MSD

Willravel

Preface:
I invite you to read the 9/11 Commission Final Report (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/), the initial FEMA report on the WTC collapse (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html) the NIST website (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) and the NIST reports (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/). These encompass the government’s full accounting for the occurrences on 9/11 and are very important to this thread’s content.

This thread is here for two reasons: to present evidence that contradicts the official account of the occurrences on 9/11, and to either prove this evidence correct beyond a reasonable doubt or to prove it incorrect beyond a reasonable doubt. This thread is not about conclusions about the “bigger picture” (ex.: aliens did it). This is simply about verifiable facts being tested. Anyone who is thinking of asking something like, “But how did they get away with it?” is welcome to join the 9/11 thread in Paranoia.

Because this thread is evidence based, it is not paranoia. Paranoia is an incorrect thought process that’s motivated by anxiety or fear. This discussion will be dispassionate (this also means leave your anger at the door). Paranoia is irrational. This discussion will be rational. Paranoia is delusional. This discussion will be factual. If anyone is concerned about someone who may be violating this, please hit the warn button or private message me. Don’t allow anyone to derail the conversation. Anyone behaving inappropriately will be dealt with accordingly.

This thread will deal with the following 9/11 subjects:
- WTC 1 (also known as the North Tower) and 2 (also known as the South Tower)
- WTC 7
- The Pentagon
- Arlington, Virginia
- The Hijackings
- Lead up
- Aftermath
- Other


I’ll get us started by using photographic evidence preceding, during and after the collapse of the building known as WTC 7. These photographs were taken by various people but were all in reputable publicans after 9/11 including but not limited to major news media and government.

This first image is just to establish the subject. This is World Trade Center Buidling 7 (from now on referred to as WTC 7). It was 741’ tall at 49 stories and had a floor area of 1.7 million sq ft. The shape is trapezoidal from above and it is a quadrangular prism. The shorter of the parallel walls of the building was on the south (pictured below), while the longer was on the north. WTC 7 was surrounded by the Post Office and Verizon Building.


After WTC 2 (the South Tower) was struck, some debris from the damaged areas hit WTC 7 on it’s southern wall. The following photographs were taken from the southeast and displays fires caused by said debris.



According to the initial report by FEMA (WTC Building Performance Study), the floor assemblies detached from where they connected to the inner columns and outer walls that started a chain reaction of collapses. (1) Unfortunately, this theory does not stand up to scrutiny. Not only did armature investigators and news outlets debunk this theory, but it was abandoned by NIST in their 2004 investigation.

NIST’s investigations pointed at debris instead of fire that caused the complete collapse of WTC 7. They theorize, though have stopped investigating, that the “The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7…On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.”. (2)
The following image is the evidence, which has been presented as the “scooped out” area and has only appeared once officially, in the NIST report.


Now is when things get a little confusing.

The following is a link to a video broadcast on CBS taken from the north of the building (taken from 1000 ft or .18 miles from the collapse).
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse2.mpg

Please watch this video very carefully. It is not sped up whatsoever. For all intents and purposes, this building fell straight down and evenly. We are witnessing asymmetrical damage supposedly causing a symmetrical collapse. Unfortunately, the NIST report, while explaining collapse initiation, does not explain how the collapse initiation leads to global collapse, or the collapse of the entire building.

The following is a picture taken by an amateur photographer of the southwest of WTC 7, which is exactly where the supposed damage has been done to the building as seen in the NIST photograph above.

The original picture (large)
The following is a comparison between the two:

This is not the only image to have surfaced—that shows no signs of tampering—which contradicts the image used by NIST to show the damage to WTC 7 which supposedly cause the collapse.

Last piece of evidence, I promise:

WTC7, despite only suggested damage to one side of the building, has in fact collapsed into it’s own footprint almost perfectly.

It should be noted that before and since 9/11/01, no steel frame building has ever fallen due to fire. There have been high rise fires that have lasted more than 18 hours, burning out many floors, but none has ever caused any significant structural problems and definitely no collapses.


1. Figure 2-20 from FEMA’s WTC Building Performance Study
2. 2. NIST interview with Popular Mechanics

Rekna

I have to say the two contradictory images of building 7 are interesting. At least 1 of them has been doctored. It is usually pretty easy to detect doctored photos by looking at them in something like photoshop.

