New NIST Report On WTC 7 - Change Anybody's Mind?

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=RickJay]
You quite certainly COULD design a building that could resist an airplane strike. It’d be ludicrously expensive and (for business purposes) ill-designed to the point that there would be no commercial reason for building it, but it’s technically possible.
[/QUOTE]

What happens when the terrorists get their own ICBM? Why are you so casual about the safety of innocent people? Don’t you realize that 9/11 changed everything?

Seriously, though, I’ve seen film footage of plane-crash tests into concrete reactor silos and such, so yes, it’s certainly possible. Maybe instead of windows, one could hang flat-screen televisions along the interior walls showing pastoral outdoor scenes to the working stiffs within.

102

[QUOTE=RickJay]
You quite certainly COULD design a building that could resist an airplane strike. It’d be ludicrously expensive and (for business purposes) ill-designed to the point that there would be no commercial reason for building it, but it’s technically possible.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but you couldn’t design one to withstand alien attack! Besides, if you DID design and build such a building then you would invalidate the show on what would happen to all our buildings if humans were no longer here. Such a building would last for centuries…and it would suck if they had to re-write that show after all…

I still think the alien angle is the most serious concern though.

-XT

103

Wouldn’t it be better to make a building that can dodge the plane?

104

RickJay, Valgard, Stranger and you other technical people: Yep, I’m familiar with the effect of heat on metals. Very familiar with thermal expansion.
My ignorance has to do with metropolitan stick structures- not so much the steelwork but in how the members are insulated, specifically to resist the effects of heat. I confess to not paying attention to the timeline between strike and collapse, and hadn’t contemplated how those particular structures would have become kilns. My assumption was that building codes would prohibit flammable materials either in construction or occupation, and that the jet fuel would have flashed off largely at the level of strike.

105

[QUOTE=Carson O’Genic]
My assumption was that building codes would prohibit flammable materials either in construction or occupation
[/QUOTE]

You assumed building codes would prohibit office buildings from containing chairs, desks, paper, etc? :confused:

106

[QUOTE=Carson O’Genic]
My ignorance has to do with metropolitan stick structures- not so much the steelwork but in how the members are insulated, specifically to resist the effects of heat. I confess to not paying attention to the timeline between strike and collapse, and hadn’t contemplated how those particular structures would have become kilns. My assumption was that building codes would prohibit flammable materials either in construction or occupation, and that the jet fuel would have flashed off largely at the level of strike.
[/QUOTE]

As the previous post mentions, this seems a bizarre thing to say. The World Trade Center was made of offices. Offices are full of flammable stuff.

The insulation, it is generally believed, was blown off the supporting steel by the impact and explosion in enough places to expose a critical amount of steel to heat.

107

[QUOTE=Cisco]
You assumed building codes would prohibit office buildings from containing chairs, desks, paper, etc? :confused:
[/QUOTE]

Huh. I thought computers were supposed to do away with paper and chairs/desks would be replaced by custom molded lounge units.
Or at least that’s what Star Trek:TNG implied.

108

[QUOTE=Cisco]
Yes, there is a particular reason, but in fact it’s not a strawman at all. Larry Silverstein is an innocent businessman who has been mercilessly harassed and stalked - on and offline - to the point where he cannot walk from his car to his office unmolested - by these tinhatters for the last 7 years, because he is Jewish.
[/QUOTE]
As you posted, however, it remained a straw man (and a borderline insult) when you directed your comment to Alex_Dubinsky. Regardless whether the attacks on Silverstein originated among antisemites, that poster made no claims regarding Silverstein’s ethnicity or religion. It is perfectly reasonable to note “The charges against Silverstein that you have quoted are all false and you should be aware that they were manufactured by antisemitic groups A, B, and C.” It is not reasonable to assume that Alex_Dubinsky is actually aware of that fact and then condemn him for it. (It is far more likely that a person who rejects such claims will have actually investigated their sources than a person who promotes (or simply repeats) the claims. We see that all the time with posters appearing to be totally unaware of the purported clay feet of their sources, regardless whether we are discussing presidential aspirants, Anthropogenic Global Warming, or cries of “Racism.”)

