IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Nist Wtc7 Press Release Thurs. Aug. 21, NIST NCSTAR 1-9 & 1A

albertchampion
post Aug 23 2008, 01:05 AM
Post #61





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



i like you guys. i never thought to research my recollections.

aging too fast, i fear.

i do like to learn that i remembered an old nyt article.

confirms the correctness in my madness driving 20 miles, for years, on a daily basis to pick up a copy.

much like the wsj, sometimes articles appear on paper that become eradicated in microfiche, in online archives.

the disappearing commissars, so to speak.

i consider it a great privilege to be a part of this intellectually curious community.

illegitimi non carborundum
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Aug 23 2008, 03:38 PM
Post #62



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Here is the transcript, courtesy of a "debunker" site:

http://ae911truth.info/pdf/NISTPressConference082208.pdf

Here are some of the video links (likely duplicates):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9137391151102626103

http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4426102965720761539
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Aug 23 2008, 11:55 PM
Post #63



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



From NIST NCSTAR 1-3, Section 7.7.3 [163 of 184, p. 115]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

"7.7.3 Physical Properties of WTC7 Steel

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC7. Other physical properties are the same as those estimated in Chapter 8 for the WTC steels."

[Bold emphasis mine, and what a scientific approach there NIST. rolleyes.gif ]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Aug 25 2008, 06:45 AM
Post #64


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



So... when do we get to see all the video and/or photographic evidence which NIST analysed in coming to the conclusion that the debris damage wasn't a collapse? Just to satisfy our curiousity on an apparently irrelevant issue, you understand.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Aug 25 2008, 01:19 PM
Post #65



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Good to see you WD. Im looking forward to our resident WTC 7 expert pulling this apart... wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Aug 26 2008, 08:32 AM
Post #66


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



As far as I can tell, they haven't got it stuck together in the first place. If this report were a skyscraper, it'd never get off the ground. BUt I'll let the firefighters and A and E folks do the work, I think, since all I've really been doing is looking at the pretty pictures. Turns out it was fire and column 79. None of the pics I've seen would really apply AFAICS.

Dude! Don't touch that! It's column 79!





This post has been edited by waterdancer: Aug 26 2008, 08:53 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Truthseekers
post Aug 26 2008, 05:37 PM
Post #67





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 405
Joined: 15-October 06
From: Outside the sheep pen.
Member No.: 66



Perhaps NIST can explain this away...

QUOTE
In 1945, the Empire State Building withstood the impact of a U.S. Army Air Corps B-25 bomber. Fourteen lives were lost, but the steel structure remained standing after the unarmed trainer plane slammed into the building’s 79th floor. The accident was ruled by authorities to be caused by pilot error, after Lieutenant Colonel William F. Smith Jr., a decorated veteran of World War II and experienced pilot, apparently lost his way in the dense fog that had enveloped Manhattan that Saturday morning in July. Smith was flying the twin-engine bomber from his home in Bedford, Massachusetts to Newark, New Jersey, where he had planned to pick up his commanding officer before continuing on to home base in South Dakota. Smith had been scheduled to land at La Guardia Airport, and the air traffic controller directed him to do so. Smith, however, asked for and received permission to land in Newark instead. The last words the air traffic controller spoke to Smith were ‘At the present time, I can’t see the top of the Empire State Building,’ according to the Empire State Building’s web site.

At 9:40 a.m., as workers went about their business in the Catholic War Relief Office on the 79th floor, the B-25 crashed into that office at 322 kilometers per hour. The impact reportedly tore off the bomber’s wings, leaving a five meter by six meter hole in the building. One engine was catapulted through the Empire State Building, emerging on the opposite side and crashing through the roof of a neighboring building. The second engine and part of the bomber’s landing gear fell through an elevator shaft. When the plane hit, its fuel tanks were reported to have exploded, engulfing the 79th floor in flames.

The 102-story building shook with the initial impact, according to witnesses, but within three months, the damage was repaired at a cost of about $1 million. Smith died in the crash, along with two other crew members. Eleven workers died in the Catholic War Relief Office, and at least two dozen people were injured.


And that happened to a skyscraper not designed/built to withstand the impact of any plane.??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Aug 27 2008, 01:36 PM
Post #68





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



Here is my comment on PM'a latest offering:

Biggest pack of lies since your last article on 9/11. I really look forward to the day that the coverup by the Commission and the PopMech series stands revealed for the fraud it is.

