'What about building 7'?

[Jack by the hedge]

what's building 7? and why should I give two **** s about it?

This.

Like probably most of the world, I had never heard of WTC building 7 (before reading about truthers disputing what happened to it). I thought the twin towers were the WTC. The terrorists attacked the iconic twin towers. They didn't give a damn about any building 7, if they even knew what it was.

 

[Miragememories]

The CTBUH agrees with NIST.
http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_ DraftReport.pdf

I think they might know a thing or two about all buildings eh?

Oh really.

From just a quick look.

10. CTBUH Conclusions

"The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a
result of the buckling of Column 79.

We believe that the failure was a result of the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss
of lateral restraint and then buckling of internal columns. This is an important distinction,
as NIST appears to be seeking improved performance from floors rather than columns. "
on pg.10

MM

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Yes.

What else were they fuelled by, if not office contents?

The key word in that question was "normal", not "office".

 

[Miragememories]

FDNY knows that when buildings lean, and have huge bulges over many storys of the structure, that the building is going to collapse.

FDNY also knows that engineers who were there, who had a transit on the building, watching it's structural integrity go from bad to worse, know what they are talking about.

It is speculation to say that if Column 79 did not fail, that it would have stood.

Regarding the infamous bulge;

From Firehouse Magazine;

"By now, this is going on into the afternoon...but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

"A guy who works nearby and a fireman, three blocks away thought the building was leaning.
No one at the scene thought WTC 7 was leaning.
Chief Hayden said there was a bulge in the SW corner.
He did not say it was leaning.
NIST did not say it was leaning.
WTC 7 was NOT leaning!"

MM

 

[tsig]

If ordinary is one of the largest office fires ever, you are correct.

C'mon it was the largest office fire in the history of planet earth.

 

[cooperman]

Bolding mine

Where did you get the idea that they knew column 79 would fail? They knew the building was going to fail based upon the fact that they are trained to ascertain building conditions in a fire.

But TAM just said the column 79 failure was the result of a design flaw. I think you guys need to get a story you all agree on.

 

[T.A.M.]

But TAM just said the column 79 failure was the result of a design flaw. I think you guys need to get a story you all agree on.

I think you need to (A) read my ammendment upon others disputing the word choice, and (B) stop picking at Semantics.

Got anything else...anything worth addressing?

TAM

Edit: Also, I did not say that the FIREMEN and other RESPONDERS knew of the design issue/uniqueness.

 

[cooperman]

I think you need to (A) read my ammendment upon others disputing the word choice, and (B) stop picking at Semantics.

Got anything else...anything worth addressing?

TAM

Edit: Also, I did not say that the FIREMEN and other RESPONDERS knew of the design issue/uniqueness.

And there lies the problem. For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction? How did they know it would collapse?

 

[Disbelief]

But TAM just said the column 79 failure was the result of a design flaw. I think you guys need to get a story you all agree on.

This has nothing to do with something TAM said, but about something you said.

 

[cantonear1968]

(B) stop picking at Semantics.

Got anything else...anything worth addressing?

TAM

Nope. I have come to the conclusion that after 8 long years of having each and every one of their "facts" exposed as having no merit, truthers are no longer arguing for a win but playing for a draw.

And what better way to attempt this but to bog the conversation down on semantics.

Cooper. Fire was the cause of WTC7's collapse. You can refer to the question in my original response to this thread:
What specifically, scientifically do you find incorrect with the conclusions in NIST's Final Report on WTC7?

 

[T.A.M.]

And there lies the problem. For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction? How did they know it would collapse?

1. They just saw 2 large buildings collapse hours earlier.
2. Other buildings have collapsed before that day. Perhaps not complete collapses perhaps not steel framed skyscrapers, but buildings had collapsed (partially or fully) prior to 9/11.
3. They knew that uncontrolled untreated fires for hours, would eventually lead to collapse...eventually.