109

[QUOTE=Alex_Dubinsky]
Well in the case of the Twin Towers there were numerous planned power outages, construction, and other things of this sort leading immediately up to 9/11.
[/QUOTE]

The only evidence for power outages leading up to 9/11 that I’ve seen, is one account from a guy named Scott Forbes who has stated that he worked in one tower and the power was off for part of a weekend in part of one building. However, others have tried to find any documentation for a Scott Forbes having worked in the towers at the time, and have found nothing.

110

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
As you posted, however, it remained a straw man (and a borderline insult) when you directed your comment to Alex_Dubinsky. Regardless whether the attacks on Silverstein originated among antisemites, that poster made no claims regarding Silverstein’s ethnicity or religion. It is perfectly reasonable to note “The charges against Silverstein that you have quoted are all false and you should be aware that they were manufactured by antisemitic groups A, B, and C.” It is not reasonable to assume that Alex_Dubinsky is actually aware of that fact and then condemn him for it. (It is far more likely that a person who rejects such claims will have actually investigated their sources than a person who promotes (or simply repeats) the claims. We see that all the time with posters appearing to be totally unaware of the purported clay feet of their sources, regardless whether we are discussing presidential aspirants, Anthropogenic Global Warming, or cries of “Racism.”)
[/QUOTE]

While you have a point in a general sense, and I probably shouldn’t have jumped to conclusions so quickly, I think post #72 pretty much confirmed my suspicions in this case. I still reject your claim that it was a straw man; it absolutely was not. And it is very reasonable to assume Alex Dubinsky is very aware of these facts - in fact almost inconceivable that he isn’t.

111

[QUOTE=RickJay]
As the previous post mentions, this seems a bizarre thing to say. The World Trade Center was made of offices. Offices are full of flammable stuff.

The insulation, it is generally believed, was blown off the supporting steel by the impact and explosion in enough places to expose a critical amount of steel to heat.
[/QUOTE]

I believe that was for WTC1 and WTC2. I’m not sure if it was the case for WTC7 however what I’ve been able to find doing quick searches on fire ratings for steel structures is that insulation for such buildings was only required to protect the steel for 1-2 hours. In most cases that’d be plenty of time to evacuate the building and fight fires, or at least limit how many floors are exposed. WTC7 lost water supply to the sprinklers, firefighters were otherwise occupied (or had been killed in the collapse of WTC1 and 2), and the fires burned for many hours on multiple floors.

So even if the insulation was up to code and undamaged, the fires were just more than what it was designed for. Here are some of the recommendations from NIST’s report:

**Better thermal insulation (i.e., reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel and to minimize both thermal expansion and weakening effects. Insulation has been used to protect steel strength, but it could be used to maintain a lower temperature in the steel framing to limit thermal expansion.

Improved compartmentation in tenant areas to limit the spread of fires.

Thermally resistant window assemblies to limit breakage, reduce air supply and retard fire growth.**

That first recommendation says that the fire codes should address both the loss of strength at high temperatures and the expansion at lower temperatures. Sadly, improvements in the building codes often come about as a result of looking at what didn’t work when the previous codes were followed. Civil engineer Henry Petroski wrote an excellent book on this called “To Engineer Is Human - The Role Of Failure In Successful Design” which I highly recommend.

As far as flammable contents, what RickJay said is spot on. Next time you are in an office building look around - furniture, paper, cubicle partitions, carpets, ceiling tiles, there’s plenty of stuff that will burn. That’s why there are sprinkler systems and the fire department comes rushing over when the alarm goes off.

112

There’s little attraction in having a pissing contest about what flammables are contained in offices. My observation concludes that metal/plastic furniture is the norm; filing cabinets, desks & chairs, cube sides. Stacks of paper DON’T burn well. Building codes I am familiar with proscribe or strictly limit flame spread in items like carpet or ceiling tile.
I suppose it does seem bizarre to apply personal observation to foreign situations.