Good pictures, WD!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Aug 29 2008, 06:05 PM
Post #69


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



EMERGENCY WARNING FOR OFFICE WORKERS (NIST WTC7)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Aug 29 2008, 08:41 PM
Post #70



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Oh, this thread is about NIST and WTC7 doh1.gif


I looked at Waterdancer's pictures, and figured it was about the US financial system tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Aug 29 2008, 11:02 PM
Post #71





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



they are all linked, but you know that, i think.

what has been roiling my bowels for the last two years is how to protect assets.

i like to think that my manufacturing assets are immune, but i must have raw materials[alumina, nickel, copper, chq steel, natural gas] so as to produce products. in some kind of global, cataclysmic disruption there would be some apparently simple items, crucial to an industrial society, that would disappear in the twinkling of an eye. shutting down the usa so fast it would make your head spin.

and then there are the financial assets.

in what form should they be held now, do you think? and where should they be held?

7 years ago, after the wtc events and the disappearance[?] of the gold in the comex[or was it the nymex] vault[a little discussed feature of the events of that day] i decided to put a sizeable fraction of my financial assets into physical gold.

recently, i took all my commodity gains. liquidated all equity holdings because of a marketplace that i consider to be more rigged than a mississippi river boat gambling tables in the 19th century.

and have been contemplating translating all those dollars into gold.

and then the question arises, where to hold the gold? in the usa? or a private swiss bank?

well, questions i probably shouldn't raise with you folks.

but, the "collapsed house of cards" image is a valid one. everyday, i listen to cnbc. read the ft, the wsj, the nyt and encounter reality so skewed as to move it into the realm of grotesque prevarication.

imagine that the financial press was able, with a straight face, to report a 3.3% increase in gdp. impossible. this is either a completely fraudulent story or a story that will become adjusted after the elections.

how does one make intelligent decisions when confronted with a house of mirrors?

can one escape the rabbit hole?

as i may have mentioned, i reside in metro-houston. the other day, the wsj published a piece telling the world how houston has been unaffected by the real estate problems afflicting the rest of the usa.

so, i talked to some of my contractors[metal building construction, pool construction, arborist services]. in these fields, these guys are the tops in this area. they all told me that 2008 was going to be their worst year ever. and that the number of foreclosures was rising based on what they were seeing.

so, in an ebullient energy economy, when houston goes south, you will know that the usa, in its entirety, will have fallen into a crevasse.

i close this with this observation: odd isn't it how neither of the puppets have spent any time discussing this financial cataclysm. and how virtually all of the media[of all persuasions] have allowed them to be silent on this critical topic?

night thoughts from an old guy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
albertchampion
post Aug 30 2008, 12:28 AM
Post #72





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,843
Joined: 1-March 07
Member No.: 710



after writing this, i picked up todays FT.

though below the fold,front page, here is the story- merril's losses over the last 18 months amount to 25% of the profits it has made over the last 36 years as a listed company.

the inescapable conclusion is that all of the euro-asian-amerikan financial institutions are insolvent.

and then there is today's wsj. again a front page sty below the fold. a story about delphi's inability to escape from bankruptcy. if you have read what i have had to say over the last several years about gm's decision to spin-off delphi, and how gm has been secretly re-absorbing these entities[especially AC spark plug operations], then you should recognize that gm is insolvent. as is ford. as is chrysler.

even toyota, nissan may be smelling the coffee at the moment.

recognizing that their adoption of the amerikan "debt beyond belief" model has been a mistake.

a maelstrom is targeting the industrial world. and so far, no entity seems to be recognizing that storm's path.

a financial katrina, rita, wilma is enroute.

most will not recognize the storms until they pick themselves up naked, if they survive.

dark night thoughts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
eti1777
post Aug 30 2008, 04:53 PM
Post #73





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 11
Joined: 15-January 07
Member No.: 452



Dr. F. Greening seems to have critique on NIST WTC 7 report.

QUOTE
Comments on the Draft Report NIST NCSTAR 1-9: “Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7”, issued by NIST August 21st, 2008

By

F. R. Greening


1.0 Introduction

A preliminary (draft) version of NIST’s final report on the collapse of WTC 7 was issued on August 21st 2008 together with a call by NIST’s Investigation Team for the submission of comments on the Draft Report from interested parties within the general public. First I wish to thank NIST for producing such a detailed technical report on the collapse of WTC 7 and secondly, I applaud NIST for allowing researchers from around the world to offer technical feedback that hopefully will be duly considered by NIST before a final version of the report is issued.

