The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!

2010 Weidlinger Associates Study

Analysis of fire and collapse theories and examination of related evidence.

2010 Weidlinger Associates Study

Postby DGM » Sat Nov 05, 2016 3:35 pm

This study was just brought to my attention. I didn't see a thread on it so I figured I'd share.

Overview

On September 11, 2001, World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) was showered by debris from the collapse of WTC 1. Portions of the structural system were destroyed and fires, which burned unfought throughout the day, were ignited on multiple floors. The building collapsed at approximately 5:20 p.m.

Weidlinger Applied Science, which became a Thornton Tomasetti practice in September 2015, performed a forensic study of the failure sequence leading to the collapse. We combined state-of-the-art computational analysis with photos, videos, eyewitness accounts and other data to answer three important questions:

• Was this a normal office fire, or an extraordinary one arising from the circumstances of 9/11?
• Was the building’s performance indicative of a deficiency?
• What does the collapse say about building codes and the modern stock of high-rise buildings?

Our nonlinear dynamic thermomechanical computational analyses captured the physics of the phenomenon, identifying the most plausible failure sequence:

1. WTC 1 showered WTC 7 with debris, igniting fires and destroying the sprinkler system.
2. Long-duration fires undermined the steelwork supporting the eastern portion of the 10th floor, causing it to collapse.
3. The eastern portion of 10th floor fell onto a fire-weakened ninth floor, causing its eastern section to collapse.
4. A downward cascade of floor collapses ensued.
5. As the collapse progressed, interior columns buckled.
6. Floor framing supported by the buckling columns fell, causing failure to propagate to the top of the building, which manifested itself in the collapse of the east penthouse.
7. Falling debris impacted beams at the edges of the intact portion of the structure, causing failure to progress across the building.

The study refuted assertions that the collapse resulted from construction or design errors, and showed that the extraordinary events of 9/11, rather than any deficiency, caused the collapse.

The study also led to two inferences that could have widespread implications for building design. First, the expectation that a modern building should withstand any unfought fire without collapsing is “aspirational,” and is not guaranteed by established codes or design procedures. Second, that the analytical tools to allow a risk-based performance design paradigm to be adopted in practice exist: engineers are now able to design for fires and evaluate outcomes under a variety of scenarios.

http://www.thorntontomasetti.com/projec ... stigation/

Report PDF:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pdf/W ... Report.pdf
DGM
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

 

Re: 2010 Weidlinger Associates Study

Postby Chainsaw » Sat Nov 05, 2016 5:32 pm

I read it several months ago, thought everyone already knew about it from 2010.
It does give an alternative example of fire induced collapse of 7 but has been mainly ignored by the truthers.
None of them want to discuss it because it throws a monkey wrench in many of their claims.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: 2010 Weidlinger Associates Study

Postby DGM » Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:24 pm

I agree. I remember it mentioned but never read it.

My cursory reading put's it in-line with what I've been saying for years.
DGM
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: 2010 Weidlinger Associates Study

Postby kawika » Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:45 am

Weidlinger starts out with a fatal flaw--"long-duration fires."

There is no evidence of fires lasting more than 30 minutes in any given area.

The fires were not extraordinary and they were known in the industry as "traveling fires".

In this CBS video you can see the flimsy ceiling tile grids still intact, which tells me the fires were not severe.
(see @ mark 7:08) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNI-pDbfqSY

WTF would fires choose the eastern portion of F10 instead of the western portion where the fires began?

The only thing we can say for certain is a lot of so-called experts got paid handsomely for their opinions based upon defective beginnings.

Torero built his report on fuel based fires below F7, when there is absolutely zero evidence to support such a fantasy.

Weidlinger says it was F10.

NIST says fire (4 hour!! computer generated) did it to the structure of F13.