Willravel

While I'm only an amateur, I cannot find any evidence that either of the photographs has been doctored. If anyone has the expertise necessary to make an informed decision regarding the contradictory pieces of photographic evidence, I would invite them to join in and contribute.

loquitur

I remember watching the building collapse on TV. A friend of mine worked at the SEC, which was in 7 WTC, so I was very interested in the scene. Number 7 came down IIRC around 5pm on 9/11. It appeared to have been weakened from the lower parts of the building, so that it collapsed almost like an accordion at the bottom, and then the rest of the building fell in from the impact. That's what it looked like at the time.

When those buildings were all up, they were pretty close together. #1 and #2 had a space between them, connected underground, but there wasn't that much space between #1 and #7, and there was a bridge across West Street extending out of #7 behind it. The Customs Service was in #7, too, IIRC.

All of this is a long way of saying that the fires could well have caused a straight-down collapse if they were on the floors in the lower half of the building. Remember, there was an electric substation there, too.

MSD

I checked contrast, brightness, and color pallet in both regular and Neither shows any signs of blatant doctoring, although the low resolution of the smaller picture makes doctoring difficult to detect.

Do you know the amount of time that lapsed between the two photos being taken? the shadows seem to indicate that the larger picture was taken mid-day and the one with more damage taken either when the sun was lower in the sky or when significantly more sunlight was blocked by smoke. Was there any non-catastrophic structural collapse preceding the total collapse that could have occurred between when the large photo was taken and the one with more damage was taken?

Willravel

Yes, many eye witnesses confirmed what your friend described about the initial collapse happening towards the bottom, and uniformly.

Assuming that the photograph provided in the NIST report was accurate, there is still a question as to how what was supposedly asymmetrical damage to the building (the scooped out area) can lead to a symmetrical collapse across an entire floor or set of floors, which is not only what was described by eyewitnesses such as your friend, but which is supported by videos of the collapse like the one I presented above.
It's good you mentioned this. I forgot to include a layout of the WTC preceeding 9/11.

This is the layout. Both the North Tower (WTC 1) and the South Tower (WTC 2) fell reasonably into their footprints, though the cloud of debris from the bottoms each spread quite far. You can actually see the cloud from the collapse of WTC 1, the collapse closest to WTC 7, decending after striking the side of WTC 7 in the photograph that contradicts the NIST photograph. That actually gives us a very good idea of when the photograph was taken.

I do not know, however, when the NIST photograph was taken. That information isn't available.
This is precisely the conclusion I reached regarding the pictures. Clearly one is mistaken.
The larger photograph taken by the amateur was probably taken anywhere from 20 seconds to 10 minutes after the collapse of WTC 1 (which occurred at 10:28 EST). The description used in an interview with the photographer used the phrase "just after". The possible conclusions:
1) The picture is doctored
2) The picture is correct and was taken after the collapse of the South Tower and proves there was no damage
3) The picture is correct and was taken after the collapse of the South Tower, but the damage in the NIST picture somehow happened afterwards.

I can't think of another explanation, but maybe someone else can. The only thing I can be sure of is that the NIST picture is intended to show damage to WTC 7 caused by the collapse of WTC 1, as it's clearly stated in the NIST report.

host

This is the actual original WTC 7 photo, scanned by the photographer, and displayed in his website. Click on the photo, <a href="http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-110.jpg">here</a> The larger version is more dramatic:<p><br>
<center><img src="http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-110_1_small.jpg"></center><p><br>I downloaded the large format (15 mb file size) photo file, and cropped the corner, right below the double floor area of burned windows, and above the top of the Winter Garden building, (probably the 12th is the lowest visible floor) in the foreground, using my lazy/easy to use "Photo Studio" program, and I uploaded the resulting 1.5 mb file to a web address:<p><br><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/wtc7sw.jpg" width="1298" height="1272"><p><br>The following two shots were obviously taken from a helicopter, after the twin towers had both collapsed, and the dust clouds from the second collapse had dissipated. The purpose of the follwoing shot is to give a perspective of just how far in from the Hudson river, the brown colored, reflective walled, WTC 7, actually was. The distinctive roof of the blue topped building, just to the right of WTC 7, helps to highlight the different angle in the bottom photo:<br><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/wtc7a.jpg" width="1200" height="900">
<p><br>I counted down from the top floor of WTC 7, and I believe that the SW corner area below the 23rd floor is visible in the shot, tending to offer more visual confirmation that the corner of WTC 7 was not "gouged out". I am still looking for support for opinions of others that the original shot from the NIST website, in willravel's first post, is certainly not the original "hi rez" file, taken by the NYPD helicopter photographer. Consider that I am showing you much better resolution, and evidence that other shots of WTC 7, not obscured by dust or smoke, are most likely available for NIST to examine and to Share with us, especially considering that <a href="http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20021209g.asp">NIST made a public appeal</a> in 2002, for photos of WTC 7.<br><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/wtc7b.jpg">

