermal expansion that caused partial collapses in buildings closer to the towers than WTC7, which received far more impact damage and prolonged fires on multiple floors stood up to a hell of a lot more than WTC7.

Here, I googled "WTC5 floorplans" for you

http://www.fema.gov/library/file;jsessionid=11EE28A86CF331A97FE51DAAF5AFD944.WorkerLibrary?type=publishedFile&file=403_ch4.pdf&fileid=7578b920-50ba-11e0-be57-001cc4568fb6

Not very detailed but it's a hell of a lot more than you've contributed to back up your "theory" on fire free thermal expansion on the lower floors of WTC7!




Posted by: elreb May 4 2012, 07:00 PM

Ask CIT

Posted by: SanderO May 4 2012, 07:29 PM

Elreb,
Hard to know what the man meant, but it's a bizarre quote.
You cannot compare B7 and B5&6 because 7 is a very robust high rise with a very strange structural scheme and 5&6 are low rise and very normal... with the columns not being so damn huge as a high rise at the base. Apples and oranges.

Posted by: SanderO May 4 2012, 07:34 PM

OSS,

There is no framing plan... only an iso cartoon. I offered my professional opinion... I am not presenting a legal or a forensic case. You posting a FEMA report you googled is hardly research.

Notice the torn out distorted bolt holes... That's from a large dynamic load which landing on the beam mid span of thereabouts which pulled the beam from the beam stub.

Posted by: elreb May 4 2012, 07:41 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 4 2012, 01:29 PM) *
Hard to know what the man meant, but it's a bizarre quote.
You cannot compare B7 and B5&6

I only talk about WTC7...

Larry knew what he was saying...

Posted by: elreb May 4 2012, 08:25 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 4 2012, 01:34 PM) *
OSS...I offered my professional opinion...

SanderO,

Please keep in mind that when I showed up...I was wondering about OSS’s back ground.

Is it a big deal to tell me a little about your back ground and where you really come from?

[It is not NYC]

Posted by: SanderO May 4 2012, 10:15 PM

Why do you doubt where I come from? I was born at Lenox Hill Hospital in NYC in 1947. I grew up Roslyn, LI and went to Carnegie Mellow University which graduated from in 1970 with a bachelor of Architecture Degree. I won first price in the PPG Design Competition which was $5,000 prize which I used to travel in Europe and study architecture during the summer of 1969. I am licensed in NY and NJ to practice architecture

My first job upon graduating was working for a brief period for Emery Roth & Sons, the architects for the WTC. Teddy Roth, Richard Roth's brother was a classmate of mine and recommended me to the firm. I worked for various firms in NYC and began my own practice in the mid 70s doing mostly high end residential projects, though not exclusively. When I graduated I lived in NYC mostly in the NYU area. I opened and ran a woodwork business which at one time was located about 8 blocks north of the WTC located at 23 Leonard Street. I even design one Loft Conversion in a loft above Steve Wilson at 1 Hudson Street where he found one of the 4 dust samples used in the Jones Harrit nano thermite study.

I've worked for several other architects as project architect for various projects in the NYC metro area - residential and commercial projects including one gig at where I had a office on the 74th flr of Empire State Building facing south (post 9/11)

I am offshore sailor with over 30,000 miles sailed offshore some of it single handed. I've done several yacht deliveries including one from NY to Brazil and have taken courses in navigation, and meteorology and various marine related fields. I've owned a 36' sailboat for 27 yrs.

I volunteered to work with AE911T in 09 and Gage quickly offered me a position on their board. I was reluctant to take it, but I did and served with Dwain Deets, Jon Cole, Justin Keogh, Tom Spellman, Max Ayers and Richard Gage. I've attended many 911 "conferences" since then... but don't bother anymore as they are the same thing, same people. I've met most of them. Cole and Keogh engineered my expulsion without cause from the board. It's a long story, but basically they believed I was a cognitive infiltrator because I had suggested to Gage the use of the term -engineered destruction- instead of -controlled demolition- in their materials. Gage and Deets actually liked the idea. Really petty nonsense. It's a litmus test..if you don't tow the party line you are *the enemy*.

I left and began my own independent research...the type Gage refused to do and Cole said was unnecessary because they had the smoking gun - nano thermite. I've discovered many things about the structure... none of which interested Gage, though Gordon Ross PE, former 911 lecturer who published in the Jones online journal has agreed with my findings and regrets having written some of what he did (got that in writing).

I found by accident the 911 Free Forums which I have become one of the main contributors. Some of their members are doing the best research and have made the most stunning discoveries. It is not a OCT haven nor a 911 truth haven, but a forum for engineering and science discussions about 911 issues, mostly about the destruction of the WTC.

I attended a conference/seminar last summer at the Christian Regenhard Center at John Jay College in NYC about NIST failures in conducting their investigation. I met and spoke with Prof James Quintierre who was with NIST and fired over his urging them for a more exhaustive (and proper) investigation along the lines of the NTSB. I've corresponded with Jim about some of my findings which he thought were interesting... though he admitted he is not a civil engineer. He sent me some of his own work on 9/11.

I have produced scores of graphics, charts, drawings and so forth some of which I posted to the 911 Free Forums. I don't have a web site and have no intention of publishing a 911 paper in the near future. I am mostly an arm chair PC 911 person with no formal affiliation though I have signed several online petitions, but had my name removed for AE911T's because the group refuses to correct their factual mistakes... and is simply not interested in research or the actual *truth* about what happened to those buildings on 911. They are a PR operation for explosive controlled demolition... something which I no longer believe to be the explanation for the destruction of the 3 towers.

I've lobbied the NYC City Council with Jeff Latas, a core member of Pilots for 911 Truth (drove him to JFK after the meeting), Ted Walker and Tony Szamboti and wrote the Misprison of Treason presentation which Sander Hicks read at the 2010 Valley Forge - Treason In America conference... with an unplanned attribution (I suspect) that it was my research and wording (caught in the act when he saw me sitting in the audience as he was about to read it).

I find now, most 911 truth advocates have a MIHOP agenda and refuse to accept anything which undermines this position.

I still practice architecture in NYC and do my research into the events of 911.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 4 2012, 10:37 PM

QUOTE
There is no framing plan... only an iso cartoon. I offered my professional opinion... I am not presenting a legal or a forensic case. You posting a FEMA report you googled is hardly research.


Says the guy who has done no research whatsoever to back up his multiple claims (that are no more than another irrelevant subplot) because he can't find the time but does have the time to post large speculative, evidence free opinions day in day out.

@Elreb

I'm an Irish guy living in Spain with a mortgage, a fantastic girlfriend and a dog with psychological problems.

I've recently found voluntary work gathering online information for a Mr O. I now quit. pilotfly.gif

Posted by: onesliceshort May 4 2012, 10:47 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ May 5 2012, 12:41 AM) *
I only talk about WTC7...

Larry knew what he was saying...


http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc_7_huge_amounts_of_smoke_came_from_wtc_5_6.htm

QUOTE
Remember that firefighters were at no point engaged in tackling the fires inside building 7. The official FEMA report stresses this in chapter five , stating "...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."

Incidentally this is exactly the reason why Silverstein's explanation of his "pull it" remark doesn't hold water. He said late in the afternoon that the decision was made to "pull it", by which he then later explained that he meant evacuate the firefighting operation. The problem is, according to FEMA, there was no building 7 firefighting operation.

Posted by: elreb May 5 2012, 03:53 AM

This is a good start my friends...

You come to Maui...

Posted by: SanderO May 5 2012, 07:54 AM

OSS,

You can't have it both ways. That is to say, you can't quote FEMA and NIST as reliable, honest, sources of correct technical information when it's convenient for you *case* and then turn around and call their work deception, lied a cover up and so forth.

I pretty much consider that the official material amounts to a *cover up*. As such it includes aspects of the *truth*, omission of it at times, fabrication of facts *disinformation* or mis information. The sum total of their technical explanation is not correct for the collapse of the towers. The Truth movement people have done a good job of parsing the work of NIST and FEMA.

Well you can have it both ways.... if you can identity which statements of NIST and FEMA are fact and which are fiction.

We can't know WHY these organizations have produced the reports they did.. considering the technical expertise they had and the resources available to them... and their resistance to share information with the public with lame excuses. It appears to be almost a given that they would produce reports consistent with the OCT and the policies which were adopted in the wake of 9/11. A sort of *the fix was in* approach we have come to see (and expect) when those in high places might be guilty of misconduct, of gross negligence and so for forth. We see it all the time at many levels from prosecutorial misconduct to high botched police work... where innocent people have been executed even. Were these cases examples of covering incompetence of something else? We've seen those responsible for the financial disaster not rooted out and punished but protected and rewarded.

Discussions about *intent* are quite different from technical ones. Clearly there was intent to do something on 9/11 by some group. We don't know for certain who they even were or what there intent was. We can try to figure that out if we can first figure out exactly what happened.

My theory about design flaws and the *possible* criminally negligent decisions of those who made them, is not only consistent with the observables (I believe it is though here too some of it is hard to know with certainty) and the actual structures, engineering and physics but would explain the motive for a cover up. Motive is speculative. Those who have something to *hide* are clearly going to support and be cooperative or even remain silent with respect to a narrative which puts the responsibility on others and away from their actions.

Regardless of whodunnit, it's fairly obvious that our *defenses* and national security state failed to prevent the events or stop them in progress. That alone was something that should have been investigation and there should have been some accountability and heads rolling... or a serious re evaluation of the DOD and the national security state which has consumed enormous resources to *protect us* and failed when supposedly 19 guys with box cutters *attacked us*... as the story goes.

Identifying the enemy so early on and the nature of the attack was all that was needed to launch the post 911 policies which many claim were in place before the event. We shouldn't forget that the DOD etc. is always *gaming* all sorts of things and we were told that one of them was a hijacked plane attack of the twin towers. Was this because there was genuine basis to consider this as a possibility or was this made up out of whole cloth? Do anti American terrorists exist? The answer is, I think .. YES and terrorism is a response to our foreign policies.

We also need to consider that a defense establishment NEEDS an enemy to defend against if that is it's mission. Our nation, presumably a democracy is not about *empire* officially at any rate. We don't conquer weaker nations... militarily. But what *we* do do... is support multinational corporations which *conquer* weak nations economically - usually about extraction of resources. Historically conquering for resources was the activity of empires.

In the post WWII error the US engaged the USSR in a struggle of expanding spheres of influence. The USSR was supposedly exporting a revolution of the workers, anti capitalist... where the state (the people) owned and controlled the means of production and the resources. The concept of private property was an anathema to communism. The notion was to share the resources and wealth... the operative word being *share*. The west was largely capitalist and advocated individual property rights and the notion of competition leads to progress and wealth creation... and that is for those who are clever enough to do it. Open playing field... rising tides raises all ships .. trickle down and so forth (all BS talking points).

Don't want to go into a long lesson in history... but suffice it to say that our defense establishment is a front for an aggressive imperialist economic policy of multinational corporations. While the citizens of the US require energy - oil and gas - these are privately held commodities. When seen as essential to our well being and national security, the government finds itself in a position to support a foreign policy which benefits the private for profit multi national corporations. And so the government had become intertwined with the mission of private industry. The official US foreign policies then become the basis for abuse of populations around the world who *stand in the way* of corporations who want at the resources. Americans worship at the alter of wealth. He who has the most *things* earns the most respect and has the most power... and they use this to acquire more! That's how the game is played in a capitalist society. Fascism is the co mingling of the corporations with the state which uses the state's military apparatus to control people and advance the corporation's agendas (resource extraction, control of labor and wealth creation for those few already in control and wealthy). American foolishly and naively believe that there is a level playing field, that anyone can rise to the top and make out and that they have freedom because there is no government control and interference in the economy - free market economics.

The fact is the system we have has exploited people around the world since before the US rose to such a position or strength and dominance. It has created animus and given rise to insurgent struggles and revolutions by people who sought self determination and control of their own lives, land and resources. The US, in support of the extractive multinationals has always supported the status quo in repressing such struggles. The US has armed and facilitated many despots around the world (Marcos, Duvalier etc... there are scores of them)... because it suited the multinational corporations. As such our policies fostered anti Americanism and gave rise to what is non state terrorism. This cannot be disputed.

However, this was simply a new form of enemy for the national security state and a new justification for their existence. If there weren't actual states who were seeking to conquer and attack the USA, the national security state would then identify the non state actors as the enemy to justify their existence. Our pols then tried to link some states with being sponsors of non state terrorists such as Cuba or Libya, Iran and North Korea. It seems hard to imagine why a nation like North Korea would want to conquer the USA, but that's the basis for our policy toward these nations. We usually try to claim they are aggressor nations in their own region. Bad bad bad... but good good good for the MIC which can arm the neighbors with weapons and support *proxy wars*... even sponsoring right wing groups - *contras* who sought to over throw popular democratic but non capitalist countries which did not bend to multinational policies of resource extraction in their countries. They were of course labelled as *evil communists* at our doorstep.

Anyone who has studied history can see what is going on. Government has been increasingly in the thrall of *big business* and their free market right wing agenda. Government has been infested with corporate lobbyist who now drive the agenda of a supposedly democratic government. These interests have bought the media channels and control the information and messaging. These interests have now bought the electoral process which has now legally been able to place their *people* at all levels of government to promote.. free market right wing anti democratic policies. We've devolved into a democracy in name only... we live in an hypocracy!

And this brings me back to the topic of this thread. Those in power act both pro-actively and re-actively to events... with the common theme to advance their agenda. This gives *us* both disaster capitalism (Naomi Klein) and false flag adventures... the former follows right on from the latter. Opportunism is one of America's middle name. One can hardly believe that the networks planned and carried out 911, but they sure did milk it for billions. One can hardly say the networks are the reason there is so much money in elections, but they are getting untold billions in political advertising and other advertising related to elections. The airwaves are not free, but freely given to corporations to rake in dough while conveying garbage to the people... brainwashing them, dumbing them down and keeping them distracted from what is really happening.

9/11 could have been a false flag operation as it has the earmarks of one. It also could be an instance of disaster capitalism. It also could be a botched (or successful) intel type operation to *create* the new enemy. It could be many things at once and there are always the opportunists who appear to frame and exploit events for their (institutional) self interest. We know the powers that be are covering up their mis deeds all the time... their incompetence, schemes, fraud, abuse and so forth. This is par for the course. We know that bureaucracies are inefficient and screw up all the time... BP oil spill is a perfect example... We know that opportunists show up at every disaster - witness Katrina... and that when disaster reveals that there was poor planning or engineering that too is slept under the rug. Covering up of bureaucratic misconduct ALWAYS seems to take place. And this would include false flag activities, illegal intel operations, and private misconduct by officials for whatever their reasons (Zionist leanings?.... personal wealth??)

My B7 theory is consistent with how officials behave in disasters. It is consistent with the observables though admittedly we don't have very good data for many of them and an unreliable source for evidence...the groups who brought us the OCT and their own explanation (very similar to prosecutors suppressing exculpatory evidence... which happens all the time).

What can't be disputed is engineering and physics and the actual data that can be extracted from the public record materials. If NIST is silent on something are they covering up because it doesn't fit their explanation? Or were they bumbling incompetents who were not accident investigators and the pols made decisions which compromised any outcome... such as not preserving evidence. It seems unthinkable to me that any official investigation would reveal negligence, if it existed, in the design of those towers and the decisions by pols to build them. That you can take to the bank. So why NOT scrutinize the design and the decisions to erect those monsters and see what gives?

Covering up and exploitation is not as sexy as a big MIHOP false flag or a plan set 40 years ago to blow the towers up when they were first conceived... as a sort of ace to play at the right time. But covering up misconduct is what we've seen in every official investigation ... JFK, Contra, MLK and so on. The official explanation is clearly concealing misconduct by officials within the government.

This theory of the destruction of B7 should not be dismissed or framed as a back door reworking of the OCT and someone who presents it as a government shill. That's wrong. It is worthy of serious consideration.




Posted by: onesliceshort May 5 2012, 08:58 AM

QUOTE
You can't have it both ways. That is to say, you can't quote FEMA and NIST as reliable, honest, sources of correct technical information when it's convenient for you *case* and then turn around and call their work deception, lied a cover up and so forth...


That's where I stopped reading.

Read the OP again.

Bye.

Posted by: SanderO May 5 2012, 10:00 AM

OSS,

What a response... a non response to the item you referenced.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing the notion that all fires are not the same. And then toss my theory as a retread of NIST's theory.

It is clearly not. I have made numerous attempts to distinguish it... but apparently you don't comprehend them. And then there are others who claim that there is distinct evidence which refutes this theory. I've answered those claims but stating that the actual observables... such as damage to the sub station or the fuel tanks and even the fires within the sub station cannot be seen and there is no evidence that indicates conclusively that what I suggested did not happen. Then critics cite NIST as a source for the non evidence / observables or 3 second snippits of news video of a process that I suggested when on for 8 hrs.

Not a soul has acknowledged that the cover up of incompetence and liability is acceptable theory to examine.

Kill the messenger.

And let's not forget that some clever person on this forum... used my real name...though I don't care... in a sort of attempt to supposedly expose me as a fraud. My credentials have been question, though I don't see to many of my critics including kawika, amazed, DoYouEverWonder elreb, and OSS and other provide theirs. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I am not an elitist and accept good ideas and thinking no matter where it comes... and reject bad ideas and flawed thinking as well no matter where it comes from.

The hostility from the supposedly open transparent truth movement is stunning at times. Very quick to call other plants, shills, infiltrators and worse. And easily done with the anonymity of the net. Basically cowardly.

While I do have a professional license and conceivably could suffer career consequences. I have no problem ever in speaking my mind or what I believe to be the truth and do it without the cloak of anonymity.

OP acts like a hit and run "coward" not someone who is prepared to engage in serious discourse. I have never insulted or been rude to others online... but clearly this is not the case with others on the 911 truth sites.

But as they say... lies have short legs... they can't go very far.

Very bad approach to getting at the truth.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 5 2012, 11:08 AM

SanderO, I refuse to read any of your nonsense (including the last post) until you provide evidence for your claims. Got it?

Even the 911Forum guys who are far more knowledgeable than me (or any other "koolaiders" here) either ignore you or reject the pish that you're posting here!

Remember?

QUOTE (SanderO)
911FF (Tom, femr2, achimspok, OWE) and others have assembled the most data and in depth analysis of the motion of the collapses from the visual record. I don't see anything like that at AE911T or elsewhere. I don't consider their work a diversion.


http://the911forum.freeforums.org/girder-walk-off-between-column-79-and-44-t650.html#p19941

QUOTE (SanderO)
And then there's the AE911T fantasy of 81 columns being exploded on 8 floors all at once so the building can drop like a feather... in free fall. Yet another fantasy


When asked to source this by another poster there...