The only plausible explanation is controlled demolition.
LIFE!
LIBERTY!!
PROPERTY!!!
kawika
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: 2010 Weidlinger Associates Study

Postby Chainsaw » Sun Nov 06, 2016 12:52 pm

Not so you forgot about the dislodged elevator mentioned By Jennings, and the ability of fuels to be transported though the building as carbon black soot from plastics in a stack effect.
Stack effects can easily reach 1400C, and would be consistent with observations.
Nothing in the collapses indicated CD, no trace of any CD. Ever found and proponents of CD, have shown a distinct interest in down playing the effects of fire chemistry and a complete and utter over simplified fire theory.
Dispute me if you wish but I know enough now to refute claims with actual evidence that anyone can duplicate in simple table top experiments even in a court room.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: 2010 Weidlinger Associates Study

Postby Chainsaw » Sun Nov 06, 2016 1:40 pm

Nice video the air movement in the video indicates a nice stack effect taking place in the fires, the ceiling tiles are meaningless as you can't see that far back into the buildings and the smoke and fires are being directed towards the windows not away, that indicates Oxygenation is coming most likely from below another sign of chimney, stack effect.
So I ask you what basis do you have for over simplification of the fires dynamics based on that video where you can not possibly make any comment on fire intensity, inside in the most likely area for maximum fire intensity?
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: 2010 Weidlinger Associates Study

Postby Oystein » Sun Nov 06, 2016 1:42 pm

kawika wrote:Weidlinger starts out with a fatal flaw--"long-duration fires."

There is no evidence of fires lasting more than 30 minutes in any given area.
...
NIST says fire (4 hour!! computer generated) did it to the structure of F13.


Lie by innuendo - you are, possibly deliberately, conflating duration of fires in one workstation on one hand, in the entire building on the other hand.
I think I remember I already told you this in the Hulsey thread.
Too lazy to look this up now.

It is actually the truthers who start with a fatal flaw and calling the WTC fires "normal" or even "small" when they were probably the three largest fires in buildings for human occupancy in the history of the USA, by several measures. You could not possibly be any wronger.
Oystein
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:00 pm

Re: 2010 Weidlinger Associates Study

Postby kawika » Sun Nov 06, 2016 2:30 pm

Oystein wrote: "...they were probably the three largest fires in buildings for human occupancy in the history of the USA, by several measures. You could not possibly be any wronger."

Read Mowrer's expert report, PDF page 66, page 33:

"...these fires were consistent with ordinary office contents fires; they were not extraordinary fires."

PDF 67: "Office contents fires generally burn for 20 to 30 minutes in any one location until the fuel load is consumed and and the fire moves on to the next area. That is why fires in large office spaces are sometimes called traveling fires."

But to be fair, and to head off a coming assault should I not address this--- Mowrer totally jumps the rails and claims photographic evidence of the diesel fuel fire on F5-6. (PDF 67)
He couldn't be more wrong.

But this is irrelevant as we are talking about Weidlinger and F10. Clearly this was a normal office contents fire without any possibility of liquid fuel.
LIFE!
LIBERTY!!
PROPERTY!!!
kawika
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: 2010 Weidlinger Associates Study

Postby SanderO » Sun Nov 06, 2016 3:48 pm

The Weidlinger report appears thorough and compelling after skimming through the over 200 pages.
SanderO
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: 2010 Weidlinger Associates Study

Postby Oystein » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:34 pm

kawika wrote:...
"...these fires were consistent with ordinary office contents fires; they were not extraordinary fires."

PDF 67: "Office contents fires generally burn for 20 to 30 minutes in any one location until the fuel load is consumed and and the fire moves on to the next area. That is why fires in large office spaces are sometimes called traveling fires."
...

You are doing this deliberately, aren't you?

Yes, they generally burn for 20 to 30 minutes IN ANY ONE LOCATION(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

You conflate(!!!!) this with NIST's 4 hours duration of the fire throughout the entire structure(!!!!!!!!) they modeled.

There is no contradiction between what Mowrer said about fires in any one location and fires raging throughout the building!

"In any ony location" means "in any single workstation" or "in a given cubicle"
"Throughout the building" means "on six floor, each being an acre large" (or whatever the precise numbers are here).

4 hours of NIST fire throughout the modeled structure are the result are the result of 20-30 minutes workstation fires wandering throughout the full open-office floor areas. Neither NIST not Weidlinger claim or imply that there were 4 hours of active fire in every single location, or even just in only one single location! Do you understand this easy point?

