Wtc 7 And Sandero, NIST v speculation Options

[SanderO]

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?

[kawika]

SanderO

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

[onesliceshort]

If that's WTC5 or 6, I'm lost!

One of the strangest images I've seen for a while.

[SanderO]

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.

[kawika]

Here's another one. Probably WTC5 or 6.

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/8977/dc...wtfhappened.jpg


Here's one that looks like a WTC7 wind girder assembly, badly eroded.

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2892/dsc0...girdersever.jpg

This exhibits the silent demolition mechanism I envision.

[SanderO]

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.

[kawika]

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?

[SanderO]

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?

[onesliceshort]

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/dc...wtfhappened.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:

(IMG:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-j23eT9JX5jc/TesDxSZpfSI/AAAAAAAAASc/dyh3aWGliQY/s1600/nistwtc7sim.jpg)


There's a detailed analysis here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch4.htm

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/2011/0...pective_04.html

(IMG:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cceX_iAbxW8/Ter9V-K9U_I/AAAAAAAAARk/KnqMUDmmJZA/s1600/wtc5pic.jpg)

(IMG:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-67sWR5WCFTQ/Ter-CzA9GfI/AAAAAAAAARs/QuLPnyvf1Bo/s1600/wtc5floors.jpg)

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.

(IMG:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MYmo7Kzv-bk/Ter_dQ3rfZI/AAAAAAAAAR0/JFfmckssPVc/s1600/wtc5floors4.jpg)

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:

(IMG:http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XLLPFGDkb38/Ter_9LbrzWI/AAAAAAAAAR8/Kdz6ZsQzTx0/s1600/3floor.png)

What say you SanderO?

[onesliceshort]

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

[SanderO]

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.

[onesliceshort]

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;jsessioni...57-001cc4568fb6

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!

[elreb]

Ask CIT

[SanderO]

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.

[SanderO]

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.

[elreb]

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...

[elreb]

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]

[SanderO]

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.

This post has been edited by SanderO: May 4 2012, 10:30 PM

[onesliceshort]

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/pilotfly.gif)

[onesliceshort]

I only talk about WTC7...

Larry knew what he was saying...

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wt...rom_wtc_5_6.htm

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.