In reading the Draft WTC 7 Report a number of issues emerge that are crucial to the credibility of NIST’s proposal as to how and why building 7 collapsed on September 11th, 2001. These key issues center on the narrative surrounding the ignition of the fires in WTC 7 and the spreading of these fires within the building prior to its collapse. The accuracy of NIST’s account of what transpired within the confines of building 7 during 9/11, is vital to NIST’s entire WTC 7 Report because it provides the basis for the computer modeling/simulation of the heating of structural elements on the fire-affected floors, which in turn, leads to NIST’s proposed collapse initiation and propagation mechanism.

In the following comments I will attempt to address each of the key topics - fire ignition and spreading, fire intensities and durations, structural heating, collapse initiation and propagation – and in so doing, highlight my concerns or objections to NIST’s position on these topics as presented in its Draft WTC 7 Report.

2.0 The Ignition and Spreading of the Fires in WTC 7

In Chapter 9 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 we encounter one of the most significant problems with attempts to unravel the mystery of why and how WTC 7 collapsed late in the afternoon of September 11th, 2001 – the question of where and how fires started in building 7. On page 376 of NCSTAR 1-9 we read:

“… the ignition and early course of the fires (in WTC 7) were unknown because they were presumed to have occurred in the damaged and heavily smoke-shrouded southern portion of the building.”

NIST’s knowledge of the fires in WTC 7 is therefore based on images of the exterior faces of the buildings. Unfortunately however, as acknowledged by NIST, most of the burning of combustible materials at the WTC on 9/11 took place beyond the views available through exterior windows well inside the buildings.

NIST propose, and it appears to be a reasonable assumption, that the fires in WTC 7 started near the south face as a result of the collapse of WTC 1 at about 10:29 on the morning of 9/11. However, even this assumption is problematical because fires on the crucial 12th and 13th floors of WTC 7 were not in fact observed until after 2:00 p.m., and then only on the east face of the building.

Faced with the problem of modeling the spreading of the fires in WTC 7, NIST begins its computer simulation with a set of 2 MW fires, presumably one per floor, for floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13. These hypothetical fires are stated to be “roughly equivalent to small, single workstation fires”, but NIST is quite vague about where these fires were located other than “near the southern face of the building”. What is more, for the fire to spread to NIST’s satisfaction on floor 8, two fires were hypothesized to start at this level within the building.

Other aspects of NIST’s simulation also appear to be quite arbitrary and unphysical. Thus the fire on floor 12 was prescribed to start “near the center of the south face at an assigned time of 12:00 noon.” This is a strange choice of ignition time given that the WTC 7 fires were supposedly started by flaming debris from the collapse of WTC 1 at 10:29 a.m. It implies that some of the flaming material in the WTC 1 debris that settled near WTC 7 remained dormant for about an hour and a half before spontaneously igniting fires that were subsequently observed on floor 12.

1.0 Fire Intensities and Durations

The way the fires spread in WTC 7 during 9/11 was largely determined by the distribution of combustible materials throughout the building. In NIST’s fire simulations this distribution was approximated by an average fuel load for each fire-affected floor of 20 - 32 kg/m2 or 4.0 and 6.4 lb/ft2, (See NIST NCSTAR 1-9 pages 59 – 60). As shown in Figures 10-15 and 10-16 of NCSTAR 1-9, this fuel loading is calculated by NIST to have been sufficient to sustain temperatures above 400 °C for the floor beams and concrete slab on the east side of floors 12 and 13 for about 2 hours. According to NIST’s fire simulations, floors 12 and 13 were the most severely heated floors in WTC 7; however, there are reasons to question the level of heating claimed by NIST.