You LIE by innuendo when you insinuate the ridiculously FALSE claim that NIST's duration is contradicted by Mowrer.

It isn't.

Please address in your reply the specification that Mowrer's "20-30 minutes" concern single SMALL localities such as cubicles.
Please address in your reply the specification that NIST's and Weidlinger's "4 hours" concern LARGE localities such as entire floor areas that are almost an acre in expanse.
Please address in your reply my observation that you invalidly CONFLATE the former two things and thus LIE by innuendo.

You must address all three points, or else you will have, no doubt deliberately, evaded answering what I actually argue!
Oystein
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:00 pm

Re: 2010 Weidlinger Associates Study

Postby Chainsaw » Mon Nov 07, 2016 12:10 pm

kawika wrote:Oystein wrote: "...they were probably the three largest fires in buildings for human occupancy in the history of the USA, by several measures. You could not possibly be any wronger."

Read Mowrer's expert report, PDF page 66, page 33:

"...these fires were consistent with ordinary office contents fires; they were not extraordinary fires."

PDF 67: "Office contents fires generally burn for 20 to 30 minutes in any one location until the fuel load is consumed and and the fire moves on to the next area. That is why fires in large office spaces are sometimes called traveling fires."

But to be fair, and to head off a coming assault should I not address this--- Mowrer totally jumps the rails and claims photographic evidence of the diesel fuel fire on F5-6. (PDF 67)
He couldn't be more wrong.

But this is irrelevant as we are talking about Weidlinger and F10. Clearly this was a normal office contents fire without any possibility of liquid fuel.


Liquid fuel? Liquid fuel was made possible by two factors, the diesel engines, on the cat gen sets, and the diesel fuel supply system to the east penthouse as well as the rupture and explosion of the day tanks.
However a Liquid fuel is not nessisary what caused the buildings demise in all three cases was the overwhelming of the protective systems.
These included sprinklers, and more important the fire retardants that normally slow a fires progression.
Fire retardant normally slow fires and help contain them into one area, preventing multi stage fire events that are exstreamly more harmful and more chemically reactive than single stage combustion events.
I would explain why multi stage fires are so harmful, but you most likely wouldn't listen, and Stundie would just start his stupid rants again so why bother?
I thought this was a place like it used to be for reasoned debates with intelligent people from both sides, clearly I was wrong.
Aguements over ceiling tiles in videos when huge amounts of black smoke from pyrosis, that requires a high amount of heat to occur, are meaningless.
Reasoned debate means at least attempting to understand the complexities occurring in the building.
Oversimplification insults those who actually understand the fire chemistry.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Re: 2010 Weidlinger Associates Study

Postby kawika » Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:19 pm

[quote="Oystein"][quote="kawika"]...
"...these fires were consistent with ordinary office contents fires; they were not extraordinary fires."

PDF 67: "Office contents fires generally burn for 20 to 30 minutes in any one location until the fuel load is consumed and and the fire moves on to the next area. That is why fires in large office spaces are sometimes called traveling fires."
...

You are doing this deliberately, aren't you?

Yes, they generally burn for 20 to 30 minutes IN ANY ONE LOCATION(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

You conflate(!!!!) this with NIST's 4 hours duration of the fire throughout the entire structure(!!!!!!!!) they modeled.

There is no contradiction between what Mowrer said about fires in any one location and fires raging throughout the building!

"In any ony location" means "in any single workstation" or "in a given cubicle"
"Throughout the building" means "on six floor, each being an acre large" (or whatever the precise numbers are here).

4 hours of NIST fire throughout the modeled structure are the result are the result of 20-30 minutes workstation fires wandering throughout the full open-office floor areas. Neither NIST not Weidlinger claim or imply that there were 4 hours of active fire in every single location, or even just in only one single location! Do you understand this easy point?

You LIE by innuendo when you insinuate the ridiculously FALSE claim that NIST's duration is contradicted by Mowrer.

It isn't.