Atreides88

I apologize before hand if I lose anybody here, but I'll step in as an engineer if I may. Also, as much as I'd like to cite my sources, I don't think any of y'all want to pay for $800's worth of engineering textbooks.

The collapse of WTC 7 makes complete and total sense from an engineering perspective. I'll list my arguments to make it a bit more readable.

1.) Buildings are designed to support their weight and any other kind of loads(i.e. dead loads, wind loads, snow/rain loads, etc.) in complete equilibrium. What this means is that all of the supports are responsible for upholding this loading and should any of the supports, especially 25% of the building be damaged or destroyed the building will fail and collapse in upon itself.

2.) The beams will already be subjected to all kinds of stress because of their loading. Stress is essentially force divided by cross-sectional area. Now, there are three kinds of stress that are important: normal stress, shear stress, and bearing stress. As the loads increase, especially if supports and the foundation start to fail, the stress in the remaining beams will increase as the load(force) they are supporting increases. As stress increases you the materials start to reach their "yield" points(as plotted on a stress curve) and begin to buckle, bend, etc. This only worsens the problem as the loading becomes even more assymetrical and increases on the remaining beams, said beams will quickly reach their failure point, where they permanently deform, snap, explode(more for timber), and fracture.

3.) While fire may not cause failure outright, it can lead up to it. As steel and just about every metal is heated, it becomes more ductile(malleable, can bend easily) and thus will deform under loading. Also, let us not forget that these fires were started by aircraft crashing into the WTC 1 and WTC 2, which means they were no doubt accelerated by jet fuel(I don't recall off hand what most commercial jet fuel is). This means they were burning at far higher temperatures than would other burn in a normal structural fire, which also means they were closer to the melting point of the steel. As you get closer and closer to that melting point, steel becomes more and more ductile, and will begin to deform far more easily than it would otherwise.

4.) WTC 7 did not collapse until after WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed. The energy from those two towers collapsing had to go somewhere. It was directed into all of the other buildings and objects surrounding it. As the building falls, the potential energy it has is quickly converted into kinetic energy. We'll just look at a single floor. As that floor falls it converts potential energy into kinetic energy and then when it impacts the ground it must then "find" a place for that kinetic energy it has to go. Some is converted into sound energy, the rest will cause the debris to scatter and explode, sending debris everywhere and causing damage in the surrounding buildings.

__________________
"There is no need to suppose that human beings differ very much one from another: but it is true that the ones who come out on top are the ones who have been trained in the hardest school." -- Thucydides

Jinn

"Conspiracy theories love a vacuum. And Building 7 is a major focus precisely because initially there wasn't as much evidence and there wasn't as much known about what happened with Building 7..."

The first half is a good introduction, but if you're versed in the issue, skip to 4:00. It does a very good job of addressing each theory.

Your concerns about "how" it fell are addressed quite well; after 6:02 and beyond, especially.

I have yet to find credible evidence which demonstrates a strong contradiction with the information in this video.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Sticky

So the issue we are left with regarding the pictures is the timing of the pictures used in the NIST report.
Is this solvable? If not, maybe we can't compare these images as two seperate truths as if they were seperate (and different) images of the same point in time.

I think it is correct to say that the actions that caused the damage to WTC7 are the collapses of one or both WTC1 and WTC2.
I do think, however, that not all of the evidence of damage shows right away but can take some time to show up. After the initial damage is inflicted on WTC7 it is possible that the damaged area can degrade more as time passes (pieces that were broken, cracked, loosened can fall off).

