Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ WTC 7 _ Nist Wtc7 Press Release Thurs. Aug. 21

Posted by: dMole Aug 19 2008, 01:02 PM

FWIW, there is a press release and webcast scheduled for 11-noon EDT on Thurs. Aug. 21, 2008.

"The draft WTC 7 investigation report released at the briefing will be open for public comment through noon Eastern Daylight Time on Sept. 15, 2008."

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/calmed/wtc_081808.html

links to:

http://wtc.nist.gov/

Posted by: amazed! Aug 19 2008, 02:00 PM

It will be interesting to see, just for the spectacle. laughing1.gif

Posted by: forthetrees Aug 19 2008, 02:06 PM

"11-noon EDT on Thurs. Aug. 19, 2008."


Today, Tuesday the 19th or Thursday the 21st?

Posted by: dMole Aug 19 2008, 02:16 PM

Sorry about that (too many numbers go through my head). wink.gif

Thursday of this week, the 21st. The NIST announcements are linked above for the full scoop.

Posted by: Truthseekers Aug 20 2008, 04:56 AM

They are already saying it collapsed due to fire, in the final report. They will be sticking to their lies. Funny how the word 'probable' is being used to explain collapse, but brainwashed fools will take it as fact, when the fact will be, it is nowhere near 'fact'.

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 02:49 AM

I'm going to "scoop" NIST's press release later this morning, but I just found this in my reading.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf [p. xliv or 46 of 184 in PDF]

"E.6 STRUCTURAL STEEL IN WTC 7

No steel was recovered from WTC 7;..."

[ UTTER and COMPLETE speculation- 'Nuff said?]

Posted by: Truthseekers Aug 21 2008, 06:06 AM

QUOTE (dMole @ Aug 21 2008, 07:49 AM) *
I'm going to "scoop" NIST's press release later this morning, but I just found this in my reading.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf [p. xliv or 46 of 184 in PDF]

"E.6 STRUCTURAL STEEL IN WTC 7

No steel was recovered from WTC 7;..."

[ UTTER and COMPLETE speculation- 'Nuff said?]



I must admit, I find it very odd that the disclaimer seems to indicate that what is below that, is purely made up, or am I reading in between the lines, too much?. I realise the NIST is made up anyway, but to say so itself is one thing, and also, to say that no use can be made of the report from a legal standpoint is corrupt.

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 10:55 AM

This press release should be starting in about 5 minutes at:

http://wtc.nist.gov/

Download of slides PDF should be at:

http://event.on24.com/event/11/73/59/rt/1/documents/slidepdf/wtc_7_news__briefing_082008_final_v2.pdf

Closed captioned link should be at:
http://event.on24.com/clients/default/mainpages/on24/dynMain.html#

Posted by: Omega892R09 Aug 21 2008, 11:11 AM

QUOTE (dMole @ Aug 19 2008, 01:55 PM) *
This press release should be starting in about 5 minutes at:

http://wtc.nist.gov/

Download of slides PDF should be at:

http://event.on24.com/event/11/73/59/rt/1/documents/slidepdf/wtc_7_news__briefing_082008_final_v2.pdf

Come on Dorothy we are off to see the wizard the wonderful Wizard of Oz.

and what is this I see:

QUOTE
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse
Report and Recommendations for Improving Building Safety Released for Comment

August 21, 2008
CONTACT: Ben Stein, NIST
(301) 975-3097
ben.stein@nist.gov

Michael Newman , NIST
(301) 975-3025
mnewman@nist.gov


GAITHERSBURG, Md.—The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in
New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the
Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced
today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire
safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total
collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its
WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

"Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar
to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,"
said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a
critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought
the building down.”


Ben Stein, not the same Bent Steam that caused such furore not long ago with a creationist propaganda movie 'Expelled', surely.

If it was fires alone they certainly did cause an extraordinary event - one column failing caused a symetrical collapse. Oh! Come on Sham Sunder, with all your qualifications you KNOW that just wasn't so. 'Book him Danno'

EDIT: Sorry should have included the link to document from which the above quote came:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

Just had trouble retrieving it as net is down to a crawl again and causes exploder to er well explode sometimes losing all open windows. Seems to happen every time I am logged in here. Me paranoid - Nah!

Makes it difficult to keep on track though.

Posted by: Oceans Flow Aug 21 2008, 11:20 AM

I guess Lucky Larry should have waited for those thirteen recommendations for improving building safety before he rebuilt WTC7. It could easily collapse as well if there's a fire.

It's probably insured though. whistle.gif

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 11:29 AM

I would like a transcript of this little Q&A tapdance...

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 11:45 AM

You notice how quickly that woman's handler threw out the question from Bill? Jenkins of "Building Safety Journal" magazine about steel and concrete's ability to resist fire and moved to the next question? [around 34:40 in the MP3]

MP3
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=906_1219351842

Posted by: Truthseekers Aug 21 2008, 11:53 AM

What a pile of steamin pig S***. It is what was expected of a bunch of corrupt murdering slagheaps.

So then, debris from the falling WTC1 and 2 had NO impact in the cause of WTC7 to collapse. Camp fires in WTC7 apparently behaved in such a manner, they were hot enough to cause the central core to fail.
Hey guys, you certainly have cornered the market in building skyscrapers out of lead!. Why not build them from paper, and then claim the weight of the selotape caused them collapse after George bush flew a housefly into one of them.

Every single god damned video I have seen on WTC7 collapse, does not show anything which shows this pack of NIST lies to even come close.

Every manjack and woman of NIST should be brought up on charges of murder, corruption and aiding and abetting war crimes.

Just seen their videos. laughing1.gif

Why, they have a computer generated model of the thing falling OVER, not straight down. Who is paying them off with millions of dollars?.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Aug 21 2008, 11:57 AM

QUOTE (Truthseekers @ Aug 19 2008, 02:53 PM) *
Every manjack and woman of NIST should be brought up on charges of murder, corruption and aiding and abetting war crimes.

Agreed!

And that is just for starters.

I could not get the presentation though.

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 11:59 AM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Aug 21 2008, 09:51 AM) *
Is anyone recording this audio/video?

I think there's a reason they used this ON24 RealPlayer format. Even one of the apparently computer-savvy Randiites was complaining about the NIST viewer "diagnostics" yesterday.

Posted by: Oceans Flow Aug 21 2008, 12:06 PM

I didn't watch it because I didn't want to install their 'plug-ins'. to_keep_order.gif

Posted by: Rickysa Aug 21 2008, 12:06 PM

It was heartening to see some honest questions and not just softballs tossed...I bet someone was wetting his/her pants when the inforwars guy started talking.

The claims made are so unbelievably impossible, that from an engineering/structural viewpoint, Gage et al will have no problem blowing this report out of the water.

So you have to continually push termate against the beam for it to work?? I wonder how they get someone to volunteer to do that when it is planned for use in demolition?

Rick

Posted by: Truthseekers Aug 21 2008, 12:06 PM

Funny eh guys?. Dr Shyam (sham) certainly a suitable name.

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 12:12 PM

QUOTE (Truthseekers @ Aug 21 2008, 04:06 AM) *
I must admit, I find it very odd that the disclaimer seems to indicate that what is below that, is purely made up, or am I reading in between the lines, too much?. I realise the NIST is made up anyway, but to say so itself is one thing, and also, to say that no use can be made of the report from a legal standpoint is corrupt.

Hi Truthseekers,

My bracketed editorial comment [a standard US format] was essentially the foundation of the Infowars.com question that was thrown out and never addressed. I called it last night, right after I read that "no WTC7" steel in the NCSTAR1-3, IIRC.

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 12:16 PM

QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Aug 21 2008, 10:06 AM) *
I didn't watch it because I didn't want to install their 'plug-ins'. to_keep_order.gif

Good call OF. I think I'm going to run a "full sweep" with my antivirus, registry, and antispyware collection. Might find something interesting...

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 12:27 PM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Aug 21 2008, 10:11 AM) *
Gage discussing NIST report NOW:

http://www.noliesradio.com/

Kevin Ryan and Tony Szamboti are on Noliesradio panel right now.

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 12:53 PM

Hopefully this isn't the last that we see of that "Q&A" session.

NIST pulling the plug
http://img156.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nistwtc7plugpulledtl5.jpg

Led to:
http://img382.imageshack.us/my.php?image=presentationisoverxg7.jpg

What was it that Porky Pig said again?

Posted by: Oceans Flow Aug 21 2008, 12:56 PM

WTC 7 Solved: It Was Ivins!

Diary Entry by George Washington
August 20, 2008 at 23:18:49

Following is a leaked version of NIST's August 21st announcement as to the cause of the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on 9/11.

The government destroyed the steel from ground zero, because we believed it might not have been allowed as evidence at trial.

However, we did ship one steel beam to someone, who sold it to a junk yard in China for scrap metal, which melted it down to make Olympic trinkets, one of which was shipped back to us yesterday.

After testing that steel using very secret, super-advanced, but Incredibly Accurate new methods, we have determined that residue on the steel matches certain aspects of Ivins' desk in his lab at Fort Detrick (true, it also matches the desks from at least 16 different laboratories throughout the world, but our super-advanced testing has shown that we do not need to talk to anyone at those other labs).

While previously, experts said that no modern steel-frame high-rise had ever collapsed due to fire alone, that the fires in building 7 were not that hot or widespread, that building 7 collapsed at virtually free-fall speed, and that the building must have been brought down by controlled demolition, government scientists now say that isn't true.

Government scientists now know that one disturbed individual (especially if he likes sorority girls), acting alone, can weaken thick core columns, melt (and even partially evaporate) structural steel, and cause molten steel to continue boiling for months afterwards simply by having bad energy (especially if he looks geeky).

Government investigators have created a new timeline showing that between the time Ivins created super-advanced weaponized anthrax all by himself without advanced equipment and the time he returned for a routine meeting at Ft. Detrick later that day, he drove to Manhattan and glowered with evil intent at building 7.

This case is now solved, and we our closing down our investigation.

Anyone who doubts our conclusion is a conspiracy theorist who should go look for anthrax spores on a grassy knoll.


http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=8737

Posted by: Oceans Flow Aug 21 2008, 12:59 PM

QUOTE (dMole @ Aug 21 2008, 09:53 AM) *
Hopefully this isn't the last that we see of that "Q&A" session.

Right down the memory hole eh. A googling shows no News results.

Probably some enterprising youngster thought to videotape the Q&A off their computer screen at least.

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 01:00 PM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Aug 21 2008, 10:58 AM) *
Does anyone else keep losing the audio stream?

I need to refresh at times, and now the server is not responding.

It's pretty shitty audio under WinAmp for me, and I've got a good high-speed connection. It hasn't dropped though. Maybe it's those electrons "north of the border" TF. wink.gif

Posted by: paranoia Aug 21 2008, 01:03 PM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Aug 21 2008, 12:58 PM) *
Does anyone else keep losing the audio stream?

I need to refresh at times, and now the server is not responding.


im using windows media player, and it keeps dropping every few minutes. just keep refreshing, it eventually comes back on...

Posted by: Omega892R09 Aug 21 2008, 01:04 PM

QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Aug 19 2008, 02:59 PM) *
Right down the memory hole eh. A googling shows no News results.

These b*stards can't even lie honestly!

Posted by: Rickysa Aug 21 2008, 01:04 PM

QUOTE (Turbofan @ Aug 21 2008, 12:58 PM) *
Does anyone else keep losing the audio stream?

I need to refresh at times, and now the server is not responding.


"Listeners:
The Tele-Conference Dial-in # for listeners is (712) 432-1001
and the access code is: 442-618-649#
Call in at 12pm EDT
(Note that you will not be able to speak during the call)

(Panelists — you have been given a different access code)

You may also listen live to both press conferences at NoLiesRadio.com and possibly at WBAI Radio — NY"


From 911blogger


the phone connection is excellent...Rick

Posted by: maturin42 Aug 21 2008, 01:07 PM

Posted on the web site of my local paper:

If a building falls down in a way never before seen in history, engineers and architects have some explaining to do.

Despite many years of experience with high-rise steel-framed buildings and fires in that type building, no previous example can be found. This morning, 8-21-08, NIST Director of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory stood up on his hind legs and explained how WTC Building 7 fell down. It was ‘fire’ on the lower floors of the building.

That huge explosion you heard on the video didn’t happen. It wasn’t loud enough! I am not kidding. The refutation of the idea that explosives were present and used to bring down Bldg 7 is as follows: If enough explosive were put onto Column 79 (the key column) to cut it, it would have made a lot of noise. The explosions heard by many that presaged the collapse, wasn’t loud enough to be caused by a charge that could have cut that key column. End of explanation. The flows of pyroclastic clouds from the building were a figment of your imagination. Dr. Sunder stands up and tries to make the case that we now have to review our construction standards to cover this phenomenon. The emperor has no clothes, so now we must all strip and wear the same kind of new clothes if you want to live in NIST’s world.

In answer to repeated questions about why they ruled out the controlled demolition scenario, Dr. Sunder explained that it would have taken a lot of explosive to cut through that one main beam. It was the destruction of that one beam that caused the collapse. It happened because of thermal expansion, and he had drawings to “prove” it, showing beams distorting beyond recognition due to the fire.

Infowars reporter is asking a question and they are trying to cut his mike and move on. He wanted to know about the microspheres that appear in all the dust samples from the site, and yet NIST did not look for and miraculously did not find evidence of explosives. They did not retain steel samples.

“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7” is a line from the report posted online by NIST. Notice that forensics have nothing at all to do with the findings. They still did not look at the steel, nor the dust, and, surprisingly, they also ruled out fuel oil from the generators, which had been at the heart of their previous fire-driven hypotheses. The bottom line with Dr. Sunder, in his summary, was that a single column gave way leading to the sudden, catastrophic collapse, and they have the computer model to prove it. Computers are great. If you tweak the parameters enough you can make them do almost anything - or at least SHOW anything. Whether it has anything to do with physics or reality, is another matter entirely.

1340 degree heat persisted in the pile of WTC 7 for weeks after the event, but Dr. Sunder did not address how that could have occurred in an ordinary office material fire. In addition, the severe eutectic corrosion, intergranular melting, and thinning in the steel girders was not explained. This appears in the FEMA report but is not addressed by NIST. Dr. Jones’ findings are similarly ignored.

So, ignore your lying eyes. Even though Danny Jowenko, one of Europe’s most qualified controlled demolition experts says that it is unquestionably controlled demolition, Dr. Sunder says no. It just LOOKS like it. It was just fire. Move along. Nothing to see here!

What a surprise!

NIST’s report can be found here: http://wtc.nist.gov/
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth [ ae911truth.org ] will be doing a detailed critique of the many fallacies contained in this document in their official comments .

Posted by: Truthseekers Aug 21 2008, 01:16 PM

http://www.denverconstructionservices.co.uk/controlled_demolition_services.html

QUOTE
Concrete bursting is a method of controlled demolition which once again is now widely used by Denver Construction Services. Bursting offers a noise free, quiet and efficient method of controlled demolition especially in confined space areas such as foundations, columns, beams and internal concrete walls. Holes are pre-drilled using non percussive diamond coring rigs (shown opposite) in the concrete structure to be demolished. On completion the burster head (which contains two pistons) is inserted into the required demolition grid hole.

Hydraulic pressure provided by 3 phase power, diesel or petrol power packs are then applied to the bursting head until such time as the build up of applied piston pressure inside the holes induces cracks in the concrete structure.The cracking itself follows the grid of weakness created by the previously drilled holes.

The bursting process continues and is repeated until such time that the entire structure has been fractured into smaller sections enabling debris removal to take place. Once again, with no hand arm vibration, bursting can eliminate any potential HAVS problems.


Well, thats shown the 'no demolition based on no sound' theory by the National Institute for sh*t Theories up for what it is. All one has to do, is wire the hydraulics to the power generator at WTC7, and small silent charges for the beams, and you have a quiet demolition at best.

http://www.archerusa.com/nonexplosivesblastingdemolition/product_dexpandemolitionagent.html

Another site with link to silent demolition.

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 01:17 PM

I'm not certain if this means NIST will re-webcast, have a download, or what (esp. will the FULL question set), but their site now says:

"This presentation will be available on August 22, 2008 at 01:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time."

http://event.on24.com/r.htm?e=117359&s=1&k=17480F564B916A0A9CA3CFB3EE5BDDA2

Has someone got means/equipment to record it if it's a webcast?

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 01:30 PM

Here are links to the new-ish NIST material.

News Briefing
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_News_Briefing_082008.pdf

WTC7 "Q&A"
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

Opening Statement
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/opening_remarks_082108.html

NIST NCSTAR1A (~8MB)
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

NIST NCSTAR1-9 Vol. 1 (Ch1-8) (20.1MB)
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment.pdf

NIST NCSTAR1-9 Vol. 2 (Ch9-14, App. A-E) (44.6MB)
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment.pdf

NIST NCSTAR1-9A (54.1MB)
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9A_for_public_comment.pdf

Process for Submitting Comments
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/comments2008.html

Typical WTC7 floor diagram (2.6MB)
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/images/WTC7Columns_Framing_3x4Poster_HR.jpg

Thermal Expansion Graphic (29MB)
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/images/WTC7_ThermalExpansionPoster.jpg

Webcast link (should be same as above ones)
http://event.on24.com/r.htm?e=117359&s=1&k=17480F564B916A0A9CA3CFB3EE5BDDA2

Posted by: JFK Aug 21 2008, 01:39 PM

QUOTE (dMole @ Aug 21 2008, 01:17 PM) *
I'm not certain if this means NIST will re-webcast, have a download, or what (esp. will the FULL question set), but their site now says:

"This presentation will be available on August 22, 2008 at 01:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time."

http://event.on24.com/r.htm?e=117359&s=1&k=17480F564B916A0A9CA3CFB3EE5BDDA2

Has someone got means/equipment to record it if it's a webcast?


I have the means/equipment, but alas I do not have the bandwidth required. sad.gif

The capture software is available for free here - http://www.orbitdownloader.com/index.htm

Under the tools menu use the "grab" tool. wink.gif

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 01:41 PM

Howard Stern interviewing Jesse Ventura on http://www.noliesradio.com right now.

Posted by: Oceans Flow Aug 21 2008, 02:01 PM

First googlenewssearch article:

Feds: Fires took down building next to twin towers

By DEVLIN BARRETT
Thursday, August 21, 2008

Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.

The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan. On Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers, but skeptics have long argued that fire and debris alone should not have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.

Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a skyscraper.

"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team.

Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.

The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition.

Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation.

"Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were used on the building.

Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation. Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse, based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows internal column failure brought down the building.

Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's emergency operations command center.

The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.

"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder.

The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of the two large towers.

In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed.

The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one part of a building from spreading to other parts.

A spokeswoman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.

"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokeswoman Dara McQuillen.

In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive."