QUOTE
Pav...

No... I am not going to spend the time to find a published quote...


Or your horsekack about the freefall collapse was actually the outer "husk" of the building

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/dropping-core-t515.html#p14998

QUOTE (SanderO)
If the PH did drop through the core and take out 79,89 and 81 and perhaps a few others it could lead to the complete destruction of the core columns and leave the building hollowed out and set up the FF and rapid descent of the facade and whatever floors were hanging on to the perimeter columns.


For which you were lambasted..

QUOTE
Re: Dropping Core
by OneWhiteEye » Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:26 am

QUOTE
T_Szamboti wrote:
Anyone who says the entire interior collapsed leaving an exterior shell which then collapsed afterward is not being honest.


Absolutely correct.


Why not give your evidence free "theory" another "bump" over there and leave us dumbasses alone?

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/dropping-core-t515.html#p19863

rolleyes.gif

Posted by: elreb May 5 2012, 12:47 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 4 2012, 04:15 PM) *
Why do you doubt where I come from? I was born at Lenox Hill Hospital in NYC in 1947.

SanderO,

On a lighter note…

My daughter still holds the World record for swimming around Manhattan

Youngest MIMS Competitor: Cody Brammer, 12 years old, in 1988

http://www.nycswim.org/Article/ArticleTemplate.aspx?Article_ID=589

Posted by: onesliceshort May 5 2012, 12:54 PM

QUOTE (SanderO)
It is clearly not. I have made numerous attempts to distinguish it... but apparently you don't comprehend them. And then there are others who claim that there is distinct evidence which refutes this theory. I've answered those claims but stating that the actual observables... such as damage to the sub station or the fuel tanks and even the fires within the sub station cannot be seen and there is no evidence that indicates conclusively that what I suggested did not happen.


Sorry, didn't see your "proof" there.

FDNY are quoted as saying that there were no signs of diesel fire in the hours leading up to the collapse.

Con Edison claim that they had power in the WTC7 substation up until they turned it off at 4:33pm

Con Ed was involved in an insurance claim which could have been easily rejected or exposed if they had lied about the subbasement causing fires by transformer explosions.

All you have is speculation. Speculation that is actually a veiled attempt to add a subplot to the NIST Report that you claim to reject but repeat some of its claims and attempt to go beyond its ridiculous conclusions.

Nobody's buying your bullshit here or at 911forum. Much less the victim card when it's you who throws your rattle out of the pram and labels anybody who doesn't agree with your opinion as koolaid drinkers.

Go sail. Give my head peace.




Posted by: onesliceshort May 5 2012, 12:56 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ May 5 2012, 05:47 PM) *
SanderO,

On a lighter note…

My daughter still holds the World record for swimming around Manhattan

Youngest MIMS Competitor: Cody Brammer, 12 years old, in 1988

http://www.nycswim.org/Article/ArticleTemplate.aspx?Article_ID=589


Nice one!

Posted by: SanderO May 5 2012, 06:30 PM

My BS theory has not be trashed at the 911 Free Forum. The members mentioned do not support the controlled demolition theory (AE911T's) of Building 7 either though they don't have a theory / mechanism to explain what happened.

Most of the prolific posters at 911FF believe or support the notion that the core collapsed in advance of the facade or curtain wall.

Give it a read and tell they are BS.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 5 2012, 09:45 PM

QUOTE
Most of the prolific posters at 911FF believe or support the notion that the core collapsed in advance of the facade or curtain wall.


And just a couple of posts up I quoted one of those "prolific posters" , OneWhiteEye, who agreed with another prolific poster, Tony Zsamboti, that "Anyone who says the entire interior collapsed leaving an exterior shell which then collapsed afterward is not being honest."

And I didn't say that they "trashed" your theory but have they responded to it? At all?

Try presenting some evidence to them SanderO. Ya never know.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 5 2012, 10:00 PM

Just going to post some images here that 911Myths and Victoria Ashley posted to give the impression that WTC7 was "engulfed"















Shown also in this video:

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

Reality:



QUOTE
Within the building, the diesel tanks were surrounded by fireproofed enclosures.

NIST


QUOTE
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said." -New York Times (11/29/01)"

Posted by: SanderO May 6 2012, 09:23 AM

QUOTE
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said." -New York Times (11/29/01)"

Correct.. that would be explained by something else... the extreme heat created by the mechanical crushing of the concrete and contents of the floors releasing all sorts chemical, elements, metals, molecules plus water which could have caused exotic exothermic reactions to take place and attack the only materials not crushed... steel.

How many joules or calories would be released in 7 seconds or so in the grinding, crushing and pulverization of 200,000 tons of materials. I suspect enough to cause the effects seen.

Just a hunch...

Posted by: elreb May 6 2012, 11:27 AM

Iron Oxide and sulfur = Thermate

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with inter-granular melting due to the presence of sulfur.

The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel.
This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, [1832 F] forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge."

-JOM (12/02) Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

NOTE: Because thermate burns at higher temperatures than ordinary thermite, it has useful military applications in cutting through tank armor or other hardened military vehicles or bunkers.

As with thermite, thermate's ability to burn without an external supply of oxygen renders it useful for underwater incendiary devices.

Posted by: SanderO May 6 2012, 03:47 PM

Possibly thermate reactions were taking place from the crushed material. Kevin Ryan shows how easily it is to make thermate. So perhaps there was thermate created and that caused the eutectic burning after the collapse... as opposed to causing it???

Posted by: elreb May 6 2012, 05:20 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 6 2012, 09:47 AM) *
Possibly thermate reactions were taking place from the crushed material.

You must be part “Pit Bull”?

It had been earlier stated that WTC7 lacked explosions.

I was wondering where Iron Oxide and Sulfur would have originated.

Concrete do not contain either one.

A Thermate composition is more focused on short bursts of high temperatures.

Seeing that Thermate is difficult to ignite, and requires supervision and sometimes persistent effort…one could see how a fire would come in handy and why the fire department was told to stand down.

“…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…”

Posted by: SanderO May 6 2012, 09:47 PM

elreb,

There are thousands of chemicals in a typical office building and if the contents are crushed and pulverized in a heat producing mechanical crushing it's not unreasonable for some mixing of the *right stuff* to take place randomly. Not in huge quantities I would think.

Look at the RJ Lee report and you will see the range of elements and molecules present from electrical, mechanical systems, building materials, plastics, office contents, solvents and so forth. Crush it up, mix it up... add water and heat and pressure and who knows what happens? I don't.

Posted by: elreb May 6 2012, 10:26 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 6 2012, 03:47 PM) *
it's not unreasonable for some mixing of the *right stuff* to take place randomly. Not in huge quantities I would think.

You should have been a lawyer…

I think, I could use you at http://www.elreb.com/

Let me know!

Posted by: SanderO May 6 2012, 10:38 PM

Why a lawyer? I've acted pro se in the past.

The web site is interesting reading...

propaganda and internal mappings of the external world are not the same thing. The intent to deceive - propaganda - exists for self serving purposes.

Posted by: elreb May 7 2012, 01:15 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 6 2012, 04:38 PM) *
The web site is interesting reading...

The major reason I do not write about 911 is because of the governments “intent to deceive”.

Every aspect of history is propaganda. It is all about power and control.

When you watch the History and Discovery channel…they always state that they cannot explain a ton of things.

Strange as it may seem…I can…because I am not a Sheep or a Lemming.

As a “Code” reader and an investigative researcher…I source all data.

If you follow our science and history links…you will soon learn this too.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 7 2012, 10:54 AM

That steel sample. Does anybody know the chain of custody? When it was collected? When the analysis was done? Or at least how long before all of the WTC7 debris was removed?

Cheers.

Posted by: elreb May 8 2012, 02:00 PM

Something, I have also wondered about was the so called “Port Authority Cop” that was pulled from the WTC7 rubbish heap.

Whether it was Secret Service officer Craig Miller or not…what was a person of this stature still doing in the building?

Officer Miller was an Army veteran trained in Anti-Aircraft School.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=4654

SanderO...do you wonder about this person?

Posted by: SanderO May 9 2012, 06:38 PM

Here's an interesting discussion by Achimspok about B7 on the 911FF where CD debunker Chris Mohr is taken to the wood shed and spanked. The interesting points are the statements about a core led collapse among others.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post20078.html#p20078

Give it a read...

Posted by: elreb May 9 2012, 07:52 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 9 2012, 12:38 PM) *
My hunch is the T trusses failed... the core then came collapsing down right thru to the ground bashing up the sub-station... and pulling those lovely diagonally braced frames at the perimeter right into the center of the building.... and taking the curtain wall from floors 1-8 with it. What failed the T trusses? Explosives? Incendiaries? Diesel fires burning on the mech floors for 8 hrs? All of the above? Who knows?


Once you remove the diesel fires…I thinks…some of us will agree with you.

Posted by: SanderO May 9 2012, 08:03 PM

Progress!... at least the collapse mechanism is being accepted.

I think study needs to be done about how much heat would/could fail those trusses and if it is even possible from diesel fires burning X number of hours. Could a transformer explosions weaken the trusses? These questions need further study and as I noted what I proposed what a theory which was coherent and matched the observables (I thought). There's lots we can't observe as there wasn't cameras there filming it all so that doesn't mean something wasn't happening. And we know that NIST et al covers up stuff for some reason... withholds evidence for some reason and when they give a reason... such as national security... it's a phoney as a three dollar bill.

I think we have the same issue with the twins.... the collapse mechanism was un assisted but the initiation there of is hard to pin down and NIST again came up with a hair brained tale. 0 for 3 and they should be sent back to the minors.

The proof of CD is just not there but it could initiate all three collapses... so could the boogie man. No one saw him either.

Posted by: elreb May 9 2012, 09:21 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 9 2012, 02:03 PM) *
Progress!... at least the collapse mechanism is being accepted.

Several minor points

Con-Ed reported “Zero” exploding transformers and recovered over 100,000 gallons of oil

Concrete, re-bar and gypsum do not create sulfur or even Iron oxide

You live in a cold State…Yes!

A 400,000 BTU forced air heater [Diesel / Kerosene / #1-2 Fuel Oil] has a maximum temperature of 250 degrees F. Nicer units hold 36 gallons of fuel.

And what about that “Cop”…what was he doing? [boogie man]

Posted by: SanderO May 9 2012, 10:56 PM

Interesting if con ed recovered 100,000 gallons of diesel from tanks which held 20,000. I'd take Con Ed stuff as I do NIST with a grain of salt. In fact I'd love to read how they recovered and measured the recovered diesel.

You have to accept that steel loses strength in fires. If it didn't there would be no need for fire proofing and fire ratings. If the structure has a FOS of 1.5... if it loses 1/3 of its strength the FOS is 1 and it's at the edge of failure.

Gas explodes as well.... we don't know what sort of damage to the structure was caused by gas explosions if any... gas from natural gas or from gas from leaked transformer coolant.

As I've said several times... it wasn't ONE factor that caused the collapse / failure of the structure.. but multiple factors all eroding the safety factor. We can't see what they were, we have to speculate. I proposed a heat related weakening caused by long burning diesel fueled fires. Cantor seemed to think that could do it as well.

Posted by: 9/11 Justice Now May 10 2012, 04:32 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 10 2012, 10:03 AM) *
Progress!... at least the collapse mechanism is being accepted.

I think study needs to be done about how much heat would/could fail those trusses and if it is even possible from diesel fires burning X number of hours. Could a transformer explosions weaken the trusses? These questions need further study and as I noted what I proposed what a theory which was coherent and matched the observables (I thought). There's lots we can't observe as there wasn't cameras there filming it all so that doesn't mean something wasn't happening. And we know that NIST et al covers up stuff for some reason... withholds evidence for some reason and when they give a reason... such as national security... it's a phoney as a three dollar bill.

I think we have the same issue with the twins.... the collapse mechanism was un assisted but the initiation there of is hard to pin down and NIST again came up with a hair brained tale. 0 for 3 and they should be sent back to the minors.

The proof of CD is just not there but it could initiate all three collapses... so could the boogie man. No one saw him either.


Well why dont you get started then? I am sure you could manage to get a few people to help you out, i will be waiting very eagerly to hear the results.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 10 2012, 06:49 AM

QUOTE
I've seen a lot of threads on the towers being discussed by SanderO on this forum. Lately WTC7 has been discussed. I'm not attacking this person, just his arguments.

First, what exactly did the NIST Report claim regarding WTC7? This is crucial as the NIST Report is the official report on what did and didn't happen to this building. End of story.

Any theorizing or speculation which isn't addressed in what the NIST Report contains is irrelevant.
Any speculation which may exaggerated claims made in the NIST Report is actually a defense of this arrogant rag.

Any other approach to this report is no different to the Stutt/Legge approach to the Pentagon. None of what they claim (apart from being proven erroneous on many levels) has ever benn verified nor is it part of the official narrative. It is irrelevant.

Let's see what the NIST FAQ page claims in light of many questions raised by the report and compare what SanderO claims.

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

SanderO claims that fire was a factor. NIST says

QUOTE
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.


QUOTE
Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections-that caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse-occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat.


These two videos address NIST's exaggeration and dishonesty regarding these claims (among others)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4dU_p9UTTs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

From NIST again, differentiating between the collapses of the towers and WTC7 (again emphasizing that fire was the cause of collapse.

QUOTE
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.
The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.


QUOTE
Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.


Getting the hint yet?

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse, 08 21 08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWTDTZJ_gto&feature=youtube_gdata_player

SanderO claims that "fuel oil systems" contributed (exaggeratedly) to the heat and fires in the building...

NIST says..

QUOTE
Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building's loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.
Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor.


SanderO claims that "structural damage" was a factor along with the fires...

NIST says...

QUOTE
Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?

The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building-severing seven exterior columns-but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.


QUOTE
Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?

Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.


SanderO claims that the WTC7 substations explained the explosions heard, explained the damage seen by Barry Jennings and Hess and may also have contributed (immensely) to the fires and also the explosion filmed in the lower floors just before collapse.

NIST says...

QUOTE
Did the electrical substation next to WTC 7 play a role in the fires or collapse?

No. There is no evidence that the electric substation contributed to the fires in WTC 7. The electrical substation continued working until 4:33 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. Alarms at the substation were monitored, and there were no signals except for one event early in the day. No smoke was observed emanating from the substation.
Special elements of the building's construction-namely trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs, which were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below-also did not play a significant role in the collapse.


Got it?

Relevant videos:

WTC7 on 9/11 - Strange Occurrence Within the Last 20 Minutes - 03:20 mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biIIqKybSZE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Explosion heard just before collapse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-ftINnhT0Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player


NIST explanation of Jennings/Hess accounts:

QUOTE
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.


In other words, they're liars.

Barry Jennings' account of WTC 7 explosions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Michael Hess, WTC7 explosion witness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Explosion witnesses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Finally, there is no physical proof that heat caused the collapse nor were any steel samples checked for explosive/exotic explosive residue.

QUOTE
Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?

Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders' efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.


So the question is SanderO, if NIST has been reduced to claiming that office fires were responsible for bringing down WTC7, why would you be making exaggerated claims that actually reinforce the report in the same vein as the Legge/Stutt OCT Mark 2 approach to the Pentagon?

If your arguments and speculation are nowhere to be seen in this report they are irrelevant.


Bump, etc...

Posted by: elreb May 10 2012, 12:17 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 9 2012, 04:56 PM) *
Interesting if con ed recovered 100,000 gallons of diesel from tanks which held 20,000.

When I stated “Con-Ed reported “Zero” exploding transformers and recovered over 100,000 gallons of oil”…it was meant to be taken within the context of the statement.

I was talking about transformer oil.

Substations do not normally generate electricity but simply transform voltage from high to low.

Transformers can be 20 feet tall and weighing 168 tons. In fact, there is a 270 ton transformer in Penwortham, England that holds 103,000 gallons of oil by itself.

Special note: NYFD body count does confirm that a “Civilian” boogie man was found inside WTC7

Posted by: elreb May 10 2012, 03:59 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ May 10 2012, 06:17 AM) *
Special note: NYFD body count does confirm that a “Civilian” boogie man was found inside WTC7

After the sheet metal worker says he bagged the cop…the NYFD took a GPS reading, generated a bar code for the bag and another for the paper log. At the end of the day they turned in their logs for entering data into the computer.

Originally, Special Agent Steven N. Carey stated that Officer Craig Miller died in WTC7; however his statements were later deleted.

Before coming to New York, Agent Carey served in the Presidential Protective Division, responsible for the safety of the President and the First Family.

On March 23, 2004 - The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) of New York appointed Steven H. Carey as vice president of Security.

In this new position, Carey is responsible for overseeing internal security at DTCC as well as establishing key relationships with government agencies dealing with the U.S. financial market and its infrastructure.

DTCC is responsible for clearance and settlement of trades in U.S. government securities and mortgage-backed securities, all of which amounts to more than $3.5 trillion each day.


The SEC [US Securities and Exchange Commission] a Federal Agency that was located on floors 11 to 13 where there were several large fires.

Does anyone smell a rat?


Posted by: elreb May 11 2012, 06:06 PM

By default, OSS wins the wreath of “Laurel Leaves”.

To the victor go the spoils…

SanderO has avoided my questions, as if they were the 10 plagues’ of Egypt



Posted by: SanderO May 11 2012, 08:50 PM

What questions... please repeat... If I have an answer I will give it. If I don't I will say so.

Posted by: elreb May 11 2012, 10:07 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 11 2012, 02:50 PM) *
What questions... please repeat... If I have an answer I will give it. If I don't I will say so.

OK…now pay attention my friend…

Con-Ed reported no exploded transformers and recovered most, if not all the transformer oil.

Do you have any actually records of exploded transformers from Con-Ed?

It is my understanding that Con-Ed was in a caisson under 28” of reinforced concrete.

Do you agree or disagree?

What about my boogie man?

I have records of his existence, yet he was omitted from the official report!

He is documented therefore how do you explain what he was doing in an empty building? He appears to have worked for the government.

I would love to listen to you explanation for the sulfur and iron oxide found on the steel and please omit terms like “Working hypothesis” or if this happen, and if this happen, then this may have happened.

Do you have any actual reports or records of self-inflected Diesel fires?

What would cause a double wall fuel system to fail?

How long after the collapse of WTC1 & 2 did all these fires occur in WTC7?

Why did the NYFD stand down on a government building? There was no real water problem.

Posted by: SanderO May 12 2012, 06:47 AM

Con-Ed reported no exploded transformers and recovered most, if not all the transformer oil.

Do you have any actually records of exploded transformers from Con-Ed?

No I have none, nor have I seen any records about the fate of the transformers. I haven't seen the specs nor the plans of the sub station or the lower floors for that matter. My theory is that the official story was a cover up of the negligence of among other Con Edison and I would expect them to withhold information, falsify and even fabricate information to conceal any negligent or bone headed corporate decisions that they made. We have reason to believe that NIST did this and were covering up something (I don't think they made lots of innocent mistakes) and so my assumption is that Con Ed behaved similiarly or they were one of the parties who needed to be shielded by the official account. That is pure speculation, but we've seen corporate incompetence and similar behavior many many such as the BP oil spill in the Gulf were the lied about the amount of oil both spilled and recovered.

It is my understanding that Con-Ed was in a caisson under 28” of reinforced concrete.

Do you agree or disagree?

I don't know ... see my answer above. I don't think it makes sense that the sub station would be UNDER a caisson:

"In geotechnical engineering, a caisson is a retaining, watertight structure used, for example, to work on the foundations of a bridge pier, for the construction of a concrete dam, or for the repair of ships. These are constructed such that the water can be pumped out, keeping the working environment dry. When piers are to be built using an open caisson and it is not practical to reach suitable soil, friction pilings may be driven to form a suitable sub-foundation. These piles are connected by a foundation pad upon which the column pier is erected"

The WTC foundations extending to bedroom was below the Hudson River and the *bath tub* was built to keep water out and provide a huge volume of real estate under the 17 acre site used for mech (the largest refrigeration plant in the world, parking and so forth. the sub station had no need for basement space and so they likely used piles driven to bedrock to support the sub station. I suspect that there were some basement under the other parts of the footprint and there was a underground passage for cars to the main complex to the south.

What about my boogie man?

I have records of his existence, yet he was omitted from the official report!

He is documented therefore how do you explain what he was doing in an empty building? He appears to have worked for the government.

I have no idea about this person and it has nothing to with the theory I proposed. If he was the bomber.... as I said the actual cause of the T truss failure cannot be determined from the evidence we have. The evidence we do have.. suggests this possible explanation.

I would love to listen to you explanation for the sulfur and iron oxide found on the steel and please omit terms like “Working hypothesis” or if this happen, and if this happen, then this may have happened.

I am sorry, I have an hypothesis as does NIST, AE911T, Judy Wood etc. My theory is based on the materials I have seen.. videos, statements I have read (limited), knowledge of the structural system (limited), understanding of engineering and physics (limited). I find that some of the other theories about the collapse (AE911T) are built on incorrect observations, broad assumptions, misreading of evidence, failure to consider the entire structure... for example. NIST's theory is likewise plagued with incorrect reading of some of the observations, ignoring evidence of witness testimony and failing to provide explanations for the explosions heard.

My theory presents the likelihood that the actual collapse of 50,000 tons of concrete crushed it and the contents of the building to very fine grained material ranging from material as small as the micro spheres (dust size) up to sand size particles and so forth. The very rigid materials such steel were not ground but were abraded in the collapse. I don't think you'll find any steel the surface of which looks as it did when it came from the factory or was erected. This surface area represented multiple square miles of abraded surface area... and included the areas already rusted... of which there had to be very large areas of rust.

I suspect there were many sources of sulfur within the materials of the towers. The RJ Lee report mentions the following which were found in the dust of the Deutche Bank bldg which did not collapse:

Asbestos,Chromium, Lead, Mecury, *dust*, PCB, Quartz, Dioxins, barium, berrilyuium, cadmiuin, mnaganese, nickle, zinc, PNA, fly ash

"Fly ash material solidifies while suspended in the exhaust gases and is collected by electrostatic precipitators or filter bags. Since the particles solidify while suspended in the exhaust gases, fly ash particles are generally spherical in shape and range in size from 0.5 µm to 100 µm. They consist mostly of silicon dioxide (SiO2), which is present in two forms: amorphous, which is rounded and smooth, and crystalline, which is sharp, pointed and hazardous; aluminium oxide (Al2O3) and iron oxide (Fe2O3). Fly ashes are generally highly heterogeneous, consisting of a mixture of glassy particles with various identifiable crystalline phases such as quartz, mullite, and various iron oxides.....
Class F fly ash

The burning of harder, older anthracite and bituminous coal typically produces Class F fly ash. This fly ash is pozzolanic in nature, and contains less than 20% lime (CaO). Possessing pozzolanic properties, the glassy silica and alumina of Class F fly ash requires a cementing agent, such as Portland cement, quicklime, or hydrated lime, with the presence of water in order to react and produce cementitious compounds. Alternatively, the addition of a chemical activator such as sodium silicate (water glass) to a Class F ash can lead to the formation of a geopolymer.
Class C fly ash

Fly ash produced from the burning of younger lignite or subbituminous coal, in addition to having pozzolanic properties, also has some self-cementing properties. In the presence of water, Class C fly ash will harden and gain strength over time. Class C fly ash generally contains more than 20% lime (CaO). Unlike Class F, self-cementing Class C fly ash does not require an activator. Alkali and sulfate (SO4) contents are generally higher in Class C fly ashes....

The ways of fly ash utilization include (approximately in order of decreasing importance):

Concrete production, as a substitute material for Portland cement and sand..."

And then there's this:

"Jones’ claims is that 3000lbs of thermite (1000lbs per building) would be needed to demolish the three buildings (WTC 1,2, and 7). Thermite is 2% sulfur, thus the total amount of sulfur in the theoretical thermite charges would be about 60 pounds. Approximately 1 million tons (2 billion pounds) of dust blanketed lower Manhattan. So, based on Professor Jones’ estimates, a thermite reaction would result in the WTC dust containing approximately 0.000003% (3 millionths of a percent) sulfur. Such a low percentage would be unlikely to be detected, especially when compared to USGS dust samples in which as much as 5.4% sulfur was reported."

Do you have any actual reports or records of self-inflected Diesel fires?

No

What would cause a double wall fuel system to fail?

A massive explosion... a fracturing and or breaking of the concrete slab they passed through, with sufficient leverage to bend and breach the pipes. How can I say? I wasn't there, but all mechanical assemblies have an upper bound for the performance related to imposed stress. Mechanical failures DO occur... not from normals working conditions, but a large explosions... such as an explosion mention by Hess and Jennings below the 8th floor which blew up the stair structure would likely have the force to rupture piping. That's a guess.

How long after the collapse of WTC1 & 2 did all these fires occur in WTC7?

I have no idea and my theory attributes the fires to beginning around the time of the Jennigs/Hess explosion. This was apparently before either tower collapsed.

There you go...

My theory also attempts to present the reasons for the false stories of NIST, Con Ed and others. They were trying to conceal their own boneheaded decisions which led to the collapse (not NIST... they were the official voice of the false story and would reveal their criminal negligence, gross incompetence etc. NIST's complicity occurred after the fact... the others occurred both before and after. Building Engineer Cantor passed the buck essentially saying that were it not for the Guiliani et al decision to site the OEM center and all the massive generators with huge amounts of stored diesel which burned and failed the T trusses... the building would still be standing. His statement at least identifies where the failure of the structure likely was.... and it wasn't the simultaneous explosion of 81 columns over 8 floors, but the T trusses on floors 6&7.

Posted by: SanderO May 12 2012, 09:19 AM

kawika,

I am curious about what your conception of the structure below floors 6&7 were? If there were office or tennant uses what were they? You must realize that the core was basically *empty* save for elevator lobbies. The transfer trusses were there to support PART of the core columns because the foot print of the sub station would not permit the ALL the core columns to be brought down the bedrock and you should understand that the T reuses were used to allow the structure above to have axial loads offset to pass outside the sub station to columns which could be brought down to bedrock.

Doesn't matter how tall the sub station structures were, but that the a bunch of the core columns from above could not pass there loads directly to bedrock and had to have the T trusses and cantilever girders do this. The failure of those key elements of the structural design would result in precisely the sort of collapse we saw.

I can't tell you what destroyed the T trusses and the cantilever girders. You can't either.. or prove what didn't destroy them.

I provided a chain of events and it is speculation based up a few observations and testimony. It's not a proof. It's not a NIST rehash.

Live with it and open your mind up to other possibilities.

Posted by: kawika May 12 2012, 11:52 AM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 10 2012, 11:19 AM) *
kawika,

I am curious about what your conception of the structure below floors 6&7 were? If there were office or tennant uses what were they?


Floor one--Con-Ed substation, loading dock, lobby, escalators to 3rd floor, stairs, ramp to WTC complex, elevators, 6000 gallon diesel storage tank.

Floor two-- Con-Ed substation, elevators, stairs, ??

Floor three-- 3rd floor lobby, elevators, stairs, ??

Floor 4-- elevators, stairs, ??

Floor 5-- mechanical room, elevators, stairs

Look at the design drawings for the structural components. NCSTAR 1-9, Vol 1, beginning at PDF page 56 (page 12) tells the whole story about the foundations and floors above that.

Some of the WTC7 columns framed into the sub-station columns. The ones outside the substation were framed with transfer girders.

Floor five is interesting. It had a 14" thick slab with WT trusses buried inside forming a diaphragm floor system. These WT trusses had lots of shear studs all over them.

Posted by: kawika May 12 2012, 12:20 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 10 2012, 08:47 AM) *
Building Engineer Cantor passed the buck essentially saying that were it not for the Guiliani et al decision to site the OEM center and all the massive generators with huge amounts of stored diesel which burned and failed the T trusses... the building would still be standing.


The massive generators belonged to Salomon Smith Barney. They were installed before the OEM renovation. Salomon had 9 generators on floor five. Silverstein had two generators on floor five that served the building. OEM only had three generators on floor seven.

NIST says there were virtually no combustibles on floor 6. NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1, Page 50, PDF page 94.

Posted by: elreb May 12 2012, 02:21 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 12 2012, 12:47 AM) *
I have no idea and my theory attributes the fires to beginning around the time of the Jennigs/Hess explosion. This was apparently before either tower collapsed.

Barry Jennings and Mike Hess were in the OEM on the 23rd floor and found it empty. [Power was on]

They traveled down the stairwell to almost to the sixth floor when there was an explosion below them forcing them to travel up to the eight floor, where they were trapped for over an hour until NYFD saved them. [Local power was off]

This explosion accorded before the WTC collapse. Jennings said there were all kinds of explosions. Another witness stated that the back of the building was blown out.

The lobby was also blown up and there were bodies all over the floor. On the GPS map, I count around 8 bodies.

A large Police officer said that there would be more explosions. How did he know this?

My Questions:

How did Rudolph Giuliani know to not be in the OEM?

What caused so many explosions? [Not transformers]

Why were we told that no one was killed in WTC7?

Conclusion: WTC7 was a screw up because it failed to collapse along with WTC 1 & 2

Posted by: kawika May 12 2012, 03:00 PM

Michael Catalano (building engineer) reported fires on floor five (looking up stairs from floor four). He escaped from WTC7 through the Washington Street exit and was chased up Greenwich Street by the debris cloud from WTC1.

Conclusion: There were fires in WTC7 before WTC1 hit WTC7.

Posted by: KP50 May 12 2012, 03:06 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ May 13 2012, 07:00 AM) *
Michael Catalano (building engineer) reported fires on floor five (looking up stairs from floor four). He escaped from WTC7 through the Washington Street exit and was chased up Greenwich Street by the debris cloud from WTC1.

Conclusion: There were fires in WTC7 before WTC1 hit WTC7.

Thread on fires in WTC7 before tower collapses

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=6977

Posted by: elreb May 12 2012, 05:31 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ May 12 2012, 09:00 AM) *
Michael Catalano (building engineer) reported fires on floor five (looking up stairs from floor four).

Ok, so the explosions came from the fifth floor where there were 11 generators and one day tank.

Therefore the explosions came first…

The Salomon Brothers 9 generators would only pump fuel if they were running.

Their transformers would look something like this which "act" more like an interface between Con-Ed and themselves.


Posted by: SanderO May 12 2012, 08:53 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ May 12 2012, 02:21 PM) *
Barry Jennings and Mike Hess were in the OEM on the 23rd floor and found it empty. [Power was on]

They traveled down the stairwell to almost to the sixth floor when there was an explosion below them forcing them to travel up to the eight floor, where they were trapped for over an hour until NYFD saved them. [Local power was off]

This explosion accorded before the WTC collapse. Jennings said there were all kinds of explosions. Another witness stated that the back of the building was blown out.

The lobby was also blown up and there were bodies all over the floor. On the GPS map, I count around 8 bodies.

A large Police officer said that there would be more explosions. How did he know this?


My Questions:

How did Rudolph Giuliani know to not be in the OEM?

What caused so many explosions? [Not transformers]

Why were we told that no one was killed in WTC7?

Conclusion: WTC7 was a screw up because it failed to collapse along with WTC 1 & 2


Apparently when the sub station exploded when the first plane hit... (my theory) there was confusion and it was presumed there was a terrorist attack and that perhaps the sub station explosion(s) were thought to be terrorists bombs. That would be a good hunch. He didn't know why the feeders shorted and the cause of the sub station explosions... and so the prudent thing was to stay away from B7.

My theory of what happened only occurred to me this year and that's 11 years of hindsight and reading all sorts of stuff about B7 including the debunking of NIST. But aside from and inside job no one has looked at the cover up of negligence.

The many explosions... I don't know how many... can you quantify it?... would likely be caused by various pressurized systems being subject to high temps and exploding... refrigerant for one... water tanks... portable fire extinguishers perhaps... There probably were step down transformers on many floors.

How am I supposed to know why they said no one was killed? For sure it would kinda nip in the bud a wrongful death lawsuit and discovery...

just sayin'

Posted by: SanderO May 12 2012, 09:00 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ May 12 2012, 03:00 PM) *
Michael Catalano (building engineer) reported fires on floor five (looking up stairs from floor four). He escaped from WTC7 through the Washington Street exit and was chased up Greenwich Street by the debris cloud from WTC1.

Conclusion: There were fires in WTC7 before WTC1 hit WTC7.


Correct... the fire began shortly after the plane STRUCK tower one from shorts in the electrical system...

This afternoon, one of guys at the boat yard and I were talking brought up 911 and he sounded awful knowledgeable about the WTC. He IS... he was an electrical contractor there! He was called in after th '93 bombing and seems to know a lot about the towers. When I mentioned 13kv feeders he immediately corrected me 13.8KV feeder.

Tomorrow I am going to pick his brain. One thing he mentioned which came as a surprise was that the floors in B7 were very "springy" as if the were designed to 1/180 or 1/360 deflection... read not stiff. He said the construction of B7 was really cheap. First time I heard that one.

The plot thickens! I got me witness to the towers *systems*... stay tuned...

Posted by: elreb May 12 2012, 10:54 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 12 2012, 02:53 PM) *
Apparently when the sub station exploded when the first plane hit... (my theory)

No…this is impossible and undocumented. Explosions took place around 9:35 am.

Notice that I do not have a theory and have never claimed controlled demolitions in this thread.

This is what Jennings said = “I’m just confused about one thing….why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place - I’m very confused about that - I know what I heard I heard explosions,” said Jennings, adding that the explanation that the explosions were as a result of fuel oil tanks in the building did not add up.

Time line:

8:46 am north tower strike… Jennings also said that a small Cessna hit the north tower

9:00 am Jennings/Hess arrive WTC7

9:03 am south tower strike

9:07 am Giuliani meets Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik at 75 Barclay Street, on the northern border of the WTC complex behind the Post Office waiting to talk to Vice President Cheney on the phone.

Kerik is currently serving a 4 year sentence at a prison camp located at the Federal Correctional Institution, Cumberland in Maryland.

9:30 am Command center of New York’s Office of Emergency Management evacuated.

9:35 am explosions on 5th floor WTC7 [Backside of stairs blown away]

9:59 am south tower collapse

10:28 am north tower collapse

Experiment:

Go out to your water heater and plug the T&P valve with a threaded brass plug.
Unplug the water heater and bypass your thermostats. Plug the water heater back in.
Don’t run any water in the house and wait about 30-45 minutes.
The tank will burst but not explode.

Posted by: SanderO May 13 2012, 08:13 AM

Jennings is not an expert witness with respect to Power stations, explosions, controlled demotions, structural engineering. He likely doesn't know a think about electrical caused explosions not about the structural details of the building he was working in... most people don't. So he and most people are confused when a building collapses. It's a mystery to them and it defies *common sense*... standing one minute and then gone the next. William Rodriguez is similarly naive as a witness and not an expert in any sense of the word.

Almost all witness testimony has to be taken with a grain of salt... especially about technical matters. The deputy Fire Commissioner DID report he witnessed what we believed to be electrical caused explosions.

Con Edison's report says that it lost 13KV feeders at 8:46. I am proposing there were shorts...shorts are hot and can cause fires... I think that by the time Jennings and Hess made it down to floor 7 in the stairwell... there was no power to the elevators when they left the OEM... there were explosions caused by the sub station shorts, gas and so forth. My guess is the shorts in the 134.8kv lines did not cause immediate explosions... but were the proximate cause of the explosions and fires which came within a short period of time.

Try to imagine this possibility.... I am not asserting this is fact... but it is possible.

OEM is staffed 24/7 by skeleton crew. B7 has few tenants at 8:46 as it's before normal business hrs. The plane hits T1 and caused the shorts, then a few minutes / moments later the power goes down. People are aware of the plane strike as debris is raining down on Vesey Street. Reports of a plane hit the tower cause some to think it's terrorism and depart the scene. Were I down there, that's what I would do. OEM staff calls Rudi and tells him the power is down after 8:46, but likely after the second plane hits confirming in THEIR minds that this was a terrorist attack , they are on emergency back up and Rudi would have to climb 23 flights of stairs to get to the OEM.... which is just next to two huge buildings that have been hit by what was believed to be jumbo jets from by terrorists - reasonable assumption.

Rudi tells them to get the hell out of there. Hess and Jennings arrive at the OEM after hearing a plane has hit T1 and find no one there as they have abandoned it because their boss told them to get out of there as it was not a good place to be... especially with their reports of explosions in the buildings (from unknown causes)... presumed to be part of the terrorist attack. Fair assumption.

The sub station WAS on the *backside*.. north side of the foot print.

Your experiment proves nothing related to the events.

The FDNY and the DOB and perhaps Con Ed... did not know what caused the 13kv (8 of them) feeds to short out. Con Ed might have and realized that they might have some serious fires on their hands and possible explosions of insulating oil which evaporates to explosive gas. Transformers DO explode.

They determine early on that they cannot even fight fires in B7 and mostly, it appears send men in to evacuate and assess the situation which they determine after 8 hrs that the structure may not make it and cease monitoring from inside the tower and evacuate the area... which is what FDNY and DOB do when a building is likely to collapse.

When it did collapse it was cover your ass time and sweep history under the rug and avoid examination of the bone headed decisions which allowed this tower to collapse. Blame it on the terrorists and office fires... we could fight because the sprinklers didn't work.


Posted by: elreb May 13 2012, 01:07 PM

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (09/17/2010, ARCHIVE, incorporated into 9/19/2011 update)

Did the electrical substation next to WTC 7 play a role in the fires or collapse?

No. There is no evidence that the electric substation contributed to the fires in WTC 7. The electrical substation continued working until 4:33 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. Alarms at the substation were monitored, and there were no signals except for one event early in the day. No smoke was observed emanating from the substation.

The following PDF should help our understanding…Con-Ed can lose any 2 feeders and not lose a network grid.

WTC7 was actually 2 sub-stations in a network grid of 6 sub-stations consisting of 59 feeders.

There is no mention of “bursting” or exploding transformers.

The 13kw feeders are open/auto and they simply turn themselves off. [Like a GFI]


I think you are confusing “Switchgear” with transformer.

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00174.pdf

NEW Time line:

8:46 am north tower strike… Jennings also said that a small Cessna hit the north tower
8:46 am two feeders went off line
9:00 am Jennings/Hess arrive WTC7
9:02 am two feeders went off line
9:03 am south tower strike
9:07 am Giuliani meets Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik at 75 Barclay Street, on the northern border of the WTC complex behind the Post Office waiting to talk to Vice President Cheney.
Kerik is currently serving a 4 year sentence at a prison camp located at the Federal Correctional Institution, Cumberland in Maryland.
9:30 am Command center of New York’s Office of Emergency Management evacuated.
9:35 am explosions on 5th floor WTC7 [Backside of stairs blown away]
9:52 am four feeders go off line
9:59 am south tower collapse
10:28 am north tower collapse
10:28 am twenty-one other feeders go off line

Posted by: onesliceshort May 13 2012, 04:21 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ May 12 2012, 08:00 PM) *
Michael Catalano (building engineer) reported fires on floor five (looking up stairs from floor four).  He escaped from WTC7 through the Washington Street exit and was chased up Greenwich Street by the debris cloud from WTC1.

Conclusion:  There were fires in WTC7 before WTC1 hit WTC7.


There's a contradictory (alleged) statement by the FDNY about floor 5 or (allegedly) simply pointing out that by early afternoon there was no fire in this area.



That's two documented occasions where the FDNY allegedly denied the presence of fuel fires (the other being the NIST claim that there was no diesel fire smoke prior to collapse).

Did they ever name the FDNY spokesperson(s)/witness(es)? Or the OEM people by name?

Posted by: elreb May 13 2012, 05:06 PM

Does anyone have a good lay out of floor 5 showing exact locations of generators, switchgear and fire exits?

I knew very little about WTC7 before this thread came up.

Once all the data is on the table…then we can connect the dots.

I believe much of Larry Silverstein’s statement that the building was pulled, “Due to a terrible loss of life”…and then the building was collapsed.

Between 8 to 12 people died in WTC7, representing the Mayors own office, the Secret Service, the Port Police and the ATF.

The GPS does not lie, yet the government does!

Posted by: onesliceshort May 13 2012, 05:51 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ May 13 2012, 10:06 PM) *
Does anyone have a good lay out of floor 5 showing exact locations of generators, switchgear and fire exits?

I knew very little about WTC7 before this thread came up.

Once all the data is on the table…then we can connect the dots.

I believe much of Larry Silverstein’s statement that the building was pulled, “Due to a terrible loss of life”…and then the building was collapsed.

Between 8 to 12 people died in WTC7, representing the Mayors own office, the Secret Service, the Port Police and the ATF.

The GPS does not lie, yet the government does!


Try here:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/611-wtc-7-blueprints-exposed-via-foia-request.html

I wouldn't know where to start!

Edit: it's a large download. I had to cancel

Posted by: onesliceshort May 13 2012, 06:27 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 13 2012, 09:21 PM) *
There's a contradictory (alleged) statement by the FDNY about floor 5 or (allegedly) simply pointing out that by early afternoon there was no fire in this area.



That's two documented occasions where the FDNY allegedly denied the presence of fuel fires (the other being the NIST claim that there was no diesel fire smoke prior to collapse).

Did they ever name the FDNY spokesperson(s)/witness(es)? Or the OEM people by name?


Here's an image of WTC7 (allegedly) taken at 11:33 am

http://regex.info/exif.cgi?dummy=on&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sharpprintinginc.com%2F911%2Fimages%2Fphotoalbum%2F11%2F911_HighQualityPhotos333.jpg

Possible smoke (white) from southern face of building.

Here's an image of WTC7 (allegedly) taken at @12pm according to the exif data:

http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sharpprintinginc.com%2F911%2Fimages%2Fphotoalbum%2F11%2F911_HighQualityPhotos239.jpg

I see no smoke from this face on any floors.

Another angle (around same time?)

http://regex.info/exif.cgi?dummy=on&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sharpprintinginc.com%2F911%2Fimages%2Fphotoalbum%2F11%2F911_HighQualityPhotos314.jpg

No smoke from this angle either.

Hi-res image of east face of WTC7 prior to NIST released "2pm" image of floors 11 and 12

http://regex.info/exif.cgi?dummy=on&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sharpprintinginc.com%2F911%2Fimages%2Fphotoalbum%2F11%2F911_HighQualityPhotos8099.jpg

NIST released "2pm" image of same area as above (east face, floors 11 and 12)

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/911_HighQualityPhotos1391.jpg


Posted by: elreb May 13 2012, 06:46 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 13 2012, 11:51 AM) *
Edit: it's a large download. I had to cancel

I captured both downloads on my "Big Boy" computer.

Yes they are monsters and I may need my engineer son's help.

After that, I'll be back

Posted by: kawika May 13 2012, 06:57 PM

Does anyone have a good lay out of floor 5 showing exact locations of generators, switchgear and fire exits?

See this: Page 50, PDF page 94.

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611

Posted by: elreb May 13 2012, 08:26 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ May 13 2012, 12:57 PM) *
See this: Page 50, PDF page 94.

I got it...

Now we are getting somewhere…

Floor 5 had two transfer corridors and only one was blown up.

It appears that Jennings and Hess were originally on the East side due to the fact that the stairs were an open area up to the 6th floor. [Exhaust air]

I will have to generate a schematic showing the 4 generators and the fuel valve on that side.

It appears that the “Switchgear vaults” were exploded.

With all this new data, I may just start a new webpage.

I do not have some hocus pocus theory, no claim of CD…only data.

Later, we will talk about the contrast between demolition and deconstruction…

Posted by: SanderO May 13 2012, 09:18 PM

Obviously the floors contained more than elevators and stairs. My friend Joe, who worked in 7 (electrical sub contractor) told me: B7 was supplied by 4 - 13.8v feeds and that the relays and switch gear were on 4 and 5. He thought that the power was so large because they expected lots of computer loads. He said the Con Ed sub station itself had much larger feeds perhaps several 138KV (if I recall what he said). He has a good understanding of the Con Ed system. Let's see the plans!

He also explained one reason that transformers explode. When they shut them down for any reason, they cool down and pull in moisture. If the moisture is not removed (he didn't say how this was done...) when they are put back on line the moisture heats up and explodes.

He said the sub station transformers were about 30' tall and occupied the first 3 floors...

I am all for facts! Just the facts!

Posted by: elreb May 14 2012, 12:38 AM

You are talking pure “mumbo jumbo”…

All power arrived at 138,000 volts and is stepped down to 13,000 volts per feeder.

WTC7 was classed as two substations holding 4 feeders each. [8 total]

6 feeds apparently went to the WTC complex

I had already stated that the transformers were 20’ tall.

Transformers are protected by Switchgear.

You appear to be selling class III horse manure; which generates enough heat to ignite spontaneously.

Switchgear was on 1, 2, 4, 5, 6,

My god…please do your homework and stop your hunch baloney

Posted by: Tamborine man May 14 2012, 02:33 AM

Starting @ 8:35, there's some rather interesting shoots of B7 in this 'new' video!




Cheers

Posted by: SanderO May 14 2012, 07:41 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ May 14 2012, 12:38 AM) *
You are talking pure "mumbo jumbo"…

All power arrived at 138,000 volts and is stepped down to 13,000 volts per feeder.

WTC7 was classed as two substations holding 4 feeders each. [8 total]

6 feeds apparently went to the WTC complex

I had already stated that the transformers were 20' tall.

Transformers are protected by Switchgear.

You appear to be selling class III horse manure; which generates enough heat to ignite spontaneously.

Switchgear was on 1, 2, 4, 5, 6,

My god…please do your homework and stop your hunch baloney


Elreb... where is the citation or the schematics of the power system? Joe told me yesterday that there were 13.8 kv feed to the upper stories. I believe him...he worked on them and was called on by Con Ed one night when on the the main transformers went down. It was determined that the street crew had cracked one of the main feeds.

Transformers explode. Look up the 1992 event below WTC1.

Not stopping anything... I am doing what I can with the resources I have.

Posted by: SanderO May 14 2012, 10:12 AM

A word about 911 research.

I don't consider myself a researcher. I am an interested individual who looks for available information and has viewed and studied much, but not all of the public record. I have also viewed a fair amount of the presentations that groups and individuals in the truth movement have published and attended more than a dozen 911 related conferences and symposia on the topic.

I use my very limited knowledge of MOST technical areas and somewhat more advanced understanding of structure to inform my understanding of what happened at the trade center. I have also done many calculations drawings and so forth to facilitate / inform my understanding such as the Factor of Safety in the twin towers core columns. I've seen no other study or calculations, but many remarks about how strong they were and how much reserve strength they had.

I am not an electrical engineer nor familiar with the schematics or the mech and electrical equipment in B7 or even the floor plans below 6&7. Any serious discussion about what might have happened down there demands knowledge of this.

I can't see inside the structure to know what was going on... even if there were cameras rolling on the outside. And I can't make a determination of precisely what was going on from seeing a few frames showing spewing smoke. Anyone who claims they can is not to be trusted.

I am not going to make 9/11 my occupation as some have... or spend 24/7 *researching* what on the www... who said what on so on. I have been calling for a new investigation.. thorough and no holds barred... since I first became interested and still would like to see one done by professional investigators who know their field and have the tools.

I will continue to present what appears to my limited knowledge and understanding what appears to be a coherent explanation. It is not research and I am not holding myself out to be an expert. What I write is my opinion which in some cases is the same as others and in other is completely different.

Posted by: elreb May 14 2012, 01:41 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 14 2012, 01:41 AM) *
Joe told me yesterday that there were 13.8 kv feed to the upper stories.

Two points for Joe...


WTC building performance study

5.3.5 Power

Power to WTC7 entered at 13,800 volts was stepped down to 480/277 Volts by silicone oil-filled transformers in individual masonry vaults on the 5th floor

BUT

This still puts us back on the 5th floor were the explosions came from...


Posted by: SanderO May 14 2012, 05:06 PM

We don't know what caused the explosions or precisely where they were... except below the 7/8th floor where Hess and Jennings claimed they were when they experience the explosion(s).

Even if it was on flr 5 inside of some of the step down transformer or switch *vaults* or closets... they were fed from the sub station below and we can't know whether the sub station did *something* (or not) to trigger the fires/explosions on floor 5. If these units over heated because their cooling failing... they could explode.... no? I don't know a thing about this technology but I believe there is likely a non CD cause for those explosions... related to overheated transformers etc.

Posted by: elreb May 14 2012, 07:26 PM

Let’s try to do this by the numbers

1. Jennings and Hess said they made it down to the 6th floor before the explosions of 9:35 am stopped them. [9:20 am per Kawika]

2. Building engineer, Michael Catalano reported fires on the 5th floor.

3. Catalano was able to exit on the west side, indicating that the east side transfer corridor was blown out.

4. The third witness and NYFD made it back up the west stairs to the west transfer corridor.

WTC7 had power at 9:30 am

5. 13,800 Volts went to the 5th floor to “concrete vaults” where they were step down to 480/277 Volts.

6. Silicon based oil is non-toxic and fire resistant. It is very hard to burn.

7. Except for fuel, no combustible material was found on the 5th and 6th floor. The nine 1750 KW generators would only flow fuel if they were running.

8. No records or evidence of fires or smoke on 5th and 6th floors. [When the FD got there]

9. Con-Ed reported no fires or explosions in the sub-station

10. Feeds to WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 shut off by automatic “Switchgear” because shorts or interruptions were detected. Con-Ed still had power [138,000 Volts until 4:33 pm]

Conclusion: It is very possible that the transfer vaults on the 5th floor were exploded. [Blown up]


Posted by: onesliceshort May 14 2012, 07:40 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ May 14 2012, 06:41 PM) *
Two points for Joe...


WTC building performance study

5.3.5 Power

Power to WTC7 entered at 13,800 volts was stepped down to 480/277 Volts by silicone oil-filled transformers in individual masonry vaults on the 5th floor

BUT

This still puts us back on the 5th floor were the explosions came from...



Looks like the pappy of the alleged Pentagon generator meant to be inside the container



Elreb, why did the explosions that Jennings and Hess described have to come from the fifth floor (I'll have to listen to the interview again)?

And the explosions they experienced were allegedly at least half an hour(?) after the second impact. The transformers have a trip switch with a 1/60th of a second delay, so I can't figure out what could cause the alleged explosion.

Do what you will with this post. I'm way oit of my league.
Portion a 120kg blue tuna? No probs. All I know about transformers is not to go near them.

And that diesel fires produce smoke. smile.gif

Edit: just saw your post

Posted by: onesliceshort May 14 2012, 07:48 PM

Is the fifth floor seen in these images and do they correspond with the floor plans?

Anybody know what time they were taken?

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx208/kennyrk3/911%20NIST%20FOIA%20-%20George%20Miller/NYCTA-MillerG_CD2-063.jpg

As above. Sequential.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx208/kennyrk3/911%20NIST%20FOIA%20-%20George%20Miller/NYCTA-MillerG_CD2-064.jpg

As above. Sequential.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx208/kennyrk3/911%20NIST%20FOIA%20-%20George%20Miller/NYCTA-MillerG_CD2-065.jpg

As above. Sequential.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx208/kennyrk3/911%20NIST%20FOIA%20-%20George%20Miller/NYCTA-MillerG_CD2-068.jpg

As above. Sequential.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx208/kennyrk3/911%20NIST%20FOIA%20-%20George%20Miller/NYCTA-MillerG_CD2-069.jpg

As above. Sequential.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx208/kennyrk3/911%20NIST%20FOIA%20-%20George%20Miller/NYCTA-MillerG_CD2-070.jpg

If there were fires, wouldn't acrid, black smoke be pouring out of the "louvres" (exhaust air passages?)?

Posted by: elreb May 14 2012, 08:27 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 14 2012, 01:40 PM) *
Elreb, why did the explosions that Jennings and Hess described have to come from the fifth floor (I'll have to listen to the interview again)?

And the explosions they experienced were allegedly at least half an hour(?) after the second impact. The transformers have a trip switch with a 1/60th of a second delay, so I can't figure out what could cause the alleged explosion.

The 5th and 6th floors were functionally connected by 22 feet of ventilation air space; therefore if one floor had an explosion, it would affect both floors.

There were few windows on the 5/6 floors, however there were many automatic louvers that opened when the fans were operating.

I personally do not see a relationship between the explosions and the second impact.

I hinted towards = blown up…

Kill the data and the paper trail…follow the money… $2.3 trillion missing on September 10, 2001

Many thanks to Kawika, OSS and especially SanderO

Yippee, I get to start a new webpage…

Posted by: kawika May 14 2012, 08:32 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 12 2012, 09:40 PM) *
Elreb, why did the explosions that Jennings and Hess described have to come from the fifth floor (I'll have to listen to the interview again)?

And the explosions they experienced were allegedly at least half an hour(?) after the second impact.


I submit that because Jennings described his experience as the landing below him giving way, leaving him hanging, this means fifth floor activity causing damage to the sixth floor landing.

Not so fast with the half hour after the second plane impact. He said they arrived at WTC7 before 9:03. They went up in the elevator, found OEM locked, back down to the 3rd floor lobby to get a key, back up elevator to OEM, made a few phone calls and then went down 16 flights of stair to #6 where he experienced an explosion below him. I say he got to 6th floor before 9:20 am.

We know that OEM was evacuated right after 9:03 (according to Richard Shierer's 9/11 Commission testimony) Jennings and Hess just missed the closing of the doors.

Posted by: kawika May 14 2012, 08:52 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 12 2012, 09:48 PM) *
Is the fifth floor seen in these images and do they correspond with the floor plans?

Anybody know what time they were taken?

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx208/kennyrk3/911%20NIST%20FOIA%20-%20George%20Miller/NYCTA-MillerG_CD2-063.jpg

As above. Sequential.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx208/kennyrk3/911%20NIST%20FOIA%20-%20George%20Miller/NYCTA-MillerG_CD2-064.jpg

As above. Sequential.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx208/kennyrk3/911%20NIST%20FOIA%20-%20George%20Miller/NYCTA-MillerG_CD2-065.jpg

As above. Sequential.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx208/kennyrk3/911%20NIST%20FOIA%20-%20George%20Miller/NYCTA-MillerG_CD2-068.jpg

As above. Sequential.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx208/kennyrk3/911%20NIST%20FOIA%20-%20George%20Miller/NYCTA-MillerG_CD2-069.jpg

As above. Sequential.

http://i756.photobucket.com/albums/xx208/kennyrk3/911%20NIST%20FOIA%20-%20George%20Miller/NYCTA-MillerG_CD2-070.jpg

If there were fires, wouldn't acrid, black smoke be pouring out of the "louvres" (exhaust air passages?)?


63. None of WTC7 here.
64. Fourth window from the top. 5th and 6th floors correspond to the ventilation grills on the east face. Top broken window (8th floor) is where Hess calls from.
65. Same as 64.
68. Only can see the 5/6 grills on the east face.
69. Same as 68.
70. Same as 64. Time is around 2:10 pm, fire is burning on floor 12, SE corner.

NIST says the same thing about the louvres. No smoke coming out, therefore no fire on five/six. Bit this was many hours after Jennings' event which may have been an explosion, no fire. The Catalano story happens on the other side (west) so smoke may have been vented to the west louvers. Again, many hours earlier.