Anyway, my point is that time can be a factor and it is possible that the two images are truth at different points in time.
If we can't find out the time of the NIST image then the two images do not necessarily contradict each other.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Atreides88

Here are some introductions to concepts I described, such as stress, loading, etc. I apologize for any grammar errors as I wrote that at about 0830 this morning before class.

Engineering Stress

Force

Engineering Yield

Mechanical Engineering

Mechanical Equilibrium

Yes, I know it's all wikipedia, but I've found wikipedia to be a good introductory website.

Yes. The laws of physics and good old-fashioned engineering know-how are wonderful things.

__________________
"There is no need to suppose that human beings differ very much one from another: but it is true that the ones who come out on top are the ones who have been trained in the hardest school." -- Thucydides

Willravel

One can usually find the necessary links online to support their degrees. I can find enough to support my psych degree.
[QUOTE=Atreides88]The collapse of WTC 7 makes complete and total sense from an engineering perspective. I'll list my arguments to make it a bit more readable.
At what temperature would the steel used to construct the skeleton of a building become weakened to any significant degree?
http://web.archive.org/web/200308181...fire/fr006.htm
This site has a lot of good data. How hot would a fire fueled by your average office burn? Add to that the firefighters quotes saying there were only small fires and, as NIST concluded in their 2004 report, fire played almost no role in the collapse.
Are you talking about seismic kinetic energy or contact with debris?

Jinn

Comments on the video I posted, Will?

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Willravel

The gentleman speaking at 4:00 is an editor for a publication, not any kind of expert on demolitions, explosives, buildings, or anything pertaining to the thread. In addition to this, he provides no evidence to supports his claims. He simply states his claims as fact.
6:00 "We didn't find any blasting caps in 5 years". The material from WTC 7 started shipping off days after 9/11 and has been completely gone for years. It was not shipped off to be investigated, but rather to be melted down. While his message would have one believe that they've been looking for this evidence for years, the fact is that they were only looking for a few days.
"Debris rained down, scooping out part of the building" We've already covered this.
"Fires raged on for the rest of the day" The "rest of the day" was actually only 7 hours.
"The trusses heated up from the fire and caused the collapse" This is, of course, incorrect. The link I included in my previous post proves this.
"There's strong evidence that the fires were fed by the fuel lines" And they don't supply said evidence.

I'm sorry, Jinn, but not only does the video attempt to exaggerate information, it's flat out wrong on some points and provides no evidence.

Jinn

You're right, he's just an editor. But he's an editor for POPULAR MECHANICS, discussing their 9/11 articles, for which they:

I doubt that you've personally consulted "more than 70 professionals" about concepts of Engineering, nor have you acted as an editor for a technical magazine. While you might call his credibility into account, I think that (at the very least) he has more contacts and more relevant engineering knowledge than you or Alex Jones.

Do you know who the man speaking was? His name is Brent Blanchard. He's the author of "A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 and 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT", available
here He's not a stranger to scientific publication, and has a handful available, including: A History of Explosive Demolition in America". Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique: 27–44, International Society of Explosives Engineers. ISSN 0732-619X. He is also the DIRECTOR of Field Operations for Protec, who describe themselves as:

I believe him when he talks about building demolition. His experience similarly lends credence to his comments earlier in the documentary about "Pull it" not being a demolition phrase. Also, from their paper:



You'll note that he was PERSONALLY there, taking thousands of pictures of the rubble before it was transported away. To DIRECTLY address your assertion, here is another section:



This is almost not worth arguing, as it's relatively semantic. The average time between sunset and sunrise is roughly 9 hours. Since the sun was already up when the planes hit, "7 hours" is equivalent to "the rest of the day." Clearer?

Which link? You've presented quite a few, and I missed the one that "proved" that trusses were "of course"not heated and did not cause the collapse.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Willravel

I've already addressed the entire PopMech book elsewhere. I'm not doing it again and please present your own work.