"The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in the face."


http://townhall.com/news/us/2008/08/21/feds_fires_took_down_building_next_to_twin_towers?page=2


EDIT: Right away this is picked up by AP ~

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isReaHAE4U2HLBEPKqetS6J8_BvgD92MQLDG0

Posted by: Truthseekers Aug 21 2008, 02:13 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4&feature=related

This was just a car back firing Dr Sham.

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 02:30 PM

QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Aug 21 2008, 12:01 PM) *
Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.

The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a controlled demolition.
...
In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive."

Umm, wouldn't the water MAIN be several feet underground? How did 'collapse debris' get to it/them? Mains are usually buried deep in cold climates (pretty sure the NE Atlantic coast qualifies there, last time I checked). Anyone care to look up the applicable NYC or NY state building code there? rolleyes.gif

Emotive/programmed language...

"incredibly conclusive" "expert" "science"- see immediately above, and at post #3:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=14279&view=findpost&p=10749868

EDIT: If the city main(s) were broken, presumably spraying/leaking water, then where the f*ck did all the dust come from? Why did that indeterminate metal stay molten until Dec 2001 at least?

Posted by: Oceans Flow Aug 21 2008, 02:41 PM

dMole, did you read their Q&A page? It's an epic riot. laughing1.gif

Posted by: Omega892R09 Aug 21 2008, 03:03 PM

QUOTE (dMole @ Aug 19 2008, 05:30 PM) *
EDIT: If the city main(s) were broken, presumably spraying/leaking water, then where the f*ck did all the dust come from? Why did that indeterminate metal stay molten until Dec 2001 at least?

Was the Hudson River broken then?

Whatever I am pretty certain there is video of firecrews washing themselves down at a hydrant AFTER the disintigration of WTCs 1 & 2 and before the disintegration of WTC 7.

Posted by: Oceans Flow Aug 21 2008, 03:34 PM

So now a search turns up 277 media articles. Here's the Propaganda of Record, the New York Times.


Report Says Fire, Not Explosion, Felled 7 W.T.C.

By ERIC LIPTON
Published: August 21, 2008

GAITHERSBURG, Md. — Fires in the 47-story office tower at the edge of the World Trade Center site undermined floor beams and critical structural columns, federal investigators concluded Thursday, as they attempted to curb still-rampant speculation that explosives or fuel fires were responsible for the building’s collapse of Sept. 11, 2001.

The long-delayed report by engineers here at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in suburban Washington is intended to solve one of still lingering central questions about the 2001 attacks: Why did 7 World Trade Center fall, if it was not hit by an airplane.

“Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail,” said Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator. “Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oils played a role in the collapse that brought the building down.”

No one died when 7 World Trade Center fell, nearly seven hours after the twin towers came down. But the collapse of the adjacent tower — once home to branch offices of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service and to the Giuliani administration’s emergency operations center — is cited in hundreds of books and Internet sites as perhaps the most compelling evidence that an insider secretly planted explosives, intentionally destroying the tower.

It is the first skyscraper in modern times to collapse primarily as a result of a fire.

Mainstream engineers and government officials have rejected the speculation as ridiculous. But national polls have shown that perhaps as many as 1 in 7 Americans believe that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was an inside job.

The investigators determined that debris from the falling twin towers ignited fires on at least 10 floors at 7 World Trade Center, which was about 400 feet north of where the city’s two tallest buildings once stood. The blazes burned out of control for six hours, as the city fire department, devastated by the collapse of the twin towers, abandoned its efforts to extinguish the fire, and the sprinkler system was incapacitated.

The heat from these fires, the investigators said, caused the beams on the lower floors of the east side of the tower to expand, ultimately causing a girder on the 13th floor to disconnect from a critical interior column that supported the building’s long floor spans. Once the 13th floor gave way, a cascade of floor failures started down to the fifth floor, leading to the overall collapse of the tower.

Skeptics have questioned if explosives were planted at 7 World Trade Center, as well as the twin towers and the Pentagon, as the Bush administration was seeking a justification to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. What started as a small number of such conspiracy theorists has only ballooned into a movement of sorts, largely fed by Internet sites that promote the theories.

“Seven World Trade Center is one of the key points of evidence, one of the smoking guns,” said Richard Gage, a California architect who leader a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. “There have been much hotter, longer lasting and larger fires in skyscrapers that have not fallen down.”

The investigators said that if the city water main had not been broken during the collapse of the twin towers, the sprinkler system would likely have put out the fires at 7 World Trade Center, and the building would not have fallen.

The engineers also examined whether diesel fuel tanks in the building — to power the Giuliani administration’s emergency operations center and other government offices — might have been a fuel source that caused the collapse. The investigators determined, based in part on computer models and videos of smoke coming from the tower, that the heat generated from any fuel-fed fires would not have been enough to cause the collapse.

Dr. Sunder said the investigation pointed to how expansion that can occur in steel as it heats up in a fire needs to be considered to prevent skyscraper collapses.

“Our take-home message today is the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery,” Dr. Sunder said. “It did not collapse from explosives or fuel oil fires.”

A new, substantially different, 52-story 7 World Trade Center opened in 2006.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html?em


Comments ~ http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 03:58 PM

"Cause" vs. effect:

Post #16:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=6977&view=findpost&p=10746305

"My lingering question is still what is the exact mechanism that enables gravitation (falling debris) to ignite any fire? I didn't see any "flaming debris" in the photos or video, but there was hella dust and paper, plus that one famous passport. I've seen lightning strikes ignite fires many times, but gravity?

Meteorites, satellites, and "space junk" can do such things, but they "fall" much further and faster through Earth's atmosphere and gravitational field."-- dMole, 10 Jul 2008


From this morning's NIST WTC7 video:

http://img261.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fallingwtc1ndebrisbk5.jpg

EDIT: Note the evidence of fire on 4 floors, not the NIST-claimed 10 in their video capture below:
http://img261.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gravityfiresdb1.jpg

Ummmm, OK... rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif

Still waiting...

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 04:25 PM

Ummm, why doesn't the NIST computer simulation video look anything like this at the end???

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2873776548.html

[Hey look- 2 lines spraying water above! NYC must have found time to fix that broken water main during the WTC7 collapse. rolleyes.gif ]

From post #5:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=6977&view=findpost&p=10742057

EDIT: NIST == Proof by Xbox360 [I know- it's actually LSDYNA, but GIGO... ]

EDIT2: We've seen this one before. Related Purdue simulation thread is at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7335

Posted by: 1morepromethean Aug 21 2008, 05:03 PM

http://www.onemorepromethean.com/2008/08/21/nist-wtc-7-collapsed-via-a-newly-discovered-type-of-building-collapse/

Just thought I'd mention we've done a post on this (ridiculous) report.