NIST’s fire simulation would have us believe that a very substantial heat release rate was sustained for over 2 hours over a floor area of about 500 m2 in building 7. Thus Figure 9-13 of NCSTAR 1-9 shows that a heat release rate of 200 MW was attained on floor 12 at about 3:00 p.m. on September 11th and remained above 200 MW until well after 5:00 p.m. But we need to ask: Is a 200 MW fire consistent with a fuel loading of 32 kg/m2 - the value used by NIST for its floor 12 fire simulations? The answer appears to be no. Thus a 200 MW heat release rate for 2 hours implies a total energy release of 1,440 GJ. If the combustible material on the 12th floor of WTC 7 is assumed to release 20 MJ/kg, we have to conclude that 72,000 kg of office material was combusted over an area of 500 m2, or there was a fuel loading in WTC 7 of 144 kg/m2 – a value over four times NIST’s assumed fuel loading.

That there is a problem with NIST’s predicted fire intensities in WTC 7 compared to the assumed fuel loading is supported by comparisons to other studies of fires in steel framed buildings. For example, the well-known Cardington tests conducted in the U.K. in 1999 measured a maximum heat flux of about 200 kW/m2 over a period of about 1 hour from the combustion of 6000 kg of cellulose-based fuel inside a 144 m2 steel framed structure, giving a fuel loading of 42 kg/m2. Thus we see that in the Cardington tests the total energy release is predicted to be 144 x 200 kW for one hour which equals 28.8 MW for 3600 seconds or 104 GJ. The heat of combustion of the fuel was 17 MJ/kg, so for 6000 kg we would expect a heat release of 102 GJ in good agreement with the predicted energy release.

The main problem with the NIST fire simulation appears to be the calculated duration of the fire on the 12th and 13th floors of WTC 7. For example, if we assume a more reasonable fire duration of 30 minutes, rather than NIST’s excessive 2 hours, we may revise the energy release down from 1,440 GJ to a mere 360 GJ in which case the combustion of 20 MJ/kg fuel would have consumed 18,000 kg of material and the fuel loading would have been 36 kg/m2 in much better agreement with NIST’s assumed fuel load. That these are more realistic figures is also supported by some of NIST’s own studies of the relationship between combustible loads in buildings and classifications of fire severity. Thus M G. Goode in NIST Report No. GCR-04-872, published in July 2004, provided a table showing that fire durations of 0.5 and 0.75 hours are to be expected for fuel loads of 20 kg/m2 and 30 kg/m2, respectively.

4.0 Structural Heating

In view of the fact that NIST appears to have overestimated the intensity and duration of the fires in WTC 7, particularly on floors 12 and 13, it follows that the heating of the structural steel is also overestimated in the WTC 7 Draft Report. This is fatal to the overall validity of NIST’s collapse initiation hypothesis because NIST's hypothesis is predicated on the thermal expansion of long span beams and girders on floors 12/13 and their eventual loss of connectivity with column 79, (See Chapter 8 of NCSTAR 1-9).

NIST’s computer simulation of the thermal response of floors 12/13 is described in Chapter 10 of NCSTAR 1-9 and estimates temperatures as high as 675 °C “on much of the east side and the east portion of the south side of (floor 12)”. NIST also concludes that the temperatures of floor beams and girders on floors 12/13 were 600 °C or higher for 1 - 2 hours.

The temperature vs. time profile of a structural steel member exposed to a fire and protected by a layer of insulation of thickness di is given by the formula:

DTs / Dt = [ ki / (di cs rs) ] (Ap / V) ( Tg - Ts )

where,

DTs / Dt is the rate of change of the temperature of the steel
ki is the thermal conductivity of the insulation material
cs is the heat capacity of the steel
rs is the density of the steel
Ap / V is the section factor of the steel member
Tg - Ts is the temperature difference between the steel and the combustion gases

Values for the quantities ki , di , cs , rs and Ap / V appropriate for calculations of the heating of structural members in WTC 7 are as follows:

ki = 0.12 W/m.°C (Monokote MK-5)

di = 0.015 m

cs = 660 J/kg.°C

rs = 7800 kg/m3

Ap / V = 100 m-1 (W33x130 girder)

As discussed in Section 3.0 above, the duration and intensity of the fires on floors 12 and 13 of WTC 7 discussed by NIST in Chapter 10 of NCSTAR 1-9, appear to be inconsistent with the fuel loads used in NIST’s simulations. However, based on data from A. Jowsey’s thesis: Fire Imposed Heat Fluxes for Structural Analysis, (Edinburgh 2006), an upper layer gas temperature of 800 °C sustained for 40 minutes would appear to provide a more realistic description of the fires at the east side of floors 12 and 13 prior to the collapse of WTC 7. This leads to a predicted heating rate of 7.46 °C/min and a maximum temperature for the floor framing beams and girders near the critical column 79 of about 300 °C, or barely half the temperatures estimated for these structural members in the NIST WTC 7 Draft Report.

