What was building 7 used for

The fate of the fuel in the day tanks and the two 6,gallon tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed they were full on Sept. NFPA acknowledges that each investigation is unique, and that some investigations will require broader procedures than it can accommodate. The investigation was carefully planned, sources of information were identified and contacted, the building fire and collapse event and the investigation were documented, available evidence was obtained including documents about the design and construction of the structure , and the origin of the fire was determined based on images, laboratory testing conducted for the towers, but applicable to WTC 7 , and mathematical analyses.

Additionally, in its study of WTC 7, NIST considered all available data and evaluated a range of possible collapse mechanisms: uncontrolled fires on the tenant floors, fuel oil fires, hypothetical blast events, and fires within the Con Ed substation. NIST developed a working hypothesis, modeled the fires and the building, and then used the models to test the hypothesis against the observed behavior of the building. This approach is fully consistent with the principles of scientific inquiry.

Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

NIST's entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can the investigators be so sure they know what happened? The steel for WTC 1 and WTC 2 contained distinguishing characteristics that enabled it to be identified once removed from the site during recovery efforts. However, the same was not true for the WTC 7 steel. Certainly, there is a lot less visual and audio evidence of the WTC 7 collapse compared to the collapses of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers, which were much more widely photographed.

These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous, state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred. In addition to using its in-house expertise, NIST relied upon private-sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs and videos of this disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on Sept.

This investigation is the first to show how fire can cause progressive collapse in a building. It is also the first to show that under certain conditions thermal expansion effects—rather than loss of strength and stiffness due to fire—can lead to structural collapse.

This was an analysis of unprecedented complexity—an end-to-end computer run for the WTC towers on some powerful computers took about two months while a similar run for WTC 7 took about eight months, or about four times as long.

NIST expects that the tools developed from this investigation, as well as the knowledge obtained from it, will aid in the development of more robust building design practice and in studies of future building collapse processes.

These expanded tools and derived, validated, and simplified analysis approaches can guide practitioners and prevent future disasters. The simulation of the collapse modeling of WTC 7 does not match the video footage of the collapse.

In particular, the large inward deformations of the upper exterior walls after the beginning of global collapse are not visible in the video footage. Can NIST explain the difference between the results of its computer model of the collapse and the available video evidence?

NIST conducted two global collapse analyses, one that included damage due to debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1, and one that did not include any debris-impact damage. These two analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the debris-impact damage on the response of WTC 7 when subjected to the effects of the fires that burned on floors 7 to 9 and 11 to NIST believes that the simulation of the collapse, based on the analysis with debris-impact damage, does capture the critical observations derived from the digital video recording.

The critical observations and corresponding failures identified in the structural analysis include: 1 east-west motion of the building beginning at approximately the same time as failure of floors 6 through 14 around Column 79, 2 the formation of the "kink" in the roofline of the east penthouse approximately one second after Column 79 was found to buckle, 3 window breakage on the east side of the north face as the buckling of Column 79 precipitated the failure of upper floors, and 4 the beginning of global collapse vertical drop of the building exterior within approximately one-half second of the time predicted by analysis.

Both measured time and analytically predicted time, from the start of failures of floors surrounding Column 79 to the initial downward motion of the north face roofline, was Only in the later stages of the animation, after the initiation of global collapse, do the upper exterior wall deformations from the NIST analysis differ from the video images.

It is well known that such non-structural components can increase the stiffness and strength of a structural system, but their contribution is difficult to quantify. Given these factors, disparities between the video and the animation in the later stages of collapse would be expected.

Other videos of the WTC 7 collapse show the penthouse falling first, followed by the rest of the building. The footage was not edited in any way by NIST.

NIST received videos directly from many different sources during its technical investigation of the collapse of World Trade Center 7. Videos were logged into a database as they were received and were accessible only to those working on the investigation.

NIST protected the integrity of the original videos at all times. Many of these videos are available online. For the WTC 7 story model for structural response to fire effects, why did NIST model the girders without shear studs, given that articles published in the open literature showed drawings of typical floor framing plans of WTC 7 with shear studs on the girders? The source documents used for developing the structural analysis models of WTC 7 were the structural drawings prepared by the structural engineer of record Irwin G.

Cantor, Structural Engineers and the erection drawings prepared by the steel fabricator and erector Frankel Steel Limited. A structural drawing showing modifications to Floor 10 Structural Drawing S to accommodate increased floor loads in certain areas did indicate shear studs for the girders in the affected areas, though the additional load was not identified on the drawing. The modification also indicated reinforcing some floor connections and adding new plates on the bottom flanges of some north and south floor beams.

A paper by J. Salvarinas that was published in the Canadian Structural Engineering Conference Proceedings contained "Figure 5 - Typical Floor Framing" that showed shear studs on the girders, although no reference was cited for the information presented in the figure. The number of shear studs indicated on the floor plan by Salvarinas is similar to, but not exactly the same as, the number of studs indicated on the modified framing plan for floor For typical floors 8 to 20 excluding floor 10 , both structural and erection drawings of WTC 7 obtained by NIST are not consistent with Figure 5 in the Salvarinas paper.