If anyone finds video footage of the webcast, let me know.

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 06:08 PM

MP3 audio of Sunder's press release from this morning:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=906_1219351842

Posted by: Truthseekers Aug 21 2008, 06:42 PM

Having gone through this again, and as NIST concluded that WTC7 'is' the first building to ever collapse as a result of fire, then I believe it is 100% safe to say, that NIST have nailed down the fact that WTC1 and WTC2 did NOT collapse, therefore, because of 'fire'. So what caused WTC1 and 2 'to' collapse?. It sure as hell was never those planes. NIST have now completed their hole and buried themselves in it. If the report by NIST, which is pure bullshit, states WTC1 and 2 did not collapse as a result of fire, then all gov made up stories have been debunked without the truth movement having to do a thing. (Though the truth movement has already destroyed all comers from the Gov agencies without breaking sweat anyway.)

This: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm has been confirmed as not the case by virtue of the WTC7 report today.

To be clear on this, I have no such belief in conspiracy theories, just the fact that all 3 buildings were deliberately CD, and no planes or fires caused them to collapse.

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 06:54 PM

QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Aug 21 2008, 01:03 PM) *
Was the Hudson River broken then?

It must have been on Tues. 9/11/2001, O892. That's why no one bothered to put one or two of these:

http://www.pbase.com/laprade/image/99110404

in place of that big white yacht here:

http://www.cgaux1sr.org/photo/WTC/P00Web04837.jpg


All hail fearless Ghouliani and his competent OEM. nonono.gif

Posted by: KP50 Aug 21 2008, 08:29 PM

QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Aug 22 2008, 07:34 AM) *
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html?em


Comments ~ http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html

Dammit I must stop reading those comments pages, same old sh*t going around and around. Although this from Page 4 is interesting ...

QUOTE
As a former fire fighter who worked at 'the pile' on 9-11 I don't want to believe that my government would be involved in such a heinous thing. However, it was clear to me and to many of us who pulled multiple duties that day, that 'they' (who 'they' were is still not clear to me to this day) had decided we weren't gonna be able to 'save' WTC7 and 'they' were gonna bring it down. After a lot of fuzzing and false alarms, the building did come down. I distinctly remember one of our chiefs saying 'we gotta clear, they're gonna blow it up." In the chaos of that day and the subsequent weeks and months, it didn't even occur to me think about who 'they' were and how 'they' had managed to get the building ready to bring it down. I left the department in early 2003 and any fire fighter (or even police officers, as I recently was told by a former cop), we were all briefed on what happened on 9-11 and it was clear that we weren't allowed to discuss any of it in public if we wanted to keep our jobs. Now, with my wife and two young daughters, I couldn't afford to put my only source of income on the line for something I wasn't even sure about. I've always thougth that people who believe in conspiracies were bunch of crazies. I suppose this is what happened to many firefighters and police officers who were involved in the security and rescue efforts at ground zero who didn't wanna come out in public and talk about what they saw and heard that day.

After I saw the footage of the building coming down at free fall speed, though, it really is hard to think that there was no resistance from the rest of the supporting structure, particularly when you consider that the other buildings in the complex suffered even more severe damage and didn't collapse. In fact, those buildings were 'pulled' due to their condition, much in the same way that Larry Silverstein said 'they' decided to 'pull' building 7.

Although some of the footage I've seen seems compelling, I don't really buy this whole conspiracy, inside job stuff. I don't know who these conspiracy people are and what their motives are in putting together these claims, so I stick with my government's official version.

Posted by: albertchampion Aug 21 2008, 08:36 PM

perhaps some of you more knowledgeable individuals can assist.

some years ago, i read that wtc7, when salomon bros[later to become a part of citigroup] became the principal tenant of this building, was significantly reconstructed so as to create a large and open trading floor. as i read this disquisition, essentially wtc7 became two buildings on the same site...there was the original outer shell of steel/glass, and then an inner steel shell constructed as if the exterior shell.

i have never encountered this story elsewhere. but, i have no reason to doubt it.

if my memory banks serve me right, tishman performed that modification.

just as it was tishman that built the new wtc7.

tishman, of course, is an interesting construction firm. founded and operated by energetic zionists, i think.

anyway, if wtc7 was virtually two buildings on a single site, i wonder if the nist report noted that. and had any comments as to how "nothing" fires took out two buildings so symmetrically, and at what may have been faster than free fall speeds.

Posted by: dMole Aug 21 2008, 09:05 PM

QUOTE (albertchampion @ Aug 21 2008, 06:36 PM) *
as i read this disquisition, essentially wtc7 became two buildings on the same site...there was the original outer shell of steel/glass, and then an inner steel shell constructed as if the exterior shell.

i have never encountered this story elsewhere. but, i have no reason to doubt it.

if my memory banks serve me right, tishman performed that modification.

Hi Albert,

Believe it or not, Wiki has the goods (today, at least). Quoting below for posterity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
---------------
The original 7 World Trade Center was a 47-story building, designed by Emery Roth & Sons, with a red granite façade. The building was 610 feet (186 m) tall, with a trapezoidal footprint that was 330 ft (101 m) long and 140 ft (43 m) wide.[1][2] Tishman Realty & Construction managed construction of the building, which began in 1983.[1] In March 1987, the building opened, becoming the seventh structure of the World Trade Center.

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[3] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (55,700 m²).[4] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building covering a larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built.[5]

The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[3] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[4]

A shipping/receiving ramp, which served the entire World Trade Center complex, occupied the eastern quarter of the 7 World Trade Center footprint. The building was open below the third floor, providing space for truck clearance on the shipping ramp.[4] The spray-on fireproofing for structural steel elements was gypsum-based Monokote which had a two-hour fire rating for steel beams, girders and truss, and a three-hour rating for columns.[6]
Mechanical equipment was installed on floors four through seven, including 12 transformers on the fifth floor. Several generators in the building were used by the Office of Emergency Management, Salomon Smith Barney and others.[6] Storage tanks contained 24,000 gallons (91,000 L) of diesel fuel to supply the generators.[7] Fuel oil distribution components were located at ground level, up to the ninth floor.[8] After the World Trade Center bombings of February 26, 1993, New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani decided to situate the emergency command center and associated fuel tanks at 7 World Trade Center. Although this decision was criticized in light of the events of 9/11, the fuel in the building is today not believed to have contributed to the collapse of the building.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] The roof of the building included a small west penthouse and a larger east mechanical penthouse.[3]

Each floor had 47,000 sq ft (4,366 m²) of rentable office space which made the building's floor plans considerably larger than most office buildings in the City.[16] In all, 7 World Trade Center had 1,868,000 sq ft (174,000 m²) of office space.[6] Two pedestrian bridges connected the main World Trade Center complex, across Vesey Street, to the third floor of 7 World Trade Center. The lobby of 7 World Trade Center had three murals by artist Al Held: The Third Circle, Pan North XII, and Vorces VII.[17][18] A sculpture by Alexander Calder, called WTC Stabile (also known by other names, The Cockeyed Propeller and Three Wings) was on a plaza in front of the building.[19]
---
[Footnotes 1-20 are chronological, but the numbers didn't copy- just follow the sequence]
1 ^ a b Lew, H.S., Richard W. Bukowski, Nicholas J. Carino (September 2005). Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems (NCSTAR 1-1). National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), p. 13.
2 ^ "Seven World Trade Center (pre-9/11)". Emporis.com. Retrieved on 2006-05-07.
3 ^ a b c d e f g h i j "Interim Report on WTC 7" (pdf). Appendix L. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2004). Retrieved on 2007-08-20.
4 ^ a b c Salvarinas, John J. (1986). "Seven World Trade Center, New York, Fabrication and Construction Aspects". Proceedings of the 1986 Canadian Structural Engineering Conference, Vancouver: Canadian Steel Construction Council.
5 ^ Lew, H.S., et al (September 2005). "NIST NCSTAR 1-1: Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems", Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (pdf), NIST, p. xxxvii. Retrieved on 2008-02-17.
6 ^ a b c d e f g Gilsanz, Ramon, Edward M. DePaola, Christopher Marrion, and Harold "Bud" Nelson (May 2002). "WTC7 (Chapter 5)", World Trade Center Building Performance Study (pdf), FEMA. Retrieved on 2008-02-17.
7 ^ Milke, James (Spring 2003). "Study of Building Performance in the WTC Disaster". Fire Protection Engineering. Retrieved on 2008-02-17.
8 ^ Grill, Raymond A., Duane A. Johnson (September 2005). "NIST NCSTAR 1-1J: Documentation of the Fuel System for Emergency Power in World Trade Center 7", Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (pdf), NIST. Retrieved on 2008-02-17.
9 ^ Glanz, James and Eric Lipton (2001-12-20). "A Nation Challenged: The Trade Center; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center", New York Times. Retrieved on 2007-11-21.
10 ^ "Rudy Giuliani's 5 Big Lies About 9/11: On the Stump, Rudy Can't Help Spreading Smoke and Ashes About His Dubious Record," Village Voice August 8–14, 2007, pp. 22–36.
11 ^ Ruddy, Christopher (2004-05-24). "Replying to Giuliani". NewsMax. Retrieved on 2007-06-12.
12 ^ "Transcript: Rudy Giuliani on Fox News Sunday". Fox News (2007-05-14). Retrieved on 2007-09-29. “Then why did he say the building — he said it's not — the place in Brooklyn is not as visible a target as buildings in Lower Manhattan”
# ^ Russ Buettner (2007-05-22). "Onetime Giuliani Insider Is Now a Critic", New York Times. Retrieved on 2007-06-12.
# ^ "Giuliani Blames Aide for Poor Emergency Planning". Daily Intelligencer (2007-05-15). Retrieved on 2007-06-12.
# ^ a b National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee. "Transcript: Meeting of the National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee, December 18, 2007" (PDF).
# ^ Horsley, Carter B (1981-10-25). "Lower Manhattan Luring Office Developers", The New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-02-17.
# ^ "Al Held". National Gallery of Australia. Retrieved on 2007-05-29.
# ^ Plagens, Peter (1989-04-17). "Is Bigger Necessarily Better?", Newsweek.
# ^ Wenegrat, Saul (2002-02-28). "Public Art at the World Trade Center", International Foundation for Art Research. Retrieved on 2007-07-27.
20 ^ Scardino, Albert (1986-07-11). "A Realty Gambler's Big Coup", The New York Times.
------------------END WIKI QUOTE

Another interesting WTC7 History page:

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/elitewatch_7wtc.html

Of course, I have already mirrored HTML and PDF copies of the above locally (and recommend others do the same in light of the NIST report "dropping" today).

Posted by: Oceans Flow Aug 21 2008, 09:52 PM

This is what you're remembering, albert. Also quoted from the NYT for posterity.


COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million

By MARK MCCAIN
February 19, 1989

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space.

The work, which began last month at Seven World Trade Center, reflects both the adaptability of steel-framed towers and the extraordinary importance of fail-safe computer and telephone systems for the brokerage industry. According to many real estate experts, no company has ever made such extensive alterations to a new office building in Manhattan.

Salomon had tried to avoid the trouble and expense of alteration work by designing an office building, in partnership with a developer, from the ground up. But in late 1987, after the stock-market crash, Salomon withdrew as the co-owner and principal tenant of a project planned for Columbus Circle in midtown Manhattan.

The termination of that agreement left Salomon with an after-tax charge of $51 million and put the firm under intense pressure to find new headquarters space before its lease at One New York Plaza, in downtown Manhattan, expired in 1990. It no longer had time to shape the blueprints of a project; instead, it needed to find an existing building or one under construction that could be fitted for its high-technology operations in about two years.

After studying more than 50 options throughout the New York region, Salomon signed a 20-year lease for 22 floors - each spanning nearly an acre - at Seven World Trade Center, an office tower that has been largely vacant since Silverstein Properties completed it two years ago.

''We really had a time constraint,'' explained Gedale B. Horowitz, a senior executive director of Salomon. ''And we were driven very much by technology. We had to find a building that could accommodate our needs, including major-sized trading floors.''

Much of the new electrical, air-conditioning and mechanical equipment will serve three double-height trading floors. To create the extra height, workers are removing most of three existing floors, using jackhammers to demolish concrete slabs and torches to remove steel decking and girders beneath the concrete.

After the girders are cut into sections small enough to fit into a construction elevator they will be sold as scrap for about 4 cents a pound.

In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.

''And there were many other ways that we designed as much adaptability as possible into the building because we knew that flexible layout is important to large space users.''

Nearly 2,000 people will be working on the retrofit project during the peak period. The cost, which is estimated at $200 million - not including carpeting, furniture and other office equipment - will come out of Salomon's pocket.

''We made a landlord contribution to the work,'' Mr. Silverstein said, ''but Salomon's costs will go well beyond that contribution by many, many times.''

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

To help shuttle Salomon employees between floors, construction crews are adding two escalators and four elevators inside the tower. And to help adjust the floor layouts to Salomon's needs, workers are moving sections of the tower's ''core'' area, which includes pipes up to two feet in diameter and air-handling equipment the size of delivery trucks.

''This is the first time I've every seen such dramatic interior changes being made in a new building,'' said Irwin G. Cantor, structural engineer for the project. ''And the whole world is watching.''

Perhaps not the whole world, but certainly some very concerned parties. Consolidated Edison intends to protect its electrical substation stretched out beneath the 47-story tower. The only existing tenant, an accounting firm, intends to protect its services and security while construction crews work above and below its four floors. Silverstein Properties and the land owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, intend to protect their investments. And Salomon intends to move the work along at breakneck speed.

''THIS is a massive project with a tight time frame,'' said Rudy M. Pavesi, a senior vice president of Morse/Diesel, construction manager of the Salomon project. ''I cannot think of any retrofit project in the city where anyone has spent more than $5 million a month. But at our peak time, we'll be spending more than $10 million a month.''

By next July, Salomon intends to move about 2,000 employees into the World Trade Center tower, and 1,000 more employees by the end of the year.

But given the magnitude and complexity of the construction work, that schedule may be unrealistic.

''Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building - and it's an occupied building, which complicates the situation,'' said John D. Spassoff, a district manager of Silverstein Properties.

Elsewhere in Manhattan, other financial-services firms designing new headquarters from the ground up have not suffered setbacks like Salomon's aborted plans for the Columbus Circle site.

Morgan Guaranty Trust Company is building itself a 1.6-million-square-foot tower at 60 Wall Street that will be ready for occupancy and bristling with high-technology equipment later this year. United States Trust Company of New York will be moving in less than a year to a tower under construction at 114 West 47th Street, where it will be the major tenant.

''If a company can get together with a developer in an early stage, that's the best possible timing,'' said Richard Joynes, president of Hunter & Partners, a construction consulting firm in Manhattan. ''First of all, a 500,000- to million-square-foot user can effectively make a developer's speculative office project work financially, so the tenant is in a much stronger position to dictate terms of the lease. And the tenant can have features built into the space at minimal cost -rather than ripping out floors and making other changes after the steel and concrete is in place.''


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFDD113BF93AA25751C0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Posted by: KP50 Aug 21 2008, 11:49 PM

I'm a lazy bugger so .... is there any mention in the report of the massive scoop taken out of the front of WTC7? You know the one I mean, the one that Popular Mechanics claimed to have seen in photos that the rest of us hadn't seen.

Posted by: Oceans Flow Aug 22 2008, 12:09 AM

LOL. Here's the Popular Mechanics article on the report. I won't waste screenspace by copying it.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4278874.html

Posted by: KP50 Aug 22 2008, 12:20 AM

QUOTE
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. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. 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."


That's what I was looking for. So basically it was just fire wot did it. Then agan the fire was lit before the towers collapsed as we all know ......

Nice of Popular Mechanics to admit they were totally wrong in their Debunking book.

Posted by: dMole Aug 22 2008, 01:48 AM

Oh wait- they said COLUMN NUMBER 79-- oooohhh... "well THERE'S your problem!" rolleyes.gif

Let's not leave out that same PM author Cohen's article "6 Debunked 9/11 Conspiracy Claims From Today's NIST Report:"

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4278927.html

Did NIST ever mention the WTC7's safety factor redundancy? I didn't hear it anywhere in the press release- guess I'll need to dig into those 404+382+170 pages sometime soon (I've still got some WTC1/2 projects going right now). Albert brought up an interesting point above, too.

Posted by: dMole Aug 22 2008, 01:57 AM

Re: the claim of "no water,"

Sanders' "thermal expansion" post here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=14294

is linked to the following which states:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/BREAKING_NIST_%3CI%3Efinally%3CI%3E_poses_theory_on_0821.html

"After New York City officials cut off the water main to the tower Sept. 11, 2001, the building's sprinkler system was unable to function, Dr. Sunder said. This allowed fires across 10 floors to burn uncontrolled for nearly seven hours.
...
"If water had been available, it is likely that sprinklers would have operated and the building may still be here today," he [Sunder] said."

Now the OEM, aborted firefighting efforts, Sheirer, chronology, etc. was discussed here already at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=6977

Posted by: Oceans Flow Aug 22 2008, 10:34 AM

^^I thought it was a stack of dominoes that collapsed eh. whistle.gif

Posted by: barney_rebel Aug 22 2008, 11:57 AM

Mystery solved!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Feds: Fire took down building next to twin towers


By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press WriterThu Aug 21, 6:10 PM ET
Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of
the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center
building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.
The 47-story trapezoid-shaped building sat north of the World Trade
Center towers, across Vesey Street in lower Manhattan in New York. On
Sept. 11, it was set on fire by falling debris from the burning towers,
but skeptics long have argued that fire and debris alone should not
have brought down such a big steel-and-concrete structure.
Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology
say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the
demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused
the total failure of a modern skyscraper.
"The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a
mystery," said Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the NIST team.
Investigators also concluded that the collapse of the nearby towers
broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom
half of the building without water.
The building has been the subject of a wide range of conspiracy
theories for the last seven years, partly because the collapse occurred
about seven hours after the twin towers came down. That fueled
suspicion that someone intentionally blew up the building in a
controlled demolition.
Critics like Mike Berger of the group 9/11 Truth said he wasn't buying the government's explanation.
"Their explanation simply isn't sufficient. We're being lied to," he
said, arguing that there is other evidence suggesting explosives were
used on the building.
Sunder said his team investigated the possibility that an explosion
inside the building brought it down, but found there was no large boom
or other noise that would have occurred with such a detonation.
Investigators also created a giant computer model of the collapse,
based partly on news footage from CBS News, that they say shows that
internal column failure brought down the building.
Investigators also ruled out the possibility that the collapse was
caused by fires from a substantial amount of diesel fuel that was
stored in the building, most of it for generators for the city's
emergency operations command center.
The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building
came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support
column that led to catastrophic failure.
"When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain," said Sunder.
The NIST investigators issued more than a dozen building
recommendations as a result of their inquiry, most of which repeat
earlier recommendations from their investigation into the collapse of
the two large towers.
In both instances, investigators concluded that extreme heat caused
some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout
the buildings until the entire structure succumbed.
The recommendations include building skyscrapers with stronger
connections and framing systems to resist the effects of thermal
expansion, and structural systems designed to prevent damage to one
part of a building from spreading to other parts.
No one was killed in the collapse of building 7 because it had been
fully evacuated. A new, slightly taller World Trade Center 7 opened in
2006.
A spokesman for the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, developer Larry Silverstein, praised the government's work.
"Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11
conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their
lives on that terrible day," said Silverstein spokesman Dara McQuillan.
In discussing the findings, the investigator Sunder
acknowledged that some may still not be convinced, but insisted the
science behind their findings is "incredibly conclusive."
"The public should really recognize the science is really
behind what we have said," he said, adding: "The obvious stares you in
the face."
___
On the Net:
National Institute of Standards and Technology: http://www.nist.gov/
9/11 Truth: http://www.911truth.org/
(This version CORRECTS spelling of Dara McQuillan.))