The correct point that the man in the video is an editor and has no expertise on the subject still stands.
You're right, I've contacted a lot more than 70 people who work in fields that are relevant to the discussion, but that means exactly nothing. "I've contacted 70 engineers" is not a fact and is not evidence. This is both your first and last warning. Facts and evidence only. Assertions and fallacies can go in Paranoia, but have no place in this thread.
This doesn't disprove the fact that the wreckage was immediately shipped out and that they had days, not years, to locate blasting caps. A degree, being a director, and being an author on a subject does not allow one to control the passage of time.

This will be the last time a title will be used in lieu of evidence in this thread. "Dr." isn't the same as "is always correct". Evidence cannot lie.
http://web.archive.org/web/200308181...fire/fr006.htm

Jinn

Bye. Enjoy your thread.

There's a reason that no one but me dares discuss this with you. I don't think you know that how you word things does everything BUT foster discussion. If you want to play the rule maker, then I'll let you have your little box of rules while I go have a discussion elsewhere.

And for the record, you're not a moderator; stop acting like one.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

troit

Everyone take a deep breath and chill out. The purpose of threads like this is constructive conversation.

__________________
I've yet to dephile myself...

Willravel

Okay.
You didn't provide evidence, instead making fallacious arguments. I call you on it, you leave, but not before attempting to chastise me:
For the record, MSD's message was something you were supposed to read, and in his post he made it clear that one was to avoid logical fallacies. MSD is a moderator and has graciously agreed to help keep an eye on this thread. Out of respect to him, I would hope people would take his advice.

Thank you, troit. I appreciate your attempt to help keep things on track.

Shauk

JinnKai.

The reason the rules are to stick to "Facts" and provable content only is that if you don't have the materials to build that bridge, then you're expecting people to walk out half way and make the leap of faith and take your word for it. (or in this case, some other dudes word)

The fact of the matter is, while the majority of people in this world would love to believe that the government would never lie to us or kill it's own people via demolitions, the statements issued vs conflicting evidence (otherwise known as facts that weren't addressed) would raise suspicion in anyone who is truly interested in learning all the facts that lead up to, contribited to, and followed up on that event.

Willravel

Oops! Sorry, I missed this.
This is absolutely correct. We are to assume the picture took place some time between the collapse of WTC 1 and the collapse of WTC 7, which leaves us quite a bit of time. The damage in the NIST picture was credited to the collapse of WTC 1, but it's not said if the damage was immediately caused. Unfortunately, further information simply doesn't exist to the public.
You are correct. If they were taken at different times and if WTC 7 had a collapse of some sort long after the collapse of WTC 1 (option 3), then the pictures do not contradict each other. Thus, further information is needed:
1) Any other evidence, including eyewitness reports, that can verify a collapse that happened after the immediate damage of the collapse of WTC 1
2) Specific verifiable times of each photograph.
3) Further photographic or video evidence of WTC 7 immediately before it's collapse.
That's one theory.
This would be hypothetical option #3 from the post you responded to.
There are other photographs taken of WTC 7 by the photographer available. Unfortunately, the times of the photographs are not available which doesn't help.

Atreides88

1.) Depends, do you know what kind of steel or materials were used to build WTC 7? That makes a lot of difference. So, fire may not have played a big role. I concede that point. Still, the undamaged portions of the building were no doubt over stressed by having to support the loads the other supports weren't able to hold up. This causes buckling and mechanical failure. If it is widespread enough, which it obviously was, the building whole building comes down upon itself. That fact does not change. Also, do you know where exactly the fires were in the building? Do you have blueprints to correlate where those fires were with were vital load-bearing beams were located? [URL="Considering most room fires burn in excess of 1000 degrees Celcius, you do the math."[/URL]

2.)Both.

__________________
"There is no need to suppose that human beings differ very much one from another: but it is true that the ones who come out on top are the ones who have been trained in the hardest school." -- Thucydides

Byrnison

I didn't know much about WC7 before now, this thread got me curious enough to start digging into the information available, and actually just consumed the last 4 hours of my life

The prevailing explanation of the tower collapse is that debris from WTC 1 impacted WTC 7, damaged a fuel oil system that fed generators on the 5-9th floors, feeding a fire that weakened the steel support columns on the East side of the building and eventually caused them to fail and the building to collapse.
If I understand correctly, there are 3 main questions/points:
1) Where is the damage that was in the report?
2) Were there fires that weakened the support structure (and if so how did they burn so hot)?
3) How did the building collapse in such a symmetric way?


I will be up-front and admit that I kept coming back to www.debunking911.com. While the author of the site at times takes a dismissive tone, I found his reasoning and sources to be persuasive and within the realm of credibility that supports the prevailing explanation of collapse. I understand that per the format of this thread sources may be brought into question but I would also encourage you to look at his collection of arguments at http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm and http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm as another source of information to consider.


1) Where is the Damage?
Regarding the NIST picture of the Southwest corner, I would offer a 4th possibility that smoke is obscuring the corner. However, I would also say that the damage to this corner of the building was not what was being referred to, and it is unfortunate that the NIST report didn't have a better picture to show.

The "scooped out" section referenced by the report was on the *South* face of the building, *not* the Southwest corner as shown in the picture. The report also had a graphic showing the possible locations of initial failure, that showed (in a cross-hatched orange region) the damaged areas. Note that the largest damage area is supposed in the middle of the south wall, and a much smaller damage area is shown on the southwest corner:

The thinking goes that a large chunk of WTC1 impacted the building, tearing out the wall and floors between 2 outer columns. If you watch the video above, it appears that the gash goes from the top of the building down at least 20 floors, possibly more, which is corroborated by a fireman on the scene.
The smoke blowing through the building makes the damage difficult to see. This video zooms in at about the :32 mark

and this still is taken from the video:


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9.../gz/boyle.html


1a) Why this Damage could have been significant to the collapse:
It is surmised that the fire was fed by fuel oil that failed to shut off when the supply piping was damaged, the routing systems for the piping crossed the area of damage:

As I said above, it is unfortunate that the NIST report did not have pictures showing the damage to which they are referring, but I believe that their graphic showing the possible initial failure locations, coupled with the videos and photos above, indicate that the damage was there and was as significant as was reported.

The fires and collapse mechanic still need to be addressed, but I fear that this is already eye-glazingly long. I also want to verify that I am staying within the spirit of the posting rules, and to discuss any points of debate that this post may generate

Willravel

Before I start, thanks for an honest and open-minded response.

This picture comparison uses identical damage in order to determine which floors are seen. Look carefully at the bottom 5 yellow lines showing where the photographs match up. I don't know about you, but there doesn't seem to be smoke covering the lower area in the amateur photograph (in comparison to the area shown to be damaged in the NIST picture where there is obvious damage). It's pretty clear that these pictures aren't showing the same thing.
Yes, this is the illustration provided by NIST, but that exists in a vacuum of evidence. No photographic evidence is known to exist that verifies this damage. If there were such photographic evidence (that was verifiable), it would change my perception of the situation considerably.
I'm sorry but I don't see anything in the smoke to suggest damage. If you do see something, could you highlight it?

Again, thanks. I was a bit concerned that things were off course there for a minute. I hope the 4 hours were enjoyable.

Byrnison

Well, enjoyable for a knowledge gaining standpoint, but tempered by the fact that I was researching a tragedy

Here is the pic with my attempt to highlight the gash. There were other pictures available but the smoke was so dense that it obscures it and this was the clearest. I would suggest keeping this picture in mind, then watching the video again from about the :32 second mark to around :50, as it pans up to the roof and offers an (arguably) clearer sense of scale.



From the West Side face, the gash is about 4 or 5 columns over from the corner of the building (referencing the NIST Chart...oh, it's easier to post a highlighted pic):

Willravel

Oh, you mean the vertical dark stripe. It appears to be very uniform. Are you sure that's a gash from debris? Could it be a shadow? I'm not familiar enough with the skyline of NYC.

MSD

Since I volunteered to moderate the discussion, I don't want to get too involved in it, but I also want to spur discussion along when I feel I can add something, having done a fair amount of research on the subject. The following quotes are by Thomas Eagar, who is a Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. He discussed how fire could have brought down the towers in the first paragraph, and how the design of WTC 7 contributed to its eventual collapse in the second.

What I got from this is that structural steel doesn't have to be near its melting point, and doesn't have to lose much strength to cause damage, all that has to happen is for it to deform until connections to the center and the steel exoskeleton start to break, transferring loads to adjacent columns until those are also overloaded. The resulting domino effect would be what cause the collapses minutes and hours later.

In WTC1 and WTC2, the planes' impacts seem to have been sufficient to strip away fireproofing materials from columns. Damage from debris approaching the extent claimed in the NIST report in addition to seismic shock from the towers falling is likely to have caused significant damage to fireproofing material surrounding columns in WTC7. Seismic shock and debris are also likely to have damaged windows, at least in the immediate area of the fires, which is significant according to Dr. Egan.

Willravel

What would have caused the fire to burn at 1300F? The hottest house fires rarely even reach 1000F, most closer to the 300-800F range. House fires are usually fueled by wood, which is substantially less common in a building made of steel and concrete.

I can't find any statistics about high rise fires that strike me as being reliable (most are on 9/11 conspiracy pages), but I cannot believe that they burn hotter than house fires considering the fuel.

The melting point/loss of strength point is actually my fault, or at least the fault of conspiracy theorists. After 9/11, the melting point of steel was used as evidence pertaining to the collapses to WTC 1, 2, and 7. It represented one of the largest struggling points of the movement because it was a mistake repeated over and over, and one that was easily debunked. It wasn't until 2004 that the theories really began shifting away from the melting point and towards the point at which steel begins to lose it's tensile strength. That particular evidence is relevant, which is why I posted it above in post 13.

scout

Add a little K1 or K2 to that house fire and see what happens to your 300 to 800 degrees F. Then factor in a small breeze to help get some oxygen where it needs it and don't be surprised if you don't easily double or even triple those numbers. A gallon or less of K1 or K2 burns hot enough to catch dripping, drenching wet wood and brush piles afire and it's a heck of a lot safer to use than gasoline, been there done that! Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't K1 the equivalent of jet fuel?

*edit* Also think of all the plastics and rubber based items that had to be in those offices, much more than what's in your "normal" house fire and while it takes a pretty hot fire to get them started once you get'em going they burn pretty darn hot, as hot if not hotter than your required 1300F.

host

Just to clarify....are you posting about WTC 7?

Sinec the NIST WTC 7 investigation status meeting, on December 18, 2007, the NIST "working hypothesis", does not include any petroleum distillate fueled fire, only normal building fires", from my post #191, in the "part I" thread, on page 5:

The disclosure by the chief NIST WTC 7 investigator at the 12/18/07 meeting, that NIST's "working hypothesis" does not currently include diesel oil fueled fires, only fires that are "normal building fires".....

The transcript of the minutes of the 12/18/07 meeting were apparently not available until two days ago. In this post, #180, I posted a link to the recording of the meeting and a log of the time points in the recording, where relevant points, highlighted below, were discussed:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=180

Willravel

There was no kerosine in WTC 7. The planes struck WTC 1 and 2, and the jet fuel burned out in less than 10 minutes, most of it in the initial impacts.

scout

Aw but somewhere in this thread there is a post about there being fuel oil, which is the same thing for the most part.

Please refer to post #24 for this tidbit :

Fuel Oil

Diesel

Jet Fuel

You will see they are all pretty much the same thing, some are just refined a little more and others have a few extra additives.

host

The "tidbit" in <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2387703&postcount=24">post #24</a> was poster Byrnison's own opinion, possibly influenced by media reports and prior comments by NIST investigators, in their now, six years plus, long, and yet to be completed, investigation of the collapse of WTC 7.

I've posted the current NIST "working hypothesis", relevant excerpts from the transcript of their Dec. 17, 2007 meeting, and the time log points where the combustibles in WTC 7 are discussed by NIST, on Dec., 18. Listen to the audio and use my time points to minimize the time you have to spend.

The media covered the speculation of what fueled the WTC 7 fires, in the months following the 9/11 collapse, but they did not report on the new NIST disclosures.

Byrnison posted a now obsolete assumption.

Even in 2005, when NIST released it's 10,000 page report on this collpases of WTC 1 & 2, they were laying the groundwork for abandoning a hypothesis for "diesel oil fueled fires", in WTC 7.:

The above status was issued on April 5, 2005. 31 months later, NIST stated that it's working hypothesis involves ONLY "normal building fires", and NIST asnswered a question on Dec. 18, 2007, as to what those fires were fueled by; "normal"room contents, predicted to be 4 lbs, of combustibles, per square foot, consumed in moving fires, buring no more than 20 minutes in a given location, before completely consuming the combustibles.

scout

OK I'll buy that, I was just working off previous posts and I'm by no means an expert of any kind on anything that happened on 9/11. It sounds like they haven't ruled out the possibility of fuel contributing to the fire though. From your post :

host

That text on page 38 was a quote from the NIST April, 2005 WTC 7 Investigation Status presentation.