What was the purpose of the partial floor model of the northeast section of WTC 7 Section 8. How were these analyses used in the final WTC 7 story model? Were there any discrepancies between the results of the partial floor model and the story model? The detailed finite element model of the partial northeast floor framing was developed to evaluate its response to elevated temperatures and to confirm which failure modes needed to be accounted for in the story ANSYS model, i.

This detailed model consisted of shell elements to model the steel wide flange sections and plates and the concrete floor slab, and the model was capable of capturing both local and overall member buckling. Shear studs were modeled explicitly as were bolts. Contact interfaces were employed between different components to model, for example, the girder resting on the seats at both column 44 and column Temperature-dependent material properties were defined and appropriate boundary conditions were prescribed.

Gravity loads were applied to represent service loads and uniform, monotonically increasing temperatures were applied to the floor beams and girder, to cause both thermal expansion and degradation of mechanical properties.

Results confirmed that possible failure modes included: lateral-torsional buckling of the wide flange shapes, bolt shear failure, stud shear failure, and the potential for the girder to walk off its seat at either column.

Differences between the results of the partial floor model and the story model are to be expected. Reasons for these differences include:. What improvements to building safety have been recommended as a result of the WTC 7 investigation?

NIST made one new recommendation and reiterated 12 recommendations from its investigation of the collapses of the WTC towers. The new recommendation involves explicitly evaluating buildings to ensure the adequate fire safety performance of the structural system.

Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following characteristics:. Typical floor span lengths in tall office buildings are in the range of 40 feet to 50 feet. This range is considered to represent long span floor systems.

Thermal effects e. The earlier recommendations encompass increasing structural integrity of buildings, enhancing structures' endurance when exposed to fire, creating new methods for increasing fire resistance in structures, improving active fire protection, improving some aspects of emergency response, and increasing education and training.

Are there hundreds or thousands of unsafe tall buildings with long span supports that must be retrofitted in some way? How would one retrofit a building to prevent this problem?

While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, NIST strongly urges building owners, operators, and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of structural systems. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following characteristics: long-span floor systems, connections that cannot accommodate thermal effects, floor framing that induces asymmetric forces on girders, and composite floor systems, whose shear studs could fail due to differential thermal expansion i.

Engineers should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations. Several existing, emerging or even anticipated capabilities could have helped prevent the collapse of WTC 7. The degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated.

Possible options for developing cost-effective fixes include:. NIST is recommending that building standards and codes be strengthened beyond their current intent to achieve life safety to prevent structural collapse even during infrequent building fires like those in WTC 7 when sprinklers do not function, do not exist or are overwhelmed by fire.

Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris.

However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks and intended to power backup generators did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures.

And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable and initiated the destructive fires , the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires. The report determines that the actual culprit in the collapse was the combustion of ordinary building furnishings: "These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings.

A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural "connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads. Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. NIST's press release and other material on the report can be found here. Click here to download the full report in pdf form.

The collapse was only a controlled demolition. No one under the logical science could believe the NIST theory. Surprise surprise….. Wouldnt be surprised if the WH tries to stop all that. All those people who lost their lives and some families are still in trauma, deserve to know how American Govt murdered its own people in cold blood.

Be still, my heart! It is encouraging that a large newspaper has covered this story as it certainly lacks coverage practically every where else. Clearly they know this is not true. I have followed AETruth. I feel they are on the correct track.

Personally, I think it is important that we keep this a scientific discussion rather than get distracted on who, why and for what. NIST needs to be able to prove that the UAF study which is publicly available is not accurate or at least be able to make their modelling information public so that others can scrutinize their findings.

The evidence is clear and now we must get out the crayons and show the fact that you have exposed The real criminals. Time now for justice before they all die of old age.

Thank you for this long overdue story it demonstrates a truly honest approach to this remarkable coverup of facts by NIST. Well done. Steel framed buildings cannot collapse in free fall unless the strength has been completely removed below the falling section.

Even Shyam Sunder lead investigator for NIST explained why that is impossible from fire in a press conference in August to launch the draft edition of their report into the collapse.

Looks like a demolition to me! This report just confirms what my eyes were telling me when the buildings came down. It was a controlled demolition and a false flag operation so the administration could pass the patriot act without any pushback from anyone and it worked perfectly.

Even Senator Bob Graham of Florida has many questions concerning this physical impossibility but he has ben kept from stating his knowledge due to the possibility of prosecution. I also wanted to add that in this world the physics would make this kind of free fall collapse impossible. In this day and age — during the information revolution — we should not have to wait twenty years for there to be mainstream discussion of the event from a scientific perspective. NIST, by abandoning science, has done the world a terrible disservice.

Those responsible deserve to be held in opprobrium. John Hort is on target. Neo-Cons Zakheim, Wolfowitz, et al participated in the study. Zakheim was Comptroller of the Pentagon budget.

A missile hit the Pentagon destroying the section where the ONI was investigating the fraud. Owner Silverstein wanted to redevelop the WTC but faced billion dollar bills for asbestos fire-proofing removal.