113

[QUOTE=Carson O’Genic]
There’s little attraction in having a pissing contest about what flammables are contained in offices. My observation concludes that metal/plastic furniture is the norm; filing cabinets, desks & chairs, cube sides. Stacks of paper DON’T burn well. Building codes I am familiar with proscribe or strictly limit flame spread in items like carpet or ceiling tile.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I suppose if the place is on fire, a pissing contest might prove useful…
Anyway, the non-metallic materials you describe may be flame-retardant or flame-resistant, but this doesn’t mean flame-proof. The carpets or cubicle walls may burn slowly, ideally slowly enough that the sprinklers or an alert employee with an extinguisher has lots of time to put out a small fire before it spreads, but if three floors get lit up at the same time and nobody is there to put them out, they can burn pretty nicely and for quite a while.

114

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
if three floors get lit up at the same time and nobody is there to put them out, they can burn pretty nicely and for quite a while.
[/QUOTE]

And this impact severed the sprinkler systems. Carson watch the slideshow here. That should answer most of your questions, since you say you didn’t pay much attention to what happened between impact and collapse.

115

Geez, Musicat, don’t you know anything about how the government silences witnesses? They wait 10 or 20 years, giving the witnesses plenty of time to tell their stories, and then they start to bump them off slowly, using “cancer” and “heart attacks” and “car accidents,” killing them at exactly the same rate as the general population. See the JFK witnesses for an example.

Mark my words, in 10 years there will be a book written about the “unexplained deaths” of 9/11 witnesses.

116

I am aware that Silverstein is Jewish and that some people (I think a lot more in places like the Middle East than in the “truth” movement in the US) believe in a Jewish conspiracy surrounding 9/11. But Silverstein is the man in charge of WTC (as if that might be relevant) and the one famously quoted as saying “pull it.” Mentioning Silverstein has absolutely nothing to do with his religion which I did not allude to in any way. Cisco, you have one twisted mind thinking the antisemites are everywhere around you.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Almost all modern conspiracy theories are ultimately rooted in the faked anti-Jewish document The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and […] the 9/11 conspiracy theory is no different.
[/QUOTE]
Wow man. You wear your own sort of tin hat altogether.

117

[QUOTE=Alex_Dubinsky]
I am aware that Silverstein is Jewish and that some people (I think a lot more in places like the Middle East than in the “truth” movement in the US) believe in a Jewish conspiracy surrounding 9/11. But Silverstein is the man in charge of WTC (as if that might be relevant) and the one famously quoted as saying “pull it.” Mentioning Silverstein has absolutely nothing to do with his religion which I did not allude to in any way.
[/QUOTE]

“Pull it” has been more widely and thoroughly debunked than almost any other 9/11 myth but why am I telling you this? You already know that. Do you think a lie repeated enough times becomes the truth?

Considering it’s completely illogical and unsupported by facts to suspect his involvement, and every “factual” claim against him has been proven false, why else would you mention him?

From Wikipedia’s entry on Conspiracy Theories

I don’t believe antisemites are all around me. I believe the small number of conspiracy theorists out there are mostly antisemites. There’s a difference.

118

[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
Geez, Musicat, don’t you know anything about how the government silences witnesses? They wait 10 or 20 years, giving the witnesses plenty of time to tell their stories, and then they start to bump them off slowly, using “cancer” and “heart attacks” and “car accidents,” killing them at exactly the same rate as the general population. See the JFK witnesses for an example.
[/quote]
Silly me. :smack: I guess I should have learned from Roswell, where the best witnesses came forward many years after the fact.

119

[QUOTE=Alex_Dubinsky]
But Silverstein is the man in charge of WTC (as if that might be relevant) and the one famously quoted as saying “pull it.”
[/QUOTE]
You’re wrong and you’re wasting your life.

120

[QUOTE=Cisco]
“Pull it” has been more widely and thoroughly debunked than almost any other 9/11 myth
[/QUOTE]

From the link

:rolleyes: :dubious: :eek: :smiley: