Wtc 7 And Sandero, NIST v speculation
Mar 5 2012, 12:25 PM
Group: Valued Member
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095
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.
SanderO claims that fire was a factor. NIST says
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 fašade collapsed.
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)
From NIST again, differentiating between the collapses of the towers and WTC7 (again emphasizing that fire was the cause of collapse.
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.
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
SanderO claims that "fuel oil systems" contributed (exaggeratedly) to the heat and fires in the building...
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...
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 fašade 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.
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.
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.
WTC7 on 9/11 - Strange Occurrence Within the Last 20 Minutes - 03:20 mark
Explosion heard just before collapse
NIST explanation of Jennings/Hess accounts:
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
Michael Hess, WTC7 explosion witness
Finally, there is no physical proof that heat caused the collapse nor were any steel samples checked for explosive/exotic explosive residue.
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.
This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Mar 5 2012, 12:31 PM
Apr 25 2012, 11:30 AM
Joined: 23-December 09
Member No.: 4,814
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:
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.
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 25th May 2013 - 11:29 PM|