But the failure visibly began in the centre. Each fraud was covered up by another. A few thousand spectators, some may have videotaped it, a nice reward may tease out a few of these so we can compare the tapes. Delivered coffee to Windows on the World restaurant , the elevator banks were two and three feet deep steel reenforced concrete , they would have been standing if a fire took down the buildings.

The cleaning crews and bomb sniffing dogs were removed in the Summer of Too many unanswered questions , this was the Millitary Industrial Complex and the Corporate Masters of the Universe looking out for their interests. Journalists are in the same situation. If you value your job, you better go along with what the government says. Thank you AET for being a voice of reason.

Here is an explanation of their importance. They were in Afghanistan the month after. Please research what we are saying. God Bless. WTC 7. The collapse of this building, when viewed from most angles, does appear to resemble a demolition.

Of particular concern is this building was not a towering inferno by any stretch of the imagination. The UAF report raises some very important questions which must be answered thoroughly and precisely.

There is much at stake here for two reasons. No individual or agency has ever been able to demonstrate the motions observed for both Building 7 and the twin towers, using a real world experiment. The NIST analysis and progressive collapse theory disagrees with experiment. Rather it was brought down in a classic controlled demolition manner. And thanks very much to daily commercial news for printing this, very happy to see this.

Their authority and expertise was considered to be the industry standard for all things quality. How disappointing that now they are just another compromised organization whose credibility is long gone. Judging by practically every comment here there are a lot of people due to be disappointed if they think anything should result from this, since the collapse of WTC7 was not a controlled demolition, but a structural collapse.

Hulsey, Gage, Walter, Korol, etc. That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed. About people raised their hands. Thank you, to all of you for being so focused.

Common sense says that random fires can not possibly bring a steel frame building down symmetrically at near free fall speed. Thousands of dollars are being spent to prove the obvious and dozens of people are having to jump through hoops because of a criminal cover-up. Not many want to accept the fact that the high-rise architects and engineers know what they are doing, that fires generally will stay on the floor they started on. Hopefully will be the year that this story from finally breaks.

Thank you for reporting this. A refreshing bit of courageous journalism despite the nearly two decades conspiracy of silence. Amidst our current global uncertainties, we must seek truth and integrity to ensure freedom and justice, it is the birthright of our humanity. There is so much proof that this is true. And yet we sit and except it as normal. What have we become? This may be a bit extreme, however, until the reasons can be validated as to how an object that is not in motion can have an amount of inertia to move in downward and outward at free fall, in a pyroclastic cloud of dust and the ejection of thousands of tons of steel sideways well over feet, that all building must come to an end and the subject of physics must be suspended.

I am ashamed of science in general as it has become a perverse form of modeling using false assumptions and reverse engineered outcomes that are not possible nor repeatable using what we used to know as the scientific method. Thank you for this. Yes, thank you for your fearless journalism! The truth necessarily should set The People freaked!

But free nonetheless. Thanks for publishing this! On September 11, , the world witnessed the total collapse of three large steel-framed high-rises. Since then, scientists and engineers have been working to understand why and how these unprecedented structural failures occurred. If one of my students had written either of the NIST reports not only would I have failed them but I would also have had them thrown out of my programme for serious violation of research ethics both in fabrication and falsification of evidence together with failure to supply sufficient information for me to be able to reproduce their results which is an essential requirement for any scientific report.

There are two hypotheses on offer — Fire and Controlled Demolition. Dr Hulsey and his colleagues have demonstrated that it was not fire. Then after the building collapsed, where was the evidence of all the steel having been cut. Cutting steel columns leaves the ends of columns cut and it would be obvious to any one of the hundreds of people on the site afterwards.

Thank you for this article. Thank you for doing your jobs as journalists. The only respectable news website on the internet who has reported on this. The ownership and those in charge of security at the WTC complex are the prime suspects. Why am I not surprised such fair coverage came from a Canadian institution rather than one from the US, with its misguided penchant to support Amnerican exceptionalism.

This is awesome news but the Sheople are still in passive mode, waiting to be told what to think or how to respond to a yet complicit mainstream media determined to keep them in the dark and under established, corporate control.

They shame all of us. It should come with their jobs and commitment to science. But they are, alas, meek and afraid; to stand up to whom?

The truth is not nearly so fragile as they would like us to believe. The truth will stand up to any and all questioning. An excellent article — thank you. The UAF report makes intersting reading and follows thorough investigation of mutliple failure scenario possibilities to find those that fit the best. Importantly their dynamic analysis of the controlled demolition scenario produces a visual collapse that perfectly matches that seen in the video evidence from that fateful day — something the NIST investigation completely failed to do.

Make money for Richard Gage. This report is to energize the base, and get donations flowing, nothing more. I really enjoyed your article. This creates a paradox in which no one will listen to you if no one will listen to you. Well thank you Mr. Harvey for listening. As an architect I am following this matter for the last 19 years. This information has been out there all the time. I am happy to see that despite all the time the process of finding the truth is still progressing.