It took years for NIST to come up with a final theory as to the mechanism of collapse. Some of that time was due to the fact that NIST was not involved right away, some of it was due to delay while they focused on completion of the reports for WTC1/2, and some of it was due to the investigation and report of WTC7 itself (including looking at the viability of blast scenarios I might add).

TAM

 

[cantonear1968]

For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction?

Does anyone have a facepalm for me?

 

[cooperman]

Nope. I have come to the conclusion that after 8 long years of having each and every one of their "facts" exposed as having no merit, truthers are no longer arguing for a win but playing for a draw.

And what better way to attempt this but to bog the conversation down on semantics.

Cooper. Fire was the cause of WTC7's collapse. You can refer to the question in my original response to this thread:
What specifically, scientifically do you find incorrect with the conclusions in NIST's Final Report on WTC7?

It isn't so much NIST's conclusions that i have a problem with. It is how they fit into what we were told for years.

Can you explain how everyone knew wtc7 would collapse? They were absolutely convinced that 7 would collapse imminently. How did they know this when NIST has concluded that the collapse was caused by the failure of a single column?

 

[cooperman]

Does anyone have a facepalm for me?

Facepalms are fun but I would prefer an answer.

 

[cantonear1968]

Facepalms are fun but I would prefer an answer.

I believe TAM answered your question. Proving he has infinitely more patience than myself.

 

[cooperman]

1. They just saw 2 large buildings collapse hours earlier.
2. Other buildings have collapsed before that day. Perhaps not complete collapses perhaps not steel framed skyscrapers, but buildings had collapsed (partially or fully) prior to 9/11.
3. They knew that uncontrolled untreated fires for hours, would eventually lead to collapse...eventually.

It took years for NIST to come up with a final theory as to the mechanism of collapse. Some of that time was due to the fact that NIST was not involved right away, some of it was due to delay while they focused on completion of the reports for WTC1/2, and some of it was due to the investigation and report of WTC7 itself (including looking at the viability of blast scenarios I might add).

TAM

Define eventually. They seemed to think it was pretty imminent. "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon".

How did he know the building was coming down soon? Could he see the thermal expansion in structural members around column 79?

You do see the problem here, don't you?

 

[BigAl]

And there lies the problem. For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction? How did they know it would collapse?

Because it was an out-of-control fire. Firemen have been schooled in the risks of collapse for fire in steel-framed buildings since forever.

Because firemen know how to watch for signs that anticipate a collapse. WTC7 displayed such signs as early as 2PM.

FDNY Chief Hayden explains how they knew that WTC7 was beginning to collapse as early as 2:00PM.

FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html​

 

[T.A.M.]

It isn't so much NIST's conclusions that i have a problem with. It is how they fit into what we were told for years.

Can you explain how everyone knew wtc7 would collapse? They were absolutely convinced that 7 would collapse imminently. How did they know this when NIST has concluded that the collapse was caused by the failure of a single column?

Provide your evidence. In relation to "everyone knew WTC7 was going to collapse", provide quotes of what was said, by whom, and what their qualifications were.

I am not asking for this to be nasty, but you have made such a statement, and I want to see the proof. I wish to see this, not to corner you or to waste your time, but because I think if you look at who said such, and why they said it, it might explain things a little better.

TAM

 

[triforcharity]

And there lies the problem. For years we were told that everyone knew the building would collapse but then it took years for NIST to conclude that it was a single column failure. Do you see the contradiction? How did they know it would collapse?

Fire+steel framed buildings + time-firefighting=collapse.

Every
Single
Time.

 

[T.A.M.]

Define eventually. They seemed to think it was pretty imminent. "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon".

How did he know the building was coming down soon? Could he see the thermal expansion in structural members around column 79?

You do see the problem here, don't you?

When was this quote said (time of day) and by whom? What were their qualifications (or lack of)?

The rest of your post, I answered above...

TAM

Edit: Oh and by eventually, I mean what Trio said...time+fire in building - firefighting = Collapse