Good exploration. Keep up the momentum.

Posted by: elreb May 14 2012, 09:20 PM

This picture is very powerful…Securities & Exchange Commission on fire...


Posted by: SanderO May 14 2012, 09:49 PM

Louvers may be connected to sealed / isolated ducts not simply open up into the general air of the floor. In fact louvers and grilles are the terminations of ducts... and could be intake or exhaust. HVAC systems require exchange of air inside the building... and this is accomplished in closed loops. I suppose it conceivable to equipment to be burning inside on a floor without the smoke getting inside the ducts and find its way out the grillage.

It's also possible that if the smoke filled air was exhausted out "the path of least resistance..." which might include elevator shafts and so forth...

And we don't know how destructive the Jennings Hess explosions were beyond blowing up the stair they were trying to descend... or what they were. Could they have damaged some of the trusses and cantilever girders? Could they have caused the diesel fuel system to leak and burn? Maybe the diesel fire was not vast and spreading all around but concentrated in one or a few locations but burning for hrs... like jets on a gas stove? And you have to consider the prevailing winds that day and the micro climate/winds of these tall structures. The north and west face of B7 was to windward and so air pressure on the south and east side would be lower - less smoke or none on the windward side and lots on the lee side. It's a bit complicated to say the least adding in the multi story spaces... the large plenums and vertical shafts of the elevators and mech rises adjacent to floors 4,5,6 & 7 and massive ducts and grillage.

Posted by: kawika May 14 2012, 10:09 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 12 2012, 11:49 PM) *
Louvers may be connected to sealed / isolated ducts not simply open up into the general air of the floor. In fact louvers and grilles are the terminations of ducts... and could be intake or exhaust. HVAC systems require exchange of air inside the building... and this is accomplished in closed loops. I suppose it conceivable to equipment to be burning inside on a floor without the smoke getting inside the ducts and find its way out the grillage.

It's also possible that if the smoke filled air was exhausted out "the path of least resistance..." which might include elevator shafts and so forth...

And we don't know how destructive the Jennings Hess explosions were beyond blowing up the stair they were trying to descend... or what they were. Could they have damaged some of the trusses and cantilever girders? Could they have caused the diesel fuel system to leak and burn? Maybe the diesel fire was not vast and spreading all around but concentrated in one or a few locations but burning for hrs... like jets on a gas stove? And you have to consider the prevailing winds that day and the micro climate/winds of these tall structures. The north and west face of B7 was to windward and so air pressure on the south and east side would be lower - less smoke or none on the windward side and lots on the lee side. It's a bit complicated to say the least adding in the multi story spaces... the large plenums and vertical shafts of the elevators and mech rises adjacent to floors 4,5,6 & 7 and massive ducts and grillage.



NCSTAR 1-9, Vol 1, section 3.3.2 describes the plenums for intake and exhaust of the generator systems on floor 5.

Posted by: elreb May 14 2012, 11:03 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 14 2012, 03:49 PM) *
Maybe the diesel fire was not vast and spreading all around but concentrated in one or a few locations but burning for hrs...

I am all for facts! Just the facts! [SanderO]

Could you please direct us to the report that indicates diesel fires?

Posted by: onesliceshort May 14 2012, 11:08 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ May 15 2012, 02:20 AM) *
This picture is very powerful…Securities & Exchange Commission on fire...



Aah, that's the window Jennings said that he busted (thanks kawika).

And yes Elreb, I think a few offices were torched that morning.

Why was OEM trying to get back in at 1pm (allegedly)?

Must have been checking for the indoors-only fuel fire smoke...

Edit: is there a precise time for the Jennings/Hess rescue?

Posted by: onesliceshort May 14 2012, 11:37 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 15 2012, 04:08 AM) *
Edit: is there a precise time for the Jennings/Hess rescue?


Very good breakdown here:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/008/hessjenningswtc7explosiontvbroadcast

Here's a quote that stood out to me from Hess

QUOTE
“[W]e were trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke, all around us, for about an hour and a half [before] the New York Fire Department . . . came and got us out."


He's obviously not talking about smoke within the building but vehicles on fire outside it.

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

So how'd these two survive with all of this "indoor smoke" allegedly 2 or 3 floors below for an hour and a half? And where's the smoke in his window?

Posted by: elreb May 15 2012, 12:00 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 14 2012, 05:37 PM) *
And where's the smoke in his window?

It appears that Jennings and Hess are real and accurate.

Not all explosions cause fire and smoke.

Dust will calm down in about 30 minutes.

Rescue time appears to be around 11:30 am.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 15 2012, 06:16 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ May 15 2012, 05:00 AM) *
It appears that Jennings and Hess are real and accurate.

Not all explosions cause fire and smoke.

Dust will calm down in about 30 minutes.

Rescue time appears to be around 11:30 am.


Oh yeah, I'm referring to the alleged "diesel fires" on floors below.


Posted by: kawika May 15 2012, 11:24 AM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 13 2012, 01:37 AM) *
Very good breakdown here:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/008/hessjenningswtc7explosiontvbroadcast

Here's a quote that stood out to me from Hess



He's obviously not talking about smoke within the building but vehicles on fire outside it.

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

So how'd these two survive with all of this "indoor smoke" allegedly 2 or 3 floors below for an hour and a half? And where's the smoke in his window?


How did Jennings know that they were still standing? Jennings' statement, quoted more fully---"When we made it back to the 8th floor, . . . both buildings were still standing. Because I looked to---I looked one way, looked the other way, now there's nothing there. . . . [B]oth buildings were still standing" http://www.wanttoknow.info/008/hessjenningswtc7explosiontvbroadcast#_edn10 ---might be taken to mean that he could see the Twin Towers. That would entail that he and Hess were on the south side of WTC 7, which faced the towers.

But that would be incorrect. Jennings stated that he was on "the North side of the building." He indicated, moreover, that when the towers fell, he could not see them fall.

Jennings could easily walk to the south side of the office and look out the window. There is no reason to confine him to the NE window. Take a look at the office layout. NCSTAR 1-9, Vol 1, Page 56, PDF Page 100.

He perhaps did not actually see them fall because he was holed up inside that corner office with a broken window on the windward side. With the door closed they may have been relatively smoke free.

Jennings says however that it was very, very hot-- that he attempted to use a fire hose to rappel down and was told don't do this by the FDNY.

In the first clip he can be seen yelling straight down to someone near the base. The air is still cloudy. In the second clip he is talking to people out in Barclay Street. The air is much clearer.

I suggest the first is after 10 am and the second is a bit later, but before 10:30. The reason I say this is because when the cop walks away there are no cars on fire. I believe there is good evidence to suggest the cars on Barclay did not torch until after 10:30.

I want to know three things:

1. How come there is only one video of someone trapped on 9/11? (HESS).

2. How come this footage only lasts less than one minute total?


3. How come we've never seen any video of Jennings at the window?





Posted by: elreb May 15 2012, 01:50 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 15 2012, 12:16 AM) *
I'm referring to the alleged "diesel fires" on floors below.

10:00 am fire alarm was set off triggered by smoke or by dust from south tower

Fire command Station no mention of any fire alarm

Posted by: elreb May 15 2012, 03:05 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ May 14 2012, 02:32 PM) *
We know that OEM was evacuated right after 9:03 (according to Richard Shierer's 9/11 Commission testimony) Jennings and Hess just missed the closing of the doors.

For what its worth:

I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.
In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.

An employee of Solomon Smith Barney

This would be around 9:30 am

Posted by: onesliceshort May 15 2012, 03:49 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ May 15 2012, 08:05 PM) *
For what its worth:

I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.
In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.

An employee of Solomon Smith Barney

This would be around 9:30 am


You were actually in WTC7 on 9/11 Elreb??

Must be why it's so difficult to find images from (or of) the wtc7 southside if they evacuated out the back door (northside of the building?).

@kawika

The MSM footage of the area (such as the Hess footage) is just as chopped, editted and (intentionally) confusing as the Pentagon footage. The key to Hess/Jennings would be to identify and contact the guy Jennings thanked for helping him in the original footage (the shy black guy).

PS:

In the "clearer images" of Hess, you can see plumes of smoke (possibly from the vehicle that was fully ablaze in the smokier shot?) reflected in the window beside Hess.

Just speculation, but maybe Jennings was at another window looking for help (why it would be good to contact that other guy) while Hess stayed at the one we see in the video?

I know I'd do the same. dunno.gif


Posted by: kawika May 15 2012, 04:45 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 13 2012, 05:49 PM) *
You were actually in WTC7 on 9/11 Elreb??

Must be why it's so difficult to find images from (or of) the wtc7 southside if they evacuated out the back door (northside of the building?).


There are no North exits.

Who was the SSB employee? I'd appreciate the source of that quote.

Posted by: elreb May 15 2012, 04:52 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ May 15 2012, 10:45 AM) *
There are no North exits.

Who was the SSB employee? I'd appreciate the source of that quote.


forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1918455&postcount=49

NDBoston
Scholar

Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 104
Truthseeker:

I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.

In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.

I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything significant.

Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers.
Last edited by NDBoston; 13th September 2006 at 06:12 AM. Reason: spelling corrections

ALSO

In the Hess video, I see a ramp below him and a back door next to the cop car! [frame 2:38] Perhaps to Con-Ed?

Posted by: kawika May 15 2012, 05:26 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ May 13 2012, 06:52 PM) *
forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1918455&postcount=49

NDBoston
Scholar

Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 104
Truthseeker:

I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.

In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.

I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything significant.

Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers.
Last edited by NDBoston; 13th September 2006 at 06:12 AM. Reason: spelling corrections

ALSO

In the Hess video, I see a ramp below him and a back door next to the cop car! [frame 2:38] Perhaps to Con-Ed?


1. Why did it take this guy 45 minutes to get down?
2. He only questions the wiring for CD of the 28th through 44th floors. That leaves 27 floors where he had no observations. The CD we saw on 9/11 took place near the bottom and only required eight floors to achieve the free-fall measured.
3. Ramp under Hess is the truck ramp leading to WTC complex. It also provided access to columns 79, 80, and 81 which were on the right sidewalk going down.

Posted by: elreb May 15 2012, 06:12 PM

QUOTE (kawika @ May 15 2012, 11:26 AM) *
1. Why did it take this guy 45 minutes to get down?
2. He only questions the wiring for CD of the 28th through 44th floors. That leaves 27 floors where he had no observations. The CD we saw on 9/11 took place near the bottom and only required eight floors to achieve the free-fall measured.

I had the same thoughts about NDBoston, his answers are unrelated to the issue.

@OSS

Those large files I downloaded were worthless as they did not include architectural, electrical or mechanical drawings.

If they did I could determine where that northside back door went to.

@SanderO
Could you ask Joe about north side exits

Posted by: elreb May 15 2012, 07:43 PM

New webpage for WTC7 = http://www.rebrammer.com/x2.htm

Posted by: SanderO May 15 2012, 08:22 PM

Elreb,

Give me the specific questions you have and I will ask Joe. He seems to know a fair amount about B7. I don't think he's a OCT or a 911 truth guy... if that's possible.

Kawika, The lower 8 flrs especially above the Con Ed sub station (the core and north side) would actually have at most 4 floors of structure of the sub station occupied 3 floors.... as the columns were in 2 story segments... 6&7 had the T trusses and cantilever girders... But this confuses me as to why the T trusses etc were not placed just above the sub station. Why did they choose those floors to offset the core columns? Was there something about floors 4 and 5 that made the engineers set the T trusses 2 stories higher?

The 8 story FF descent seems as if the failure was at the bottom of 8 or at 6&7.

Let's see the plans from 1-8

Posted by: elreb May 15 2012, 08:48 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 15 2012, 02:22 PM) *
Give me the specific questions you have and I will ask Joe. He seems to know a fair amount about B7. I don't think he's a OCT or a 911 truth guy... if that's possible.

Ask Joe, how was “NDBoston” able to exit WTC7 from the north side.

Ask him ...From when to when did he work there.

Does he have pictures or blue prints?

It may be too late but when you ask Joe questions try to remain neutral and not ask negative questions.

Posted by: kawika May 15 2012, 09:14 PM

WTC7 Structural Drawings

Floor 1--
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/8287/wtc7cantors1.png

Floor 2--
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/4088/wtc7cantors2.png

Floor 3--
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/2192/wtc7cantors3.png

Floor 4--
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5233/wtc7cantors4.png

Floor 5--
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/9015/wtc7cantors5.png

Floor 5a--
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2751/wtc7cantors5a.png

Floor 6--
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/576/wtc7cantors6.png

Floor 7--
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/5784/wtc7cantors7.png

Floor 8--
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/6092/wtc7cantors8.png

Posted by: SanderO May 15 2012, 10:07 PM

QUOTE (elreb @ May 15 2012, 08:48 PM) *
Ask Joe, how was "NDBoston" able to exit WTC7 from the north side.

Ask him ...From when to when did he work there.

Does he have pictures or blue prints?

It may be too late but when you ask Joe questions try to remain neutral and not ask negative questions.


I do try to remain neutral when I interview someone. I kinda doubt he has plans... but I will ask and find out what contract he had. He did tell me he was called at 1 am when the 138.000 volt feed was lost... and there were Con Ed engineers at the meeting. They determined it was from sloppy work in street excavation.

Posted by: SanderO May 15 2012, 10:09 PM

These files don't open up.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 15 2012, 10:09 PM

Aah! I thought Elreb was in WTC7...

As for some floors being two stories, I had read that this was for the large screens for stock traders á la Wall Street open floor plan. The media supplied this info so...

I'll dig out the link..

QUOTE
'We really had a time constraint,'' explained Gedale B. Horowitz, a senior executive director of Salomon. ''And we were driven very much by technology. We had to find a building that could accommodate our needs, including major-sized trading floors.'

Much of the new electrical, air-conditioning and mechanical equipment will serve three double-height trading floors. To create the extra height, workers are removing most of three existing floors, using jackhammers to demolish concrete slabs and torches to remove steel decking and girders beneath the concrete.

In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.

''And there were many other ways that we designed as much adaptability as possible into the building because we knew that flexible layout is important to large space users.''


@kawika

I'm having trouble seeing those plans. Is it a "flash" download?

Posted by: elreb May 15 2012, 10:30 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 15 2012, 04:07 PM) *
He did tell me he was called at 1 am when the 138.000 volt feed was lost... and there were Con Ed engineers at the meeting.

So Joe was there on 911?

I have no problem with 13,800 Volt feeders being lost

I do have a problem with 138,000 Volt feeds being lost.

He was there 1 am on what day?

Posted by: SanderO May 16 2012, 05:05 AM

I don't think that incident was on 9/11. I don't think he was there that day. I may see him this weekend... If not the next and I will get his phone number...

Joe works for:

http://www.lkcomstock.com/sites/default/files/Comstock_timeline_full-10-7-11.pdf

He was not there on 9/11.

He said he thought there were no exits on the north side

Posted by: elreb May 17 2012, 06:44 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 15 2012, 11:05 PM) *
He said he thought there were no exits on the north side

Ok, so where did the East side stairs exit...on the ramp or what?

Maybe north was simple a direction to run in...

Posted by: SanderO May 17 2012, 06:52 PM

I couldn't read the plans linked to above... Joe thought that the stairs came out on the level of the foot bridge across Vesey street, but he wasn't sure.

We need to see the plans!

Posted by: elreb May 17 2012, 07:00 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 17 2012, 12:52 PM) *
We need to see the plans!

This is what I said above: large files I downloaded were worthless as they did not include architectural, electrical or mechanical drawings.


Posted by: elreb May 17 2012, 09:47 PM

My bad… It was the backside of the staircase…not the building...oops

“We went through the building. We were lost”
“Both staircases”
“The backside was completely blown away”
“There was no way to access”

Posted by: SanderO May 21 2012, 02:47 PM

You might want to re read this thread I started.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21059&st=0&p=10794362&#entry10794362

OSS,

I wrote a speculative explanation of the collapse of B7. I did propose there were diesel fueled fires. It happened to be what the structural engineered happen to state which I found out AFTER I posted the *theory* when Kawika posted links to Cantor.

The logic that YOU haven't seen evidence of diesel fires.. or several *groups* who have proven to be less than trustworthy and honest have said their were no diesel fires is not evidence that there were none.. ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT STATEMENT WOULD BE SELF INCRIMINATING.

Here's Con Ed in action:

"Chelsea Substation Is Rejected As New Con Ed Power Source

A Consolidated Edison plan to build a towering electric substation in Chelsea has been rejected by the city's Board of Standards and Appeals. The plan, blocked late Tuesday, was opposed by Chelsea residents, community groups and politicians who said the nine-story substation would harm the neighborhood's revival.

Opponents of the plan, who formed a neighborhood organization, the Chelsea Alliance, said the Con Ed substation would create a ''dead block'' in the middle of Chelsea, the revitalizing residential and commercial neighborhood in Manhattan. The Con Ed proposal suggested a site on Sixth Avenue north of 24th Street on a parking lot that has long been the site of a popular flea market.

The alliance argued that Con Edison could build the substation on land that it owns at 28th Street bounded by 11th and 12th Avenues. Con Edison officials contended that they need the far West Side site for parking. But the alliance argued that Con Edison was actually trying to hold that land to benefit from any increase in its value if the city is successful in redeveloping the far West Side."

ALL THEORIES are speculative until they are tested. You obviously are not understanding the scientific method here. My *theory* WAS based on precisely the observations that Tom reports about with respect to B7's motion. He doesn't speculate on what initiated that motion... I did. And you guys jump all over me.

BUT the speculation that the initiation was CD .. explosives for which there is no PROVEN evidence is fine and dandy with you guys. That's hypocritical.

It appears that you simply can't accept a NON MIHOP explanation - no way Jose. And that makes someone who proposes one a NIST or OCT shill.

Gimme a break!

Posted by: elreb May 21 2012, 03:32 PM

9:00 – 9:30 am over 1000 people in WTC7. None report any fires

9:59 am south tower collapse

10:00 am WCT7 fire alarm goes off for the first time but soon goes clear. Cause was most likely dust from south tower collapse or carbon monoxide.

11:30 am apparent rescue time of Jennings/Hess. NYFD report no fires or seeing any.

Conclusion: Everyone was under the influence of mass hypnosis or on LSD.

Posted by: elreb May 23 2012, 08:13 PM

Has anyone posted this yet?

This is from the Thermate doctor.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf


Posted by: SanderO May 23 2012, 09:24 PM

What a funny paper... some good stuff and some silly nonsense. Such is life.. you take the good with the bad.

I like his point about NIST ignoring floors 1-8... got that one right Jones...

I like that he noted massive explosion(s) were what Hess and Jennings experienced and ignores the mystery of NIST not detailing what was on floors 1-8... perhaps something there could explode and it wasn't a planted device Jones?

Tell the people about things which explode which are not bombs.... You can do it Dr Jones...

What about a little step down power transformer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy6UXxhzYlk

"Why Do Transformers Explode?

Transformers explode when an electric power line running to a transformer suddenly transmits far too much electricity for the circuits within the transformer to process. The most common way that this can happen is during a lightning strike. There are automatic shutoffs within the transformer when too much power reaches it. They turn off within 60 milliseconds of having detected an energy spike; unfortunately, this is about 5 times too slow to do any good. The extra electricity heats up and melts the circuit. The circuits are made to be heat resistant and are kept cool by several gallons of refined mineral oil in a closed chamber. Despite this, the circuit becomes red hot and fails in a shower of electrical sparks, superheating and igniting the mineral oil. The mineral oil combusts explosively, causing a loud bang and sending metal shrapnel that was once the transformer scything everywhere.


Read more: Why Do Transformers Explode? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4578514_why-do-transformers-explode.html#ixzz1vkLwHswR"

Here's another example:

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/05/11/amazing-video-shows-transformers-exploding-in-fort-worth/

and:

Power Transformer Breakdowns and Explosions

Older power transformers were originally designed to last between thirty and forty years. Surprisingly many of these transformers are still in use today after fifty to sixty years of operation. Their manufacturers did not anticipate the overwhelming increase in the electricity demand that we experience today and so the transformers are required to cope with increased loads.

The insulating materials of older power transformers comprise of cellulose and oil. Over time they absorb water which deteriorates the cellulose's insulating ability. In the case of heavy loads, water can also turn to steam which evolves in the form of bubbles. Degradation of insulating materials is one of the most important reasons for power transformer breakdown. In some extreme cases the problem can cause a power transformer explosion.

The combination of higher-than-expected transformer age - and therefore high levels of degradation - and increased loading have produced a significant increase in power transformer explosions in the USA in the late 1990's.

And another:

A ground fault on a capacitor bank on the low voltage (LV) side of this electrical substation creates an arcing fault that behaves like an uncontrollable welding torch from Hell, chewing up everything in its path. Unfortunately, protection hardware fails to open the high voltage (HV) side or is unable to sense the presence of the fault. Excessive current eventually causes the windings on the substation's power transformer to overheat, severely cooking its innards and bringing the mineral oil inside to the boiling point. In a vain attempt to prevent the transformer's tank from exploding, pressure release valves or a failing tank gasket vents clouds of superheated oil vapor. The foggy mist of hot oil is then ignited by the LV arc, causing it to explode in a ball of flame. This is followed by a phase-to-phase short circuit, perhaps caused by a flashover within the flames or by a heat induced fault within the transformer . This causes a high voltage expulsion fuse to blow with a flash and a resounding BANG, finally killing power to the substation.

However, by this time, the overheated transformer's tank fails, and it dumps hundreds of gallons of flaming mineral oil onto the already devastated substation. Local firefighters can only watch from a distance since there's no way to safely fight this fire, and the substation is a total loss. As linemen often say, "Firemen don't mess with their wires, and linemen don't mess with their fires". A very sobering look at the explosive power lurking within that quietly humming substation in your neighborhood...

NOTE: Based on recent inputs from employees of Florida Power and Light (FPL), this event occurred at the Ives Dairy Substation located near San Simeon Way and Biscayne Boulevard in Miami, Florida. It is believed to have occurred in 2000 or 2001, and the footage was captured by a local resident from property that was adjacent to a country club and golf course. The root cause was a defective fuse holder associated with motor-operated high voltage switches. Substation switchgear was disabled when a small fuse blew, opening power to the motors on protective high voltage switches. Normally, the blown fuse would trigger an alarm to the dispatcher so that the problem could be promptly fixed. However, in this case, the defective fuse holder also prevented an alarm from being sent, so the power company was unaware that the substation was now unprotected.

http://www.komar.org/christmas/faq/exploding_transformer.mpg

Some time later, a low voltage side capacitor bank failed, creating an arcing fault that could no longer be cleared, since protection hardware was inoperable. The ongoing, undetected arcing fault ultimately led to the total destruction of the substation. Although at least one report indicated that the spray of white mist might have been water from a fire suppression system, it is now known that this particular substation did not employ an active fire suppression system, and the spray was, in fact, a "fog" of vaporized mineral oil. If you can provide more information about this event, please contact me.

Dr J... could you rule out exploding transformers with your scientific approach?

Posted by: elreb May 23 2012, 10:59 PM

5.3.5 Power

Power to WTC7 entered at 13,800 Volts was stepped down to 480/277 Volts by “Silicone oil-filled” transformers in individual masonry vaults on the 5th floor and was distributed throughout the building.

Benefits of Silicone Transformer Oil over Petroleum-based oils [mineral oil]

STO-50 provides major benefits when considering safety issues. These include:

High flash point and fire point [Flash point = 572 F; Fire point = 649 F]
– can be placed close to a building or installed indoors within National Code guidelines

“Self extinguishing” – provides safest operating environment where fire potential is a concern

Low rate of heat release, smoke evolution and toxicity – minimal damage from fire, as it “self extinguishes” and low heat evolution during a fire.

Silicone transformer fluids allow for transformer systems that are “fire safe”, environmentally friendly and offer lower operating costs when compared to their counterparts.

Posted by: SanderO May 23 2012, 11:32 PM

Elreb

That is a bit misleading. Power to the Con Ed substation was much higher 13,800 KV and stepped down and to 13.8 KV feeds and 4 of them were fed up to flr 4 & 5 where the was switch gear and BUILDING step down transformers. The Con Ed sub station also had 8 - 13.8 kv feeders to each twin and who knows what was fed to the refer plant in the sub basements or WTC 3,4,5 & 6. There are often other step down transformers in electrical closets on various floors in a tower. And how many OTHER building in the area which were supplied by the B7 Con Ed Sub stations... each with 1 or 2 or more 13.8 kv feeds.. Where do you think the power for the Verizon Bldg next door came from? Or the Deutchbank bldg? Or the WFC? B7's Con Ed sub station.

The Con Ed facility had I think 3 massive 30' tall transformers which were mineral oil cooled.

Some more about Con Ed:

http://www.chiefmontagna.com/Articles/pdf/Substations.pdf

and a recent one in Brooklyn:

http://statter911.com/2012/05/11/pre-arrival-video-fdny-at-brooklyn-con-ed-substation-fire/

Listen to what this chief says about the flammable oil burning:

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/102837/fire-under-control-at-con-ed-substation-in-queens/

Posted by: onesliceshort May 23 2012, 11:47 PM

Show me the money SanderO.

You're speculation hinges on there being very high and constant sources of heat over a prolonged period of time to be even considered a possibility. Now, I'm no Einstein, but if there's no exterior evidence of black smoke, you're on to a bum steer.

And suggesting that all of the alleged black smoke stayed within the core or that it somehow didn't make its way out of the building? Seriously? handsdown.gif

I need to start framing these beauties....

Posted by: SanderO May 24 2012, 07:27 AM

OSS,

I didn't say the smoke stayed inside the core... I said that there were no camera filming continuously from the lee side (south) and in the one I did see from a reporter walking down there after T1 came down .. don't recall the time.. there WAS some heavy black smoke. I don't read smoke color in any case as conclusive of anything.. but it can be suggestive. Many materials burn with black smoke - plastics for example. I am not a fire expert.

We have no video from inside the B7 so it's like diagnosing a patient from images and a few films of his upper back.

We don't have all the information and data about that building and we have an official report which has been falsified plus an theory of controlled demolition which is presented with anecdotal evidence with the most compelling being the 2.25 second FF descent.

It should be noted that CD'ed buildings can only come down at FF descent for the distance that ALL the structure as been removed theoretcially. If only the columns on one floor are blown out.... as is the usual case I suppose (not an expert on CD)....the building will accelerate at FF for the one story heigth and then slow down and the top is crush and the frame broken from the bottom up. Perhaps some buildings which are CD'ed have multiple consecutive floors columns destroyed.... say 8 which would allow for an 8 story acceleration at FF of the top descending part. This is what apparently drives AE911T to claim that 8 stories of columns were destroyed simultaneously to allow for the 100 feet of free fall. That WOULD do it. However... there is no evidence to support that this took place... such as 324 explosions... or evidence of 324 columns being severed by silent cutter charges (8 floor / 2 story ht col = 4 x 81 columns = 324). I know they were all hauled away so there is no evidence of them....

AE911T and the CD proponents don't even acknowledge the movements of the building BEFORE the rapid descent.. or explain what they mean.. which is that the core collapsed BEFORE the FF descent of the curtain wall we SEE. CD is a not explained, no mechanism given... and the movement evidence shows a multi part dismantlement of the building's insides.'

Are you claiming that the CD devices produced the various stages / observed movements of the building? Please explain how this was done. Speculate... you won't be pilloried. I want to see the thinking on this.

I am not PROVING anything. I proposing a mechanism and sequence which describes what might have led to the observables Tom and others have described in detail. It's why I call for a new investigation... to get at evidence to prove or falsify these claims. Your assertions don't cut it. Your demands that I haven't proven anything don't mean my hypothesis is not a plausible explanation. You keep insisting that there is no evidence... because we have seen it or I haven't shown it to you. But this is not different from those who claim CD.

My theory EXPLAINS all the motions observed.

You attempts to falsify it rely on statements and reports from NIST and Con Ed... two parties which are served by the OCT... Why would they supply evidence undermine their explanations and in the case of Con Ed expose their liability? NIST has been shown to have been deceitful, deceptive, withhold evidence and produce an explanation which has been falsified... and then you cite them as a reliable source for technical data? Gimme a break!

You began this thread by attacking me.. conflating me with a NIST retread and OCT stealth shill as Legge. You've gone on to insult and make all sorts of ad hom remarks.

I've not even said that the energy supplied by diesel fires could not have been from *devices*... but I think the diesel theory needs to be looked at.. AND the building's engineer suggested the exact same cause.

I have made several mistakes about the lower 7 floors... because I hadn't (and haven't) seen the plans of them and I was SPECULATING on what I DID know from the material released which I linked to. There were little to know offices uses below floor 8. There was all mech, and power equipment, fuel tanks, diesel generators, power transformers, relays, transformers FOR the building and FOR the neighborhood in the Con Ed Substation which ALL contained flammable oils as well. All high voltage electrical transformers are subject to explosion and fire and I cited numerous examples. There were main 13.8kv feeds lost in a series of cascading failures all day beginning at 8:46... this is FACT. Can you prove they were shut down and didn't short or go down from an explosion?

I don't mind debate or discussion as we can learn. But I find your dismissive attitude and insults inappropriate and your repeated citing of NIST and Con Ed as reliable sources of information.

When you couldn't make sense you asked others to enter the discussion and have a go at my theory.

I've made comments about observations in this forum for years... precisely what Tom has in his book. Thank you Tom.

OSS you need to try to be more objective and open your mind... especially about technical issues which you have no expertise in. You and all of can learn something. False certainty is the sign of a fool.

Posted by: elreb May 24 2012, 11:00 AM

No…nothing is misleading because I am “only” talking about WTC7 which only had “Silicone” filled transformers.

Let’s try to keep our terms correct too.

Con-Ed was served by four 138,000 Volt feeds.WTC7 was served by four 13,800 Volt feeders that were designed such that full electrical service will not be interrupted in the building even with the loss of two 13,800 Volt electrical service conductors.

The feeders for Building 7 are tapped off of the Building 4 feeders; therefore, the substation relays protecting Building 4 also protect the feeders for Building 7.

These feeders are protected by 1200-ampere circuit breakers with protective relays to disconnect the power when a fault occurs.

Con-Ed did not lose any feeds and the circuit breakers did their job by disconnecting the feeders that faulted.

The Primary Distribution Center for WCT7 was only on the 5th floor.

Normal power was distributed to the tenants through 120/208-volt and 277/480-volt bus ducts located in electric closets on each floor.

This is an impossible discussion if you’re not going to stay focused on WTC7!


NOTE:

I have not verified this but it was said that:

1. Con-Ed had 10 transformers, several air cooled and the rest oil cooled
2. 5th floor had 12 “Silicone” filled transformers. 6 in back and 6 in front
3. 7th floor had 2 “Silicone” filled transformers for the Mayors 3 generators

Posted by: elreb May 24 2012, 01:10 PM

From Dr. S. Shyam Sunder

Even though utility power to the rest of WTC 7 was lost at 9:59 a.m., auxiliary utility power to the Con Edison substation from transmission switching station feeders allowed internal operations to be maintained.

At 4:33 p.m., the utility control center isolated the WTC 7 Con Edison substation by opening the 138,000 V circuit breakers feeding the WTC 7 substation.

Fire detector signals from the Con Edison substation were monitored off-site throughout the day.

One fire detector within the Con Edison substation gave an alarm when WTC 1 collapsed, and stayed in alarm mode until the substation was isolated from incoming feeders at 4:33 p.m.

There were no other indications (no high temperature alarms from the transformers, no visible smoke emanating from the Con Edison substation) that a fire occurred within the substation during that period of time.

Likely causes of the fire alarm were the smoke and dust dispersed in the area of the substation from the collapse of WTC 1.

Posted by: elreb May 25 2012, 04:14 PM

salute.gif

Posted by: SanderO May 28 2012, 03:43 PM

Any theory of pre planning to take down B7 is pure speculation. And it's fine to speculate. But this has nothing to do with the mechanism and mechanics of collapse.

Did the officials cover up something? You betcha. But it's probably not what you think it was. They wanted their wars and they were going to turn the day into the causus belli for war. That was for certain...they would never miss such a golden opportunity.

Can you imagine a call for investigation and an international trial for the hijackers? No way Jose. The pentagon and Shanksville likely were inside jobs to make certain everyone was on the same page and ready to go war. In fact Shankville was the made up first hero fights back.... perhaps.

Posted by: elreb May 28 2012, 04:42 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 28 2012, 09:43 AM) *
Any theory of pre planning to take down B7 is pure speculation. .

Diesel fires and exploding transformers are speculation.

A perfectly good 47 story building falling in its foot print is impossible.

Column 79 did not fail.

Not only was Thermate elements found on the steel, the pictures show chemical cutting.

Reason and common sense are not speculation.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 28 2012, 04:51 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 28 2012, 08:43 PM) *
Any theory of pre planning to take down B7 is pure speculation. And it's fine to speculate. But this has nothing to do with the mechanism and mechanics of collapse.

Did the officials cover up something? You betcha. But it's probably not what you think it was. They wanted their wars and they were going to turn the day into the causus belli for war. That was for certain...they would never miss such a golden opportunity.

Can you imagine a call for investigation and an international trial for the hijackers? No way Jose. The pentagon and Shanksville likely were inside jobs to make certain everyone was on the same page and ready to go war. In fact Shankville was the made up first hero fights back.... perhaps.


When are you going to get the message SanderO??

Even if you can't accept, for whatever reason, that CD was used, according to NIST and their bullshit lies, CD of some form was used to bring down WTC7.

The fact that you need to push "diesel fires" when you can't provide proof (I now know for a fact that WTC7 did indeed have localized, intermittent outbursts of fire and not the constant diesel fuel fires that could "superheat" the trusses. Not even close).

That's taking into account the proposition that diesel fires could physically bring WTC7 down in the first place given that two buildings beside it, WTC5 and 6 were subject to massive damage and fires most of the day and didn't collapse.

How the hell do you propose to squeeze these people by creating confusion and "grey areas" that's based on pure speculation that there's absolutely no evidence for? And that you've no intention of providing?

You've been here all day. I thought you'd "no time" to look for "evidence" of diesel fires...

Posted by: SanderO May 28 2012, 06:37 PM

Buildings 5&6 were 9 story buildings... not high rise long span column free open office space designs. Apples and oranges.

My theory proposes that the achilles heels the T trusses and the 8 cantilever girders failed... A truss can fail if one strut fails... the whole truss buckles. There were also at least one large explosion down there which could have been transformer gas and who knows what that did... and if there were diesel fueled fires they could have been localized and burning for hours... LIKE a lance concentrates heat... not office contents.

We can't see and so we can't know for sure. Cantor seems to think it was the diesel... I agree. It's a theory.

Posted by: elreb May 28 2012, 07:37 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 28 2012, 10:51 AM) *
You've been here all day. I thought you'd "no time" to look for "evidence" of diesel fires...

OSS,

My theories do not require evidence.

I will invent diesel fires and exploding transformer gas if I want.

Put that in your book lieutenant!

Posted by: SanderO May 28 2012, 09:42 PM

Be serious.... We don't have access to what was going on down there. There were no cameras on the south side because the destruction of T1 and the burning B5 & 6... We have NIST saying they were not investigating below floor 8...no interest to them... we have Con Ed providing self serving statements... nothing wrong with our gear... we have some fairy tale report about all the diesel fuel being recovered after a 47 story building collapsed on the tanks...and reports of extremely high temps which seems as if it would have ignited escaped diesel... makes no sense.

And there was other accelerants present... oil from the transformer radiators... gas created when that oil heats up... I'm finding it hard to believe that everything was peaches and cream down there after the Jennings explosions... and the evacuation of the tower. There was some reason everyone took off.

There's evidence to support my theory... but not enough.

What's your theory? And what is the evidence in support of that theory?

I'm all for me evidence about what was going on down there.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 29 2012, 06:11 AM

Another thread derailed...

QUOTE
There's evidence to support my theory... but not enough.


Set out your "evidence" or drop it. You're trolling.

Posted by: SanderO May 29 2012, 07:11 AM

OSS,
Excuse me..
I laid out what I believe is the mechanics of the collapse of B7...

1. swaying east and west of the building
2. drop of the east penthouse through the tower
3. drop of the est penthouse
4. 100' of approximately FF acceleration of the roof line (8 stories)
5. inward bowing of north curtain wall
6. large outpouring of smoke at the NW corner flr 7 just prior to the downward motion of the facade


My theory posits the following were factors which support those observations

1. 13.8 kv volt feeds lost begining at 8:46 the instant of the plane strike at T1
2. Wm Rodrguez reports explosion in T1's sub basement at moment of plane impact
3. Jennings and Hess arrive at OEM to find it evacuated likely after T2 has been struck
4. tenants evacuate B7 being around 9 am.. reports of explosions (believed to be bombs from terrorist attack)
5. J&H then call (someone) to learn that they are to leave the OEM
6. OEM on emergency power, building elevators and power down J&H walk down stair after T2 has been hit
7. J&H experience huge explosion(s) from below flr 7 and climb back to flr 8
8. flrs 1-3 contain Con Ed main sub station with oil cooled transformers
9. flrs 4,5 contain building electrical gear and step down transformers (4-13.8 KV feeds from Con Ed sub station below
10. flrs 6&7 contain generators and diesel day tanks to fuel them
11. 20,000 gal tanks located under the loading dock (building had no basements)
12. elevators started at flr 3 for tower
13. transfer trusses supported portion of the core from flrs 8-47 and parts of flrs 4-5 (hung in tension?)
14. cantilever girders supported 8 of the north perimeter columns inside the curtain wall and bearing on the north side of the core
15. the structure of the *walls* below 8 (or was it 5?) were space frames to enclose the column free sub Con Ed station and provide lateral stiffness at the towers base.
16. B7 had a non structural curtain wall hung from the spandrel beams
17. thick black smoke was seen on a hand held camera at the SE corner below flr 8 (few frames)


Interesting things to consider:
1. No cameras were on Vesey street of south during the day because the T1 and T2 had collapses and T5&6 were burning out of control
2. No tower aside from B7 was built over a sub station or had its core supported by T trusses or part of the perimeter columns by cantilever girders
3. Building engineer Cantor ascribes the cause of the collapse to the T trusses failing from diesel fires
4. OEM center was added after building was completed... diesel tanks and gen sets installed
5. there were vacant lots available across West Street when B7 was built. Con Ed sold the air rights for big bucks
6. There were few residential tenants in the district to fight the decision to site a tower over a sub station
7. PANY did not have to conform to NYC codes and got waivers
8. there were no squibs or puffs seen just prior to collapse
9. there were no explosions heard just prior to collapse
10. NIST fea and animation does not resemble collapse motion
11. NIST did not investigate anything below flr 8
12. NIST claims there were no fires or explosions below 8
13. there are unconfirmed reports of diesel fuel recovery
14. Con Ed sub station supplied power to WTC and other buildings in the area and
15. Con Ed sub station had 3 large transformers (supplying different areas)
16. Con Ed claims to have shut the feed to B7 at 4pm when it was determined the building was going to collapse
17. No reports of who made the call to shut the power or why.
18. No plausible explanation for the collapse or mechanism has been advanced.

OSS you can disagree and debate, but calling someone with a theory - a troll - is not winning any arguments and is undignified.

Posted by: elreb May 29 2012, 01:49 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 28 2012, 03:42 PM) *
Be serious....

Are you kidding me?

Let’s get some of the facts straight.

Those underground tanks were 6 feet below the ground, covered by 28” of concrete. Diesel cannot ignite without oxygen. You could drop a 55 gallon drum from an airplane on to concrete and it would not explode. You can actually weld a leak in a 100 gallon fuel tank, if it is totally full of diesel.

“Silicone” filled transformers do not give off some kind of magic gas.

Still need to work on the difference between a feed and a feeder

WTC7 contained 10 = transformers at street level

Explosion was on the 5th floor

13,800 Volt feeders to 5th floor only.

Normal power was distributed to the tenants through 120/208-volt and 277/480-volt bus ducts located in electric closets on each floor.

No generators or day tanks on 6th floor, only one day tank on 7th floor

Con-Ed contained 8 transformers that supplied 13 kilovolt-ampere to 6th floor [most likely 3 phase] which could be air-cooled. There were 9 vaults

28 elevators started on the 3rd floor, 4 went to the 1st floor Lobby and loading docks?

5th floor had 12 “Silicone” filled transformers. 6 in back and 6 in front

7th floor had 2 dry transformers for the Mayors 3 generators

8:46 am north tower strike… Jennings also said that a small Cessna hit the north tower

8:46 am two feeders went off line after faulting

Con-Ed was served by four 138,000 Volt feeds.WTC7 was served by four 13,800 Volt feeders that were designed such that full electrical service will not be interrupted in the building even with the loss of two 13,800 Volt electrical service conductors.

These feeders are protected by 1200-ampere circuit breakers with protective relays to disconnect the power when a fault occurs.

Con-Ed did not lose any feeds and the circuit breakers did their job by disconnecting the feeders that faulted.

8:53 am Shawn O’Keefe at fire console

9:00 am Jennings/Hess arrive WTC7. EMO was found locked

9:03 am south tower strike

9:02/03 am two feeders went off line after faulting

9:07 am Giuliani meets Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik at 75 Barclay Street, on the northern border of the WTC complex behind the Post Office waiting to talk to Vice President Cheney.

9:20 to 9:30 am explosions on 5th floor WTC7 [Backside of stairs blown away]

Witness said it sounded like a missile, earthquake, twisting metal. Smoke from 9 generators.

9:30 am Command center of New York’s Office of Emergency Management evacuated upon hearing of a 3rd plane. WTC7 had power. There were around 1000 people in 4th floor cafeteria

9:52 am four feeders go off line

9:59 am south tower collapse

One fire detector within the Con Edison substation gave an alarm when WTC 1 collapsed, and stayed in alarm mode Likely causes of the fire alarm were the smoke and dust dispersed in the area of the substation from the collapse of WTC 1.

9:59 am utility power lost to WTC7, auxiliary utility power to the Con Edison substation from transmission switching station feeders allowed internal operations to be maintained.

The feeders for Building 7 are tapped off of the Building 4 feeders; therefore, the substation relays protecting Building 4 also protect the feeders for Building 7.

There were no other indications (no high temperature alarms from the transformers, no visible smoke emanating from the Con Edison substation) that a fire occurred within the substation during that period of time.

10:28 am north tower collapse

10:28 am twenty-one other feeders go off line

10:30 am apparent fire in WTC7

4:33 p.m., the utility control center isolated the WTC 7 Con Edison substation by opening the 138,000 V circuit breakers feeding the WTC 7 substation.

PSS: Happy Birthday and collecting Social Security

Posted by: onesliceshort May 29 2012, 04:08 PM

What he said... handsdown.gif

I mean, if you can't even point to the black, billowing smoke from "diesel fires", you haven't a leg to stand on. That you need to invent these "diesel fires" in the face of evidence against them speaks volumes! If you can't provide evidence for diesel fires, what brought that building down SanderO?

That's presuming that fire could bring down a steel structure the way it did. Exactly how long would the fires have to burn? Fireproofing? Where were the diesel fires?

They could hide, manipulate, destroy and censor the evidence. What they couldn't do is hide the smoke. Did the fires stay on one side of the building? Where did the smoke go??






Posted by: SanderO May 29 2012, 07:39 PM

28"? Who says? I'm waiting to see the plans.

Do you think Con Ed would supply information which would incriminate them in a liability suit? If they could get away with a lie?

There was probably a single large freight elevator to the ground floor receiving dock.. but the passenger elevators began at floor 3. Let's see the plans. Are you not curious? Why no plans of the sub station?

If there was some sort of breach in the fuel delivery system AND there were fires on the floors where the leak was the diesel WOULD ignite.... no?

I believe that the transformer coolant oil does break down into an explosive gas... the ones which has mineral oil.

Again.. I don't what was going on on those floors... I presented some theories and Elreb sites what he considers facts but I don't see where it got those facts.. who supplied them?

He or you don't explain what YOUR theory is of how the buildings collapsed.

Thanks Elreb!

Posted by: onesliceshort May 29 2012, 08:49 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 30 2012, 12:39 AM) *
...

If there was some sort of breach in the fuel delivery system AND there were fires on the floors where the leak was the diesel WOULD ignite.... no?

....

He or you don't explain what YOUR theory is of how the buildings collapsed.

Thanks Elreb!


Yada, yada...

QUOTE
They could hide, manipulate, destroy and censor the evidence. What they couldn't do is hide the smoke. Did the fires stay on one side of the building? Where did the smoke go??


My theory is that you're blowing smoke rather than showing it. rolleyes.gif

Cheers

Posted by: elreb May 29 2012, 09:04 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ May 29 2012, 01:39 PM) *
Thanks Elreb!

I do not have a theory, yet let’s consider this.

You live in NYC…so go out and get the drawings, especially the “as” builds’.

You have lived there 65 years? I apologize if you are handicapped. [You never told us]

It appears that you do not have any files or paper work because you keep repeating incorrect information.

Burning “Baby oil” is about the same as burning a candle. Back in the "lead and oakum" days, it was used to batch jute and hemp.

Is your printer out of Ink?

Apparently, you are playing some kind of a “kids” game…to know so little about the subject.

I’ve only been doing this for one month and I can dance around you.

Hell, OSS and I are compadres’ now.

I watched the Kawika/Gerry films…frame by frame…did you?

You seem to be casting a “bait-less hook”…which is more akin to “Trawling”.

I perceive you are simply looking for attention…

Posted by: SanderO May 30 2012, 06:18 AM

This AM on the new there was a report of a major transformer fire in NYC. Since they are not made from cellulose materials I would assume it is the oil which burns.. and perhaps the insulation of the cables???

Transformers explode and do burn. FACT end of story despite that Elreb wants to convince others to the contrary.

My theory is based on the limited observations in the public record.... knowledge of structure and what has been released about the design of B7... some witness testimony and the fact that some of my *suspects* would not be truthful of their complicity in boneheaded decisions. And there's engineer Cantor who seems to think diesel fires caused the T trusses to fail.

I've seen the work falsifying the NIST report which I agree with and I don't think there is much than can be done to support my theory absent disclosure of more information about the building, its equipment, the plans and specs below flr 8 and detailed reports of the clean up... or some other witness testimony (under oath).

Now you have three theories:

SS - (shear stud) @ Column 79 and shear studs (NIST)
CD - Controlled demolition (without mechanisms set forth)
TTF - T Truss Failure (due to electrical explosions and combustion of diesel and transformer insulation oil)

I am not looking for attention. I am hoping that the ideas I present get attention and result in more exposure of what was happening below flr 8. I don't mind the slatting. But it's childish and undignified. I welcome critiques. And I welcome more data and information. TTF is based on only few observations and hard evidence and for it to be accepted (or *proven* as some allege I must do) it needs to be fleshed up.

I can't prove my theory, because there is not enough information. It can't be falsified by claiming that the officials haven't provided the evidence as TTF points to official *misconduct* and no one is about self incrimination. No one is legally bound to self incriminate. The conundrum.

Posted by: KP50 May 30 2012, 06:38 AM

Sandero is being quite "Goodian"* on this (and all 9/11 related issues). His ability to spout the same theory and the number of words he wastes on that theory is inversely proportional to the evidence he has for the theory and the amount of time he will spend researching the theory.

* Goodian = the tactics of the pointless time-waster Brian Good.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 30 2012, 09:36 AM

QUOTE (KP50 @ May 30 2012, 11:38 AM) *
Sandero is being quite "Goodian"* on this (and all 9/11 related issues). His ability to spout the same theory and the number of words he wastes on that theory is inversely proportional to the evidence he has for the theory and the amount of time he will spend researching the theory.

* Goodian = the tactics of the pointless time-waster Brian Good.


thumbsup.gif

lmao@ "Goodian"

Edit: KP, can you move the SanderO show to the "WTC7 and SanderO" thread?

Cheers!

Posted by: SanderO May 30 2012, 11:46 AM

One has to laugh reading the responses which are little more than ad hominem arguments... with use of terms such as *spout* etc.

TTF is no more speculative in nature than the CD theory and at least is based on several observations that AE911T and NIST simply ignores... and fails to account for... such as the collapse of the East and West Penthouses and the inward bowing of the north curtain wall during descent and the swaying motion for about a minute before the east penthouse descent.

The most vocal critics have no explanation for those observations or bother to connect them to CD mechanics. The details don't seem to matter.

If there were more evidence of what was going on with B7 in the public record we could sharpen any theory. And this is why an investigation is needed. I find the citing of NIST and Con Ed by the CD proponents almost comical as they ridicule NIST, at least about almost everything else.

When TTF was first presented the critics framed it as a NIST alternate... of office fires. TTF is about heat weakening but not about office contents fires... as the source for the heat - diesel and oil/gas from transformers are not common on typical office floors.

Yes not all transformers are oil cooled. But this is not an argument because there WERE transformers which WERE oil cooled. TTF does not require ALL transformers to exploded or burn.

The contents and workings of the mech and electrical equipment on 4,5,6 & 7 is not all that clear to me at least and there seems to be a potential for some high heat events and this happens to be where the t trusses were located. And of course the Jennings explosions are acknowledged by the truth movement, even cited as evidence of CD... but they do not consider other possible explanations for the explosions... Truth movement does the same with the William Rodriguez explosion statement... which again was likely electrical or mechanical equipment exploding directly connected to the plane strike.

Why don't you prove this is not possible... instead of making ad hom attacks on someone who suggests an alternate explanation for the explosions reported???????

Posted by: onesliceshort May 30 2012, 03:44 PM

*reluctantly clicks on this thread seeing SanderO has posted "something" to back up his "diesel fires theory" - note to self - don't hold your breath*

*looks at the irrelevant lies about the plebs "quoting NIST" to back up any claims and sighs at the hypocrisy of demanding a new investigation when he's using NIST and FEMA "diesel fire" insinuations (they hadn't any proof of this then either) and was used for 7 years by government loyalists to string people along. How does this guy believe we'll get a new investigation by increasing non existent heat sources?*

*slips back out thinking, who does this guy think he's kidding?"


Posted by: SanderO May 30 2012, 04:54 PM

OSS,

I am trying to not lower myself to rebut your ad homs and insults. No matter how many times I write that the TTF theory requires further investigation and it does conform to many observables and evidence... you insist I prove something which I cannot sitting here at my desk.

On the other hand I have asked you or others to advance the details of the CD theory you apparently believe... As far as I can tell the details consist of the free fall collapse for 100' and the sounds of explosions. Both these details support TTF.

So put your cards on the table... what is the evidence that supports CD... Silverstein's remark "pull it"? The Jane Stanley TV stand up? Where's the actual EVIDENCE?

I am calling for a NEW investigation and I don't need to rely on ANY NIST, FEMA, or Con Ed self serving statements.

Irwin Cantor's remarks me nothing? Despite he's the designer of the structure? Maybe you'd say to him... "who does this guy think he's kidding?"


Posted by: elreb May 30 2012, 05:34 PM

Corrections that SanderO should have made…

4 fuel tanks under loading dock could hold 36,000 gallons

WTC7 contained 10 = transformers at street level

5th floor had 12 = silicone oil transformers

7th floor had 2 = dry transformers

Con-Ed contained 8 transformers at street level that supplied 13 kilovolt-amperes to 6th floor [most likely 3 phase] which could be air-cooled. There were 9 vaults at Con-Ed

3rd floor lobby = Fire Command Station. This is were the lobby bridge was located

Of the 32 elevators…28 stopped at the 3rd floor, 4 went to the 1st floor [#5, Se 29, Se30 and Fe31]

There were also escalators to grade level

Posted by: SanderO May 30 2012, 06:02 PM

thanks Elreb...

The Con Ed sub station also fed the WTC bldgs , Verizon, WFC, Battery Park City etc.

According to Joe, WTC 7 had 4 - 13.8 kv feeds from the Con Ed sub station. He worked for Comstock... http://lkcomstock.com/services

Posted by: onesliceshort May 30 2012, 11:37 PM

1. Office fires couldn't bring WTC7 down.

2. Diesel fires which you believe would bring the building down are non-existent (bar sporadic outbreaks)

3. In the absence of the above, what could have brought the building down?

There's more, but those are the three main reasons I believe WTC7 was brought down manually.

Stop lying about what I "claim" or who I "source". Stop trolling. And stop playing the victim when everybody else is running about checking out your claims!






Posted by: SanderO May 31 2012, 07:09 AM

OSS,

This last post is a bridge too far. I am not trolling. Your reasoning is flawed and not a mechanism... you can't explain something so you summon up the magical CD and are done with it. Anyone who attempts to explain the mechanism is wasting your time and called a troll.

I don't have access to the evidence for several reasons...

it's not on the internet
it was withheld by NIST and the officials
it was destroyed intentionally or in the course of clean up
it was not gathered by NIST or officials because they *item* was not thought of as important
it was not gathered by NIST or officials because they *item* was thought to incriminate PANY, Con Ed, Engineers etc.
no one went inside to film the areas which were burning
no one filmed from the south side because the WTC was a disaster zone (unsafe)

This does not mean that the evidence to support and explanation or theory does not exist... but it does account why I can't provide it to you.

TTF has as much evidence support as CD.

Posted by: onesliceshort May 31 2012, 07:38 AM

There is footage of WTC7 for most of the day from the North, West and East. The south is hard to come by, particularly after 3pm. You are trolling because you can't provide footage of SMOKE!

Smoke from diesel fires. Here's a hint of what you should be looking for



That's 800 gallons of diesel burning in the above video. Hopefully your next post will contain video footage of copious amounts of black smoke from WTC7 (fingers crossed!)

By the way, just how long and in what areas do you foresee diesel fires to have been necessary to bring that building down (don't forget the fireproofing)? And don't forget the footage. You can get that sitting at your desk.

Posted by: elreb May 31 2012, 06:11 PM

I don’t see what is so hard here:

At 8:46 am Vice President George W. Bush is watching the first plane hitting the north tower on closed circuit TV being transmitted from WTC7.

At 9:03 south tower strike

At 9:07 am Giuliani has a call into Cheney to “Glad-hand” each other and ask about the 3rd plane

At 9:20 am explosion on 5th floor WTC7

At 9:32 am Norman Mineta is with President Cheney in the White house bunker listening to him barking that the “Orders still Stand”.

At 4 pm Larry Silverstein orders the destruction of WTC7

Giuliani and both the police and fire commissioners are rewarded by the Queen of England

All other actors get promotions and huge pay offs

Saudi Arabians get first class tickets out of town and we attack Afghanistan

Twelve [12] years later…we are still in Afghanistan looking for diesel fires

Posted by: DoYouEverWonder May 31 2012, 10:16 PM

Isn't it an assumption that those tanks were filled with diesel?

They could have been filed with anything. Maybe that's why Hauer was so gung-ho to load WTC 7 with as much fuel as he could get away with. Maybe that's why he wanted to run a natural gas line up the elevator shafts, but that was even too much for FDNY.

Posted by: SanderO May 31 2012, 10:31 PM

Hard to know what is fact, assumption, fake and misunderstood and so forth.

Take the expression that the fires or heat melted the steel. This may have been a language problem... and of course it may not be true.. but maybe the person who used the term meant that the steel had softened... and heat does soften steel before it melts it. There was no evidence of a huge ingot of solidified melted steel or multiple smaller ones. And what WOULD a steel column or beam with a melted end look like?

NIST ignored the Jennings and Hess reports of explosion(s). And if they were investigated and the cause was determined... what was exploding... they didn't say... and have said a thing yet. That's wrong...

Posted by: SanderO May 31 2012, 10:44 PM

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 31 2012, 07:38 AM) *
There is footage of WTC7 for most of the day from the North, West and East. The south is hard to come by, particularly after 3pm. You are trolling because you can't provide footage of SMOKE!

By the way, just how long and in what areas do you foresee diesel fires to have been necessary to bring that building down (don't forget the fireproofing)? And don't forget the footage. You can get that sitting at your desk.


Fireproofing is rated for 2 hrs typically... and parts of the building could have been burning since the time Jennings and Hess heard the explosion(s) before 10am...till 5pm... that's 7 hrs.

PANY didn't even have to comply with NYC codes so who knows what fireproofing was applied. Are there any photos .,.. pre collapse of the transfer trusses?

I don't have the plans... but I suspect that the failure was to one steel section or the connection of several steel sections which made up the transfer trusses. If one chord or segment of a truss fails the entire truss is a goner.

TTF can't be developed without more information about the structure and the equipment... and of course more visual evidence. TTF is a hypothetical...

The south happens to be the lee or low pressure side of the building where the smoke came out. There are images which show broken windows and blackened residue on the SE side around the 8th floor of B7... Hard to tell the floor.

Posted by: elreb May 31 2012, 11:30 PM

NIST ignored just about everything.
We are talking about the “SS”
They simply put down the bread and butter stuff and went off into left field.
They were forced to omit information and add crap.
The “Public” will buy anything.
They needed their government job.
Pork the tax payers

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 1 2012, 06:33 AM

QUOTE
Fireproofing is rated for 2 hrs typically... and parts of the building could have been burning since the time Jennings and Hess heard the explosion(s) before 10am...till 5pm... that's 7 hrs.


Not only is that a false, unfounded statement (about then fires), but the "7 hours" burning claptrap is a NIST/government loyalist claim.

QUOTE
PANY didn't even have to comply with NYC codes so who knows what fireproofing was applied. Are there any photos .,.. pre collapse of the transfer trusses?


Ask Cantor?

Coulda, woulda, shoulda...

Again, unfounded speculation to suit your "theory".

QUOTE
The south happens to be the lee or low pressure side of the building where the smoke came out. There are images which show broken windows and blackened residue on the SE side around the 8th floor of B7... Hard to tell the floor.


"blackened residue" = out

The majority of grey/white smoke seen rising above WTC7 from south of the building (not the building itself) are from WTC5 and 6. And from vehicles burning.

Reading your posts SanderO is just like taking a step back in time to 2005. "7 hour fires", "diesel fires", "no fireproofing possibility"....

And then having the nerve to lie about me "quoting NIST".


Posted by: SanderO Jun 1 2012, 07:34 AM

OSS,

Your arguments don't impress me and your insults reflect on you not on me... such as calling my statements "claptrap is a NIST/government loyalist claim".

I don't know how many times I have written that TTF is a speculative theory, much like CD is... based on a series of observations, witness testimony and knowledge and beliefs about the structure of the building. Yes there are gaps in evidence support... conjecture or speculation. But your declaring that this evidence does not exist or that I MUST supply it... and that it not be established in further investigation is aggressive and childish.

You don't have to accept TTF as a working hypothesis or theory. You don't have to like it. But characterizing it as a NIST/government loyalist claim is nonsense. NIST does not only not consider the T trusses as the cause of the collapse, but they dismiss and diesel or oil fueled fires and were silent on everything below flr 8 in B7.

I've written in a number of forums, list serves etc... that there would be no single cause for a gravity driven collapse in any of the tree buildings which came down at the WTC. No single cause was sufficient in itself... but it was the aggregate or the synergistic effect of multiple causes which *broke the camel's back* and the towers came down.... with gravity as the main driving force once the structure had been failed.

We can all agree that if you undermine the columns which support a tower, the tower will collapse down and likely crush itself in the process... and this is how most CDs work. We also know that verinage shows that you can collapse a tall structure by freeing some of the upper floors to crush the floors below. Both traditional CD and verinage exploit gravity as the main energy input to destroy a structure.

We can agree that one could use massive explosive device and blast an entire (or most of it) to bits. This is not what we see in any of the WTC buildings. In the twins we can identify multiple stages, mechanisms or processes at work in the destruction. In B7 we can see various parts moving over time, the entire building swaying before decent and can conclude that there was a multi part process or progressive failure of the structure.

My efforts are an attempt to understand what happened... to propose alternates to NIST and the rather amorphous *CD* theory. Your efforts are an attempt to quosh an honest attempt to understand. Why must there be only two choices - NIST and CD? But more importantly why insult someone who is offering a theory?

No problem in falsifying the theory in total but falsifying its components. No problem in correcting the data and evidence and observations presented. Any theory MUST account for all evidence and observations. Discussion and debate is healthy... but it needs to be not a sling fest of insults.

I've asked you any number of times to explain how the CD worked in B7... what was the mechanism? Where were they devices placed and what were they? How were they set off? These requests are met by silence. I can only assume that you have no idea about the answers to these questions... whether they are based on *evidence* or even speculation.

This is hardly a debate... And while Irwin Cantor did not elaborate on his explanation... and I have.... and they share a key feature... I can only assume you consider him to be a NIST/government loyalist presenting claptrap.

OSS.. you need to read this entire article:

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

Posted by: elreb Jun 1 2012, 04:35 PM

New York City Department of Buildings

Freedom of Information Law Request for Records

…please note that 1, 2 and 7 World Trade Center have been designated as “sensitive buildings” Pursuant to 87(2) (f) of the Public Officer’s Law, plans for sensitive buildings are not released under FOIL, on the grounds that, “if disclosed, the documents requested would endanger the life or safety of any person.”

Hahaha...sensitive buildings to who?

Posted by: SanderO Jun 1 2012, 05:08 PM

Elreb,

We've known this for years... the question is why don't they want people to examine none existent already destroyed structures? There is no security risk that I can figure out. But withholding them would conceal all the design flaws etc IF...the big if... these contributed to the collapses. This is a motive that makes sense... but it is PURE SPECULATION... One could not make a construction liability case without access to the plans and specs etc... and the decisions related to their construction.... including the OEM center.

Another motive could be to simply withhold all the plans to promote all sorts of speculation which could not be verified without them.

9/11 is indeed a big mystery.... And as usual the government is not dealing straight.

There was an article yesterday about a leaked email related to a cover story issued by BP about how much oild was leaking from the well. These guys lie and cover their asses all the time. That is SOP for them.

Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 1 2012, 05:35 PM

QUOTE (SanderO)
But your declaring that this evidence does not exist or that I MUST supply it... and that it not be established in further investigation is aggressive and childish.


wall.gif

...and the "blown to bits" comment...Jesus H..

QUOTE
You don't have to accept TTF as a working hypothesis or theory. You don't have to like it. But characterizing it as a NIST/government loyalist claim is nonsense. NIST does not only not consider the T trusses as the cause of the collapse, but they dismiss and diesel or oil fueled fires and were silent on everything below flr 8 in B7.


Where did I say that SanderO??

I was referring to the FEMA/NIST claptrap about diesel fires. The same diesel fires you can't provide evidence for. The same theory you're pushing here....Where's the difference? You can't even begin discussing the mechanism of collapse without first showing the source! The source that should be easily discernible and proven!

I mean, how the hell did the black smoke that accompanies diesel fires get erased from the multiple images??

Do you actually read the posts?

One thing is to have a theory. Another is to base a foundless theory (that NIST doesn't dare touch) as a reason to reject all other observable evidence from witnesses to evaporized steel. To ignore the fact that NIST is on the ropes with WTC7, yet you perversely claim that you're on a quest for the "truth" when your "truth" is a (badly) veiled subplot to plant seeds that fire could actually bring down a steel structure. To attempt to stir up grey areas based solely on what you allegedly believe.

And especially when you use the excuse that you haven't time to search for this alleged evidence and would prefer to let others do the digging, and shoot them down with yet more unfounded speculation.

Better still, when folks at 911Forums don't entertain speculation, yet you feel free to post it here and play the victim when you piss people off because of the way you twist and distort what I or anybody else says to counter and expose your speculation. Every single post!

It's called trolling.

Edit added: and you acuse Elreb of "speculation"

laughing1.gif






Posted by: SanderO Jun 1 2012, 07:17 PM

This is not a debate... and not even a discussion... and it's basically a waste of time. Thanks to everyone who has followed this far. I hope it has opened your mind to other possibilities.


Posted by: elreb Jun 1 2012, 08:12 PM

I was just reading up on Tom Sullivan who worked for Controlled Demolition Inc. in 2001.

He gives one of the best explanations as to how WTC7 was imploded.

You only need to weaken the building by 30% and the best place to start was in the elevator shafts.

You had full access to all the core columns and no one can see you.

The 9:20 am explosion was probably intended to kill the elevators.

Sullivan was an E-17 Explosives Loader assisting the Blaster and Powder Carrier in transporting explosives to and from the magazines and handling explosives during loading operations at CDI.

He makes no bones and is very clear that WTC7 was imploded.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/sites/default/files/CDI%20Corporate%20Brochure.pdf

Posted by: SanderO Jun 1 2012, 10:46 PM

I'd say he's almost correct and would bet that he had no idea of the structure... the transfer trusses and cantilever girders... which the elevator shafts passed through and the core above rested on. I'm sure he also say that if you got into the mech flrs on 6&7 and took out the t trusses the core would collapse and implode the building (TTF).

Like Danny Jawenko... I would think they both haven't examined the plans before making their pronouncements about CD. But he got the core led aspect correct. If it *imploded* it left the curtain wall to descend on its own before folding inward...

What I do find curious about the structure... not having seen the plans... is that the T trusses and cantilever girders were alleged to be on the 6&7th floors and the electrical transformers for the tower and switch gear was on floors 4&5 and either had different column locations which avoided the sub station below... or those floors were hung from the T trusses on flr 6&7.

Let's see the plans!

Posted by: elreb Jun 1 2012, 11:32 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Jun 1 2012, 04:46 PM) *
Let's see the plans!

You live in NYC…so go get the prints.

No need to wonder what Tom said…it is all on video. He imploded buildings for a living.

Switchgear was on floors 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 [for the record] No transformers on the 4th floor.

No less than 12 structural engineers state that the building was imploded.

I’m not critical like OSS but could you please “start” making corrections to your statements.

I have gone back and edited most of my mistakes. [Which you should have caught]

I must admit that you make a good mentor who impairs wisdom to and shares little knowledge with a more experienced colleague. [No insult intended]

Posted by: SanderO Jun 2 2012, 09:21 AM

Elreb,

I can't get the plans and neither could the 12 structural engineers (truthers?) who have opined on the issue... aside from Cantor or Leslie Robertson. NIST work has been quite well *debunked*.... but I don't see much in the way of a sound mechanism from those engineers short of the general statement that the towers came down by controlled demolition... citing evidence which can also support in many cases gravity driven collapses.

I appreciate and accept all corrections of statements I have made about the details of B7. I don't see that any of these undermine the basic TTF theory... even if it WAS caused by devices used to destroy the t trusses... of which the evidence is not there. I am not interested in mentoring. I have a personal interest in understanding and justice. I also don't have the skills and resources to solve the 9/11 mysteries/crimes... nor see that as my personal mission. I share my ideas to hopefully inspire others to work at finding the truth.. which I don't think has been found yet.

There's lots of cognitive dissonance and denial of the very facts which should not be in dispute - the observations, physics and engineering.

Tom Sullivan and Major Tom are correct.... the videos tell the truth... but it is understanding the visuals and observations that is the truth... not the visuals themselves. Sullivan has one read, informed by his experience. Major Tom another. MT connects the dots he finds and documents... Sullivan uses analogy and experience mostly to come up with his conclusions.


Posted by: onesliceshort Jun 2 2012, 12:15 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Jun 2 2012, 12:17 AM) *
This is not a debate... and not even a discussion... and it's basically a waste of time. Thanks to everyone who has followed this far. I hope it has opened your mind to other possibilities.


It's opened my mind alright. You're full of crap.

Posted by: elreb Jun 3 2012, 12:06 PM

This is a good example of a steel elevator shaft

At the base, there is normally a sump pit and there is very little material covering the steel.

Does anyone think that a carpet fire would bring this down?

At ground level, you could have a "Blast".


Posted by: elreb Jun 3 2012, 11:34 PM

The knuckleheads at NIST gave away their game cards.

I now know what happen at WTC7

The truth is always hidden in the lie.

Posted by: 23investigator Jun 4 2012, 07:15 AM

QUOTE (elreb @ Jun 4 2012, 01:04 PM) *
I now know what happen at WTC7

The truth is always hidden in the lie.


Dear 'elreb'

'Pray' do tell sir!

Robert S

Posted by: elreb Jun 4 2012, 04:53 PM

Start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vUQjphJLuck#!

Posted by: elreb Jun 5 2012, 01:58 PM

What could cause something like this?


Posted by: SanderO Jun 5 2012, 06:11 PM

A steel frame which had many of the supporting columns and beams fail putting enormous torsional loads on the remaining members. You don't expect the columns and beams to just ALL come apart in neat sections? Buckling causes all sorts of distortions... heat weakens and softens steel as well. Weird isn't it? Frames don't fail every day so I suspect there are few images of same... especially very strong ones like in office towers...

Posted by: elreb Jun 5 2012, 06:53 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Jun 5 2012, 12:11 PM) *
A steel frame which had many of the supporting columns and beams fail putting enormous torsional loads on the remaining members.

Ok, now this is a good point.

“Many” columns and beams failed, [not one or two] thus putting NIST to shame.

Basically, NIST gives you most of the information yet cleverly comes up with the wrong conclusions.

They already admit that “diesel” was never an issue. There were no fires at 10:15 am. [watch the movie]

PSS: The picture above is by NIST of WTC7

Posted by: SanderO Jun 5 2012, 10:43 PM

In a progressive failure of a structure before the structure *lets go* there is a loss of reserve strength. This is a result of several things...

destroyed columns or axial support... for some reason columns are taken away and the load they carry is SUCCESSFULLY redistributed. The structure continues to stand with fewer columns because they still have reserve strength...

weakening of the remaining columns reducing their own yield strength from such things as mechanical damage or heat....both of which can rob a column of its yield strength.

application of new loads (rarely can this happen) since buildings don't typically see significant additional loads. This could be static or dynamic loads... the latter being something like another structure or its steel falling on it. Dynamic loads are many times what the same load would be as a static load. Bldg 4,5 &6 show what happens to a structure from applied dynamic loads.

A structure can remain standing with perhaps 2/3 of its columns at FOS 1... if there is say... more weakening ALL the columns will then buckle... or one column is removed... the 2/3- 1 cannot support the loads... all remaining ones buckle. Frame comes violently apart.

Posted by: elreb Jun 6 2012, 01:15 AM

Now, you are on the right track.

We can remove 33% of the buildings support and it will stand

All we need is a “Bump” and down it comes.

In your own words all you need is weakening due to mechanical damage…

Remove the fire and what is left?

Posted by: SanderO Jun 6 2012, 05:36 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EYPapE-3FRw

Posted by: elreb Jun 6 2012, 03:00 PM

Yes, Feynman liked building bombs.

• a = internal energy per gram
• b = growth rate
• c = sphere radius

a \approx (bc)^2 f

His speech “There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom” he considered the possibility of direct manipulation of individual atoms as a more powerful form of synthetic chemistry than those used at the time.

The talk is considered to be a seminal event in the history of manipulating matter on an atomic and molecular scale.

In chemistry, chemical synthesis is purposeful execution of chemical reactions to get a product, or several products…like melting 2” steel.

Posted by: SanderO Jun 6 2012, 03:18 PM

A structure standing with FOS 1 is vulnerable to collapse from even light winds. It is like a house of cards conceptually. If there is a structural collapse... the reserve strength of the structure is removed, eaten away until FOS drops below 1 and it takes very little to topple the whole thing.... that is what is left.

In the case of the twins... the axial strength... the reserve strength was about 65-85% for the columns. This varies with each column and floor but FOS 1.65 - 1.85 is what it appears to be. If columns were destroyed by plane impacts...the FOS is immediately driven down.. as the undamaged columns carry the loads of the destroyed ones. The weakening is from the application of heat. The columns need not melt to loose strength... they loose strength as their temperature is raise. More heat increased loss of strength. This need not be uniform and it need not be heat applied to an entire column. If one section is made very hot the strength of that section drops.... like erosion of one link in a chain... the entire chains' strength is reduced... it has the strength of the weakest link.

The loss of FOS in the twins was a complex and dynamic process... and it was likely similar with B7. And one can't rule out placed devices to drive the FOS down... But we don't have direct evidence of such devices. We do have direct evidence that the collapses were structural failures after a period of time as the reserve strength was being eroded and the FOS was driven to 1 and then it collapsed. One such failures occur there are often signs of the frame distorting during the load redistribution process and when the reserve strength is gone... the collapse is a rapid progression driven by gravity... the building's own mass.

The observations for all three buildings all indicate a gravity driven collapse. And we known of only SOME contributory factors... because we can't see the region where the weakening is taking place. We can only guess.

Posted by: elreb Jun 7 2012, 06:25 PM

QUOTE (SanderO @ Jun 6 2012, 09:18 AM) *
But we don't have direct evidence of such devices. We do have direct evidence that the collapses were structural failures after a period of time

NO...you don't have proof...I do!

However, I would like to see your "proof" of diesel fires first.

Yes, the steel was weakened by heat, yet not by fires.


Posted by: SanderO Jun 7 2012, 07:16 PM

Elreb,

I have a theory not proof of it. We seem to agree to a heat weakening but perhaps not on where the heat failed the structure and how the failure progressed (without heat) collapsing the whole structure.

The witnessed explosions I am attributing NOT to bombs... not enough of them and not related to building movement... but who knows. My suspicion is the failure took place where there were no offices and so no office fires. Something else had to be combusting... I suggested the stored fuel and the insulating oil used in transformers... I have no evidence of this I if these WERE the source of the fuel for the fires I don't think NIST or Con Ed would say so.

I don't expect to find the evidence, but perhaps a new investigation with more authority can find out what caused the heat and where it was applied to the structure.

My TTF theory has as much supporting evidence as CD and perhaps a bit more because it suggests the mechanism and sequence of structural failure. It's not a NIST theory by any means and it's not a CD one though the source of the heat could be placed devices... and the theory would be modified, but still a TTF... perhaps.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)