At the NIST December, 18, 2007 WTC 7 Investigation Status presentation, Diesel fuel or other combustibles not found normally in an office building, are not being considered in the current working hypothesis. Since NIST claims it will offer a preliminary report withing six months for a period of public comment, and a final report in August, seven months from now, there will be no time to do computer modeling of the effects of anything but what NIST described on Dec. 18. Normal building fires, no diesel fuel or other combustibles burning in the building. They allow for 4 lbs, of office type contents, per square foot of floor space, as the only fuel feeding fires in their working hypothesis.

In the audio I linked to, there is an explanation that an allowance is made of plus or minus ten percent in combuistion generated gas temperatures, to compensate for the unpredictable combustible contents densirty and variety, on each floor of the building, consumed in normalbuilding fires.

If the report is finished in August, it will be coming out at exactly 84 months after the WTC 7 collapse. Seven years investigation time, and abandonment of a working hypothesis that included diesel fuel fed building fires, hints to me that NIST is either clueless, or attempting to run out the clock on this investigation, for reasons not known to the few in the public body who are still watching this.

I'd be happy to read other opinions. It looks like they had alack of evidence...smell, visible evidence from witnesses and pictures, and examination of the debris, if they did any....to defend an investigation that continued to center on fire other than "normal building fires", so they went there, exclusively, in their modeling. They've simulated every structural steel joint in the building's frame, including joints modified in the 1988 alterations. That is what has take so much of the additional 31 months, they claim in the audio from the december meeting.....

<ing src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/204/474552810_487cc91165_o.jpg">

Byrnison

Took me a bit to find a view showing the window locations on the south side of the building. Below is an elevation view from I believe the initial FEMA report, showing the outer columns. Between each column is a window, and I've attempted to show the corresponding locations on the picture with the gash. The reason it is suggested it is so uniform is that the columns stayed intact, but the chunk from WTC1 ripped out the relatively weaker floors and facade.





I will need to read host's information since it appears that the fuel-oil scenario is no longer being considered, and I'd like to see if the damage is still considered the cause of the fire to start.

The conclusion I reached as far as the damage portion is concerned is that based on the NIST graphic, the fire captain's interview, and the news image, is that there was a scooped out portion on the south face that was as the report noted, but that the picture provided in the report was not indicative of the damage referred to, whether by oversight or that there were no better ones available at the time.

The fires and collapse mechanism I would like to reconsider after I get time to read the info host posted (it's been a hectic weekend and will likely continue into the week), but in the meantime do you still see a question regarding the damage reported?

host

WTC 7 exposed structure and debris pile:

The way WTC 7 was constructed, I don't see how it collapsed so quickly,or how even a neat, 20 stories tall, one or two windows wide, shallow verticle gouge out of the south face, could have caused or contributed to the failure pictured here:
<img src="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/b7_2.jpg"><img src="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/b7_3.jpg">
<img src="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/verizon/b7_debris1.jpg">
<img src="http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/verizon/b7_debris4.jpg">

If you're considering that the verticle structural columns were subjected to demolition crew cutting torches before the photos were taken, I don't think that they were. A fire crew is still on the scene, and although that, in and of itself proves nothing, it contributes to my observation that the area below the coumns has not been cleared for access, there would be no rescue/recovery operation near there, it is early in the demolition removal operation, and working in that area, with hopes in the first two weeks of finding trapped victimes near WTC 1 & 2, it woild not have made sense to expend resources to cut and remove heavy steel, in that area.

WTC 7 seems to have been built of strong stuff that failed simultaneously, for as yet to be determined reasons.....

Willravel

Scout, assuming that is a gash, that means that the columns were still just fine, in fact they were carrying less weight. Why would that have weakened the building's structural integrity?

scout

Well Will I dunno Hopefully Byrnison will stop back by !