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_go_ot/attacks_collapse

Posted by: Omega892R09 Aug 22 2008, 12:38 PM

Has anybody here put a comment on PM's web site?

It seems to me that Popular Mechanics = Popular Fiction.


Will posterity remember the NIST presentation as 'The GAITHERSBURG Address'? whistle.gif

Posted by: dMole Aug 22 2008, 04:12 PM

QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Aug 21 2008, 09:11 AM) *
Ben Stein, not the same Bent Steam that caused such furore not long ago with a creationist propaganda movie 'Expelled', surely.

Interesting that he's an attorney by trade, as I recall. If it is the same Ben Stein, here's Scientific American's take on that movie:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie

EDIT: Whichever Ben Stein, the NIST one appears to be in the PR/Public Affairs office:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/open_xml.html

"Beuhler... Beuhler..." [from a movie quote]

EDIT: Looks to be a different Ben Stein- the NIST one was at AIP for 17 years, not the actor/game show host/attorney:

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/split/836-3.html

EDIT2: The "other" Ben Stein:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0825401/bio

Posted by: forthetrees Aug 22 2008, 11:33 PM

(edited out because I found my answer...never mind)

Posted by: albertchampion Aug 23 2008, 01:05 AM

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

Posted by: dMole Aug 23 2008, 03:38 PM

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

Posted by: dMole Aug 23 2008, 11:55 PM

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 ]

Posted by: waterdancer Aug 25 2008, 06:45 AM

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.

Posted by: rob balsamo Aug 25 2008, 01:19 PM

Good to see you WD. Im looking forward to our resident WTC 7 expert pulling this apart... wink.gif

Posted by: waterdancer Aug 26 2008, 08:32 AM

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!




Posted by: Truthseekers Aug 26 2008, 05:37 PM

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.??

Posted by: maturin42 Aug 27 2008, 01:36 PM

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!

Posted by: Oceans Flow Aug 29 2008, 06:05 PM

EMERGENCY WARNING FOR OFFICE WORKERS (NIST WTC7)


Posted by: Sanders Aug 29 2008, 08:41 PM

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

Posted by: albertchampion Aug 29 2008, 11:02 PM

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.

Posted by: albertchampion Aug 30 2008, 12:28 AM

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.

Posted by: eti1777 Aug 30 2008, 04:53 PM

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44.html#341

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

Posted by: Sanders Aug 30 2008, 08:05 PM

Awesome

Posted by: dMole Sep 11 2008, 06:17 AM

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

Posted by: dMole Sep 11 2008, 09:25 AM

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.

Posted by: dMole Sep 12 2008, 06:29 AM

This related thread:

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

takes me to Prison Planet:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/062508_unusual_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?

Posted by: dMole Sep 12 2008, 07:46 AM

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."

Posted by: Omega892R09 Sep 12 2008, 09:29 AM

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

Posted by: dMole Sep 12 2008, 10:18 AM

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.

Posted by: Omega892R09 Sep 12 2008, 01:01 PM

QUOTE (dMole @ Sep 10 2008, 01:18 PM) *
EDIT: Seriously though, boiling rusted, frozen iron/steel parts is a pretty good way to crack them loose BTW.

Don't I know it! smile.gif

Sometimes a big can of freeze spray was used as a last resort, this not because the technique was dangerous, but it was, but because all manner of sh*t would fly after using it. The only freeze spray available in those days was a CO2 fire extinguisher misuse of which was a punishable offence (Articles of War and all that). Besides that is one hell of a lot of freeze for one joint. laugh.gif

Easing stuck fastening was a well practiced art with the ol' Phantom F4K. One outer wing upper surface panel had 948 fasteners, mostly close tolerance high tensile steel countersunk, and there was its twin (these known as panels 111 left and right) on the other side of the cab (idiom for A/C in the FAA, the hair force called ‘em kites), and both these panels had to be removed, on each of 12 aircraft, every 21 days for greasing the outboard leading edge flap link bearing.

It was not uncommon to have to drill off the heads when all else including Easy-outs had failed of about 10 percent. That is alot of screws to drill.

Then there was 36 left and right along the sides of fuselage just forward of the engine centre bearing breather. These were so long, and the aircraft skin so highly stressed, that a support had to be put in place under the keel just forward of the deck-hook attachment and a nose jack also positioned, otherwise the aircraft bent out of shape.

This is the second time I have had to post, the connection dropped just as I hit add reply.

Edit. On rewriting forgot the opening line.

Posted by: dMole Oct 11 2008, 11:41 AM

I just found these at Richard Gage's website this morning. There is a list of public questions/responses that was submitted to NIST on their err... ummm... WTC7 Draft Report.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Public comments on the NIST WTC7 draft report. Submitted to NIST 09/11/08, Jonathan Cole P.E. (15.7 MB)
http://ae911truth.org/docs/J_Cole_NIST_WTC7_PUBLIC_COMMENTS_FINAL_PKG_9-11-08-SUBMITTED.pdf

The Destruction of WTC 7, Vesa Raiskila
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html

Reply to Protec's
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT, by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

Proof That The Thermal and Gravitational Energy Available Were Insufficient to Melt Steel in the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center on 9/11/01, Terry Morrone
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

There are several articles and papers on WTC1 & 2 as well as the NIST and other reports at:
http://www.ae911truth.org/techarts.php

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)