Please address in your reply the specification that Mowrer's "20-30 minutes" concern single SMALL localities such as cubicles.
Please address in your reply the specification that NIST's and Weidlinger's "4 hours" concern LARGE localities such as entire floor areas that are almost an acre in expanse.
Please address in your reply my observation that you invalidly CONFLATE the former two things and thus LIE by innuendo.

You must address all three points, or else you will have, no doubt deliberately, evaded answering what I actually argue!


Mr. Oystein,
Are you seriously attempting to convince readers here that fire in a high-rise, where windows are broken, where there is a stiff NW breeze, will concentrate temperatures in an area where there is no fuel load left?

If this were even remotely possible, the code would require a 16 hour hour fire rating, not two. A two hour fireproofing rating handles 30 minute fires easily.

WTC7 wasn't a closed system where temperatures could build in a single location due to a cubicle fire on the other side of a football field.

The Weidlinger report calls out the experts, one by one, and politely tells them they are full of ****.
LIFE!
LIBERTY!!
PROPERTY!!!
kawika
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: 2010 Weidlinger Associates Study

Postby Chainsaw » Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:37 pm

[quote="kawika"][quote="Oystein"][quote="kawika"]...
"...these fires were consistent with ordinary office contents fires; they were not extraordinary fires."

PDF 67: "Office contents fires generally burn for 20 to 30 minutes in any one location until the fuel load is consumed and and the fire moves on to the next area. That is why fires in large office spaces are sometimes called traveling fires."
...

You are doing this deliberately, aren't you?

Yes, they generally burn for 20 to 30 minutes IN ANY ONE LOCATION(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

You conflate(!!!!) this with NIST's 4 hours duration of the fire throughout the entire structure(!!!!!!!!) they modeled.

There is no contradiction between what Mowrer said about fires in any one location and fires raging throughout the building!

"In any ony location" means "in any single workstation" or "in a given cubicle"
"Throughout the building" means "on six floor, each being an acre large" (or whatever the precise numbers are here).

4 hours of NIST fire throughout the modeled structure are the result are the result of 20-30 minutes workstation fires wandering throughout the full open-office floor areas. Neither NIST not Weidlinger claim or imply that there were 4 hours of active fire in every single location, or even just in only one single location! Do you understand this easy point?

You LIE by innuendo when you insinuate the ridiculously FALSE claim that NIST's duration is contradicted by Mowrer.

It isn't.

Please address in your reply the specification that Mowrer's "20-30 minutes" concern single SMALL localities such as cubicles.
Please address in your reply the specification that NIST's and Weidlinger's "4 hours" concern LARGE localities such as entire floor areas that are almost an acre in expanse.
Please address in your reply my observation that you invalidly CONFLATE the former two things and thus LIE by innuendo.

You must address all three points, or else you will have, no doubt deliberately, evaded answering what I actually argue!


Mr. Oystein,
Are you seriously attempting to convince readers here that fire in a high-rise, where windows are broken, where there is a stiff NW breeze, will concentrate temperatures in an area where there is no fuel load left?

If this were even remotely possible, the code would require a 16 hour hour fire rating, not two. A two hour fireproofing rating handles 30 minute fires easily.

WTC7 wasn't a closed system where temperatures could build in a single location due to a cubicle fire on the other side of a football field.

The Weidlinger report calls out the experts, one by one, and politely tells them they are full of ****.

Have you looked into the dynamics of fuel movements in complex fires?
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm
Top

Re: 2010 Weidlinger Associates Study

Postby SanderO » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:04 pm

There were flames seen and smoke pouring out of the tower most of the day. Therefore there was fuel to combust. Firestopping appeared to be inadequate in preventing flames spread. Further there were massive intake fresh air grilled on the north side which allowed fresh oxygen into the building and duct risers to all the floors.
SanderO
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: 2010 Weidlinger Associates Study

Postby Chainsaw » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:12 pm

In other words perfect conditions for the transport of a refined fuel though a highly dynamic fire environment, making the very Idea of limited fires fallacious.
Carbon soot is a refine high energy value fuel easy to ignite and it burn hot without visible flame in daylight.
With carbon monoxide, or hydrogen it is as explosive as black powder.
Chainsaw
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:23 pm

Next



Return to WTC7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

suspicion-preferred