Wtc7 Southwestern Area, Source of smoke?
Jun 22 2012, 10:20 AM
Group: Valued Member
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095
WTC7 Southwest Corner
I've tried to piece together an overall view of the lower southwestern region of WTC7 pre 9/11.
South face legend:
South face promenade (left) and pedestrian bridge pre 9/11:
Aeriel view of south face (including promenade) pre 9/11 from North Tower:
The red "sculpture" seen on the promenade with southwestern section of WTC7 in background:
View from within the lobby towards the promenade:
The loading dock, to the southwest of the building, was 2 floors high, and was underneath the promenade.
Post South Tower
Following stills taken from this video:
Image taken allegedly at 10:15am on 9/11 underneath the promenade towards the southwest of WTC7:
As above — loading docks on right:
As above — further southwest
As above to the immediate right looking into the loading dock:
As above inside the loading dock:
As above but showing the far/south side of the promenade, opposite the loading dock:
Inside the ground floor lobby just beyond the loading dock — pedestrian bridge can be seen — this section of the lobby is 4 storys tall:
Reception area of third floor lobby:
As above — escalator to third floor (promenade entrance level)
Promenade seen from the west:
Post North Tower
"Southwest corner damage extended over floors 8 to 18 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]"
Promenade seen from east underneath pedestrian bridge after the North Tower collapse:
Enlarged - note that where the promenade meets the facade appears to be structurally sound:
"12:10 to 12:15 p.m.
- No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left floor 8
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]"
Columns and floors on the southwest corner (@1pm):
NCSTAR 1A pg 52
"The absence of diesel fuel fires on Floor 5 was consistent with the information from interviews that sometime after 1:00 p.m., OEM and FDNY staff climbed the east stairway of WTC 7 and did not see much damage on Floors 4, 5, or 6 from their viewing location. They made no mention of fire, heat or smoke."
East face of WTC7 door open - @1pm+
Following video stills of Southwest corner taken from these videos:
Original (without markings) — note the clean cut (around window line 6 area) and the fact that the smoke is self-contained within that corner of the building with no fires or smoke spreading through the undamaged section. Particularly along floors 12 and 13 seeing as how fires would be seen on floor 12 of the east face an hour later:
Southwest corner seen from Northwest:
Smouldering debris pile at Southwest corner:
White smoke apparently emanating from debris pile off of the southwest corner - where the promenade meets the south face:
1) There were positively no visible fires below Floor 7 throughout the day throughout the day and alleged FDNY reports until at least 1pm from within the building at floors 5 and 8 refute the existence of fires in the lower floors.
2) This section
goes into more detail about the photographic evidence available on the south face of WTC7. So far, I haven't seen any photographic evidence of visible fires on the south face of WTC7.
3) as for the Southwestern corner, short-lived fires were seen above the damaged section at floors 29 and 30 and were extinguished by 12:47pm. There were also smaller, short-lived fires at the southwest corner on floors 18 and 22.
4) smoke was seen emanating from the rubble pile on the promenade, with the possibility that the smoke was funneled up through the "hole" in the facade and possibly from the lower section of the damage. Again, we're left with the problem of the fact that no fires spread from this area..
What could possibly have been producing smoke for close on 5 hours and not produce visible fires or fire damage to the surrounding area? And why was the smoke concentrated in that section?
I think that the answer lies in the combustible free lower lobbys and promenade. That the NIST claimed (and visible) externally visible damage between the 8th and 18th floor extended through to one of the lobbys and that it was self contained within that area.
Why does it matter at all? Subtract the smoke from WTC5 and 6. Then subtract the smoke/dust that was billowing from the southwest corner for most of the day. Then try and convince people that anything other than CD brought that building down. Whether by exotic explosives, or external forces other than "office fires".
This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Apr 21 2013, 02:16 PM
Jul 1 2012, 10:50 PM
Group: Valued Member
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095
(IMG:http://www.rebrammer.com/images/coned1.jpg) Con-Ed before
(IMG:http://www.rebrammer.com/images/coned2.jpg) Con-Ed after
(IMG:http://www.rebrammer.com/images/coned3.jpg) Con-Ed and ramp
I found these images at 911forum (Mr. Koenig). Very handy.
Jul 2 2012, 12:12 AM
Joined: 23-December 09
Member No.: 4,814
The trusses in the photos appear to be mis-labeled. Also the trusses are MUCH larger and more complex than the cartoon depicts them. Something is not kosher here because the cartoon does not reflect the actual construction.
The trusses are 3 dimensional *space frames* and appear to span over the entire sub station (second to last photo). This makes sense because it was impossible to have the tower's core columns pass through the sub station to bedrock and so the truss(es) were designed to support the core columns above. The core was above the sub station.
The north row of columns opposite the core inside the face also could not go down to bedrock. So there were cantilever girders which *picked up) the columns at the end of the cantilever. The south then of those cantilever girders were supported by a row of columns abutting the sub station.
The cartoon makes them appear as single plane structures... They clearly are not. Mr Kpenig seems to be confused... or he's confused me... or both.
The question which needs to be researched is:
Why did PANY want to build the tower over the sub station when vacant lots were available across West Street just north of the AmEx tower in the WFC? The complications made this decision not only costly... and difficult to erect... but vulnerable to a sub station explosion (they DO occur).
And why would they further decided place 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored in tanks and passing up next to the sub station.. in the 90s? That decision seems to have ignored the potential problems that a sub station explosion could cause to the tower it was beneath.
Good to see that you are looking at the structure.
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 20th June 2013 - 03:00 AM|