5.0 Collapse Initiation and Propagation

NIST’s computer simulation of the collapse of WTC 7, as presented in Chapters 8 and 12 of NCSTAR 1-9, is remarkable for the low temperatures - as low as 100 °C – at which failures of connecting elements such as bolts and studs are predicted to have first occurred in WTC 7 after about 3:00 p.m. on 9/11. These failures were caused, so NIST asserts, by the thermal expansion of asymmetrical framing beams and girders on the east side of floors 12/13. Nevertheless, in NIST's model, complete separation of column 79 from lateral restraints to buckling is predicted to occur only at temperatures well above 300 °C. Thus NIST’s collapse initiation hypothesis requires that structural steel temperatures on floors 12/13 significantly exceeded 300 °C - a condition I believe that could never have been realized with NIST’s postulated 32 kg/m2 or lower fuel loading.

However, assume for a moment that collapse initiation in WTC 7 did in fact occur as NIST states: by a thermally induced buckling failure of column 79 on floors 12/13. It would then be appropriate to ask: Is the collapse propagation mechanism proposed by NIST consistent with the observed collapse of WTC 7? If the answer to this question is indeed “Yes”, it would add credibility to NIST’s account of what happened to building 7 on 9/11 even if an inappropriate fuel loading was used. However, I would suggest that NIST’s account of the last ½ minute of the life of WTC 7 not only lacks crucial physical detail, but is also at odds with what was observed in the well-known collapse videos of WTC 7.

In NIST’s WTC 7 collapse simulation, the fires in the lower part of the building severely heat floors 12 and 13 near column 79 causing it to lose lateral support and buckle. Then, according to NIST, the entire section of column 79 above floor 14 began to descend and trigger a global “disproportionate” collapse of WTC 7. In NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 12, page 57, it is claimed that the top of column 79 was moving downward within 0.2 seconds of its buckling between floor 5 and 14.

Let’s consider this alleged motion of column 79 in more detail. Figure 12-43 in Chapter 12 of NCSTAR 1-9 NIST shows column 79 buckling between floors 5 and 14 starting about 14.9 seconds into NIST’s collapse initiation simulation. The lateral displacement of column 79 is shown to be about 5.5 meters to the east of its normal, fully vertical position at floors 9/10 at 15.5 seconds into the simulation. A consideration of the geometry of a column buckling over a length of about 36 meters shows that a lateral displacement of 5.5 meters should lower the top of the column by about 0.8 meters. In the same collapse simulation timeframe, (14.9 – 15.5 seconds), NIST show in Figure 12-45 that the vertical displacement of column 79 at the roof level was in fact 0.83 meters in 0.6 seconds. This implies that column 79 was moving downwards with an acceleration of 4.6 m/s2 or about ½ g which is a very dramatic motion for a column that was restrained by several framing beams and girders on all the undamaged and unheated floors above floor 14 just moments before collapse initiation. I would therefore ask NIST to explain how and why all lateral supports acting on column 79, from more than 30 upper floors, were simply ripped out or otherwise detached from their very secure connections in only 0.2 seconds?

To conclude this section I would like to briefly mention NIST’s simulation of the final global collapse of WTC 7. Of course we are all very familiar with what actually transpired during the final moments in the life of WTC 7 because of the numerous well-known videos of this dramatic event, as discussed in Chapter 5 of NCSTAR 1-9. These videos typically present an unobstructed view of at least the upper third of WTC 7 and permit the collapse to be followed for 4 - 5 seconds. The videos show the upper section of WTC descending very smoothly as an intact structure with the roofline remaining essentially horizontal until it passes behind buildings in the foreground. The only significant distortion of the boxed-shaped Building 7 that is noticeable after the façade begins its downward motion, is the formation of a slight kink on the eastern side of the north face.

Now consider NIST’s version of the final moments of WTC 7 as exemplified by the computer-generated simulacra of Figure 12-69 of NCSTAR 1-9. These images of the final collapse of WTC 7 from the north, west and south show very extensive buckling of the exterior columns especially near the mid-height of the building. It is simply astounding that, even though these computer generated images of a crumpled and severely distorted Building 7 look nothing like the video images of the real thing, NIST nevertheless concludes: “the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well.”

5.0 Conclusions

I believe there are many problems with the material presented in NIST’s Draft WTC 7 Report; most of these problems stem from the fuel loading assumed by NIST but I would add that NIST’s collapse hypothesis is not physically realistic and is not well supported by observations of the behavior of Building 7 during its collapse. I certainly believe that an alternative collapse initiation and propagation hypothesis is called for; an hypothesis that more accurately reflects the reality of what happened to WTC 7 on September 11th 2001.

Dr. F. R. Greening
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Aug 30 2008, 08:05 PM
Post #74



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Awesome
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 11 2008, 06:17 AM
Post #75



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Aug 29 2008, 04:05 PM) *
EMERGENCY WARNING FOR OFFICE WORKERS (NIST WTC7)

Mmmmmmm.... NIST Salsa [1:23] rolleyes.gif laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 11 2008, 09:25 AM
Post #76



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Has anyone heard anything recent about any "public comments" back to NIST about NCSTAR1-9 & 1-A? I've been offline, and the window closes sometime Sep. 15, 2008.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 12 2008, 06:29 AM
Post #77



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



This related thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13653

takes me to Prison Planet:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2...usual_event.htm

and these early "leaked" files:

http://www.infowars.net/WTC7Report/

Now if we do a slide show to inspect all those .PNG Finite Element Analysis images, I find a few interesting things:













I think you'll see a pattern: NIST computer "simulated" temperatures that are literally well off the scale. Since NIST didn't bother to provide units on these images (BAD scientist!), I'll assume these were above 675 Celsius without referring to the ~1000 pages of NCSTAR1-9 and 1A. I've already pointed out several times that NIST didn't base their speculations on any instrumented data or WTC7 steel inspection (since that was mostly shipped to Baosteel in China post-haste for some reason).

Oh one more question- wouldn't the thermal-conduction pathways be considerably larger for WTC7? Something more like those earlier FEA images (with floors 15-47 added to this, of course)?



Hmmm...

EDIT: What exactly did NIST tell their computers was in that hypothetical fire on floors 5 & 6? (I know CIA- SEC files on Enron wink.gif ) Wasn't the highest temperature evidenced by inspection of steel material from WTC1 & 2 260C or less?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 12 2008, 07:46 AM
Post #78



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



To emphasize from Dr. Frank Greening's paper above:

"5.0 Collapse Initiation and Propagation

NIST’s computer simulation of the collapse of WTC 7, as presented in Chapters 8 and 12 of NCSTAR 1-9, is remarkable for the low temperatures - as low as 100 °C – at which failures of connecting elements such as bolts and studs are predicted to have first occurred in WTC 7 after about 3:00 p.m. on 9/11. These failures were caused, so NIST asserts, by the thermal expansion of asymmetrical framing beams and girders on the east side of floors 12/13. Nevertheless, in NIST's model, complete separation of column 79 from lateral restraints to buckling is predicted to occur only at temperatures well above 300 °C. Thus NIST’s collapse initiation hypothesis requires that structural steel temperatures on floors 12/13 significantly exceeded 300 °C - a condition I believe that could never have been realized with NIST’s postulated 32 kg/m2 or lower fuel loading."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Sep 12 2008, 09:29 AM
Post #79





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (dMole @ Sep 10 2008, 09:46 AM) *
... is remarkable for the low temperatures - as low as 100 °C – at which failures of connecting elements such as bolts and studs are predicted to have first occurred in WTC 7 after about 3:00 p.m. on 9/11...

Well d, things are crystal clear.

This is why they didn't want to use water to fight the fires in case boiling water caused more rapid failure of all the joints in the building. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Sep 12 2008, 10:18 AM
Post #80



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Sep 12 2008, 07:29 AM) *
Well d, things are crystal clear.

This is why they didn't want to use water to fight the fires in case boiling water caused more rapid failure of all the joints in the building. laugh.gif

Yes O892... fortunately I live at "high altitude" where water boils around 95-97C, so I'm safe to use steel there. thumbsup.gif

EDIT: Seriously though, boiling rusted, frozen iron/steel parts is a pretty good way to crack them loose BTW.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th August 2019 - 10:02 AM