Wtc 7 And Sandero, NIST v speculation Options

[elreb]

The witnessed explosions I am attributing NOT to bombs... not enough of them and not related to building movement...

There was only one explosion on 5/6.

I never said "bombs"...only heat.

[SanderO]

Elreb,

I didn't mean to address the *bombs* comment to you but to the larger community who claim the witnessed explosions were bombs. It's possible that a non bomb explosion can do serious damage and I suspect that this what Jennings and Hess witnessed. Whatever damage that explosion of unknown origin did, it did not immediately result in the collapse of B7. It might have contributed in some unknown way. We can't tell at this point.

My own suspicion is that because of the length of time it took for the tower to come down that the cause was a weakening of the structure. However it could be that at 5:20 a CD process was commenced... and that there was no 8 hr period of heat weakening. As I am unaware of evidence at 5:20 which can be read as CD... explosion sounds, squibs and so forth at this time... I am assuming there was a long term heat weakening process. I could be wrong since we can't see inside the region where the failure occurred - the core and low down in the building.

[elreb]

We can't tell at this point.

Hint of the day:

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[SanderO]

Need to see the drawings to suggest an explanation.

[elreb]

Need to see the drawings to suggest an explanation.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[SanderO]

There had to be drawings. They may be withholding them but they had to have existed... or do exist somewhere locked up.

[elreb]

There had to be drawings. They may be withholding them but they had to have existed... or do exist somewhere locked up.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[SanderO]

Elreb,
I suggest you look to the Shuttle disaster study to see how such things are investigated. Of course they study the films and the wreckage... but they also study the plans, the specs and the construction and maintenance logs. To deny that this is the procedure is just foolish.
We need all the information to explain what happened.

[kawika]

Elreb,
I suggest you look to the Shuttle disaster study to see how such things are investigated. Of course they study the films and the wreckage... but they also study the plans, the specs and the construction and maintenance logs. To deny that this is the procedure is just foolish.
We need all the information to explain what happened.

I don't understand why you continuously jump up and down demanding to see the plans. You can access them just like we can and study the elements.

Got to 911datasets and look for NIST WTC7 FOIA 11-209 and FOIA 12-009 about 3/4's down the page.

The trusses can be seen on Drawing 1 through 7, rising through the substation into the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th floor.

The East leg of the #1 truss is supported by columns E3 and E4 North and South. There are construction photos available (911Forums) showing both the #1 leg and the bottom elements (girders) of both #1 and #2 trusses.

I suggest you get your own set and begin studying them.

[elreb]

We need all the information to explain what happened.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[SanderO]

cute story... means little in understanding a collapse.

[elreb]

cute story... means little in understanding a collapse.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[elreb]

You may not believe this…

I miss “SanderO” because he is talking about 7WTC and no one else is!

We have over 3000 members and “B7” proves something is wrong.

From my math…only about 6 people are working on this.

Funny?

[onesliceshort]

You may not believe this…

I miss “SanderO” because he is talking about 7WTC and no one else is!

We have over 3000 members and “B7” proves something is wrong.

From my math…only about 6 people are working on this.

Funny?

I typed "WTC7" into Google and found only one decent look at this area from another angle (by Kevin Ryan)

Are Tall Buildings Safer As A Result of the NIST WTC 9/11 Investigations?

At the time of the 9/11 attacks, the WTC towers were undergoing a fireproofing upgrade to better ensure the buildings’ fire resistance. In an incredible coincidence, the floors where the full fireproofing upgrades had been completed were the same floors that were struck by the aircraft on 9/11.[5]

(IMG:http://ultruth.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/correlation.jpg)

That image really put things into perspective for me personally.

Despite its grandiose claims, NIST knows that the building community has ignored the WTC investigation findings. That’s clear from NIST’s own tracking sheet on its website. This tracks all 30 recommendations from the NIST WTC investigation and lists the code “outcomes” from each.[19] As of August 2011, the most recent update, not one NIST recommendation related to progressive global collapse, “widely dislodged” fireproofing, or linear thermal expansion has been adopted.

The two NIST recommendations that call for (unspecified) measures to prevent progressive global collapse have been completely ignored. Other things like an additional exit stairway, a fire service access elevator, and stairwells with glow-in-the-dark markings are simply not relevant.[20]

NIST might argue that there is one ICC change that calls for fireproofing to have increased bond strength and be installed and inspected correctly. But since bond strength was not a root cause of the WTC destruction, and measurements just before 9/11 showed that the fireproofing in the impact zones was far better installed and had far better bond strength than what was required, this is a red herring. That’s not to mention that no tests were ever done to indicate what bond strength was needed to resist flying aircraft debris.

Are tall buildings safer as a result of the NIST WTC report? No, they are most certainly not. And if people actually understood and believed the official account of what happened at the WTC they would not enter tall buildings because in doing so they would be putting their lives at risk.

The truth, however, is that the NIST WTC investigation was a politically motivated diversion that produced reports which are known to be false. This fact is re-emphasized by the knowledge that the international building community, including that of New York City, has not adopted code changes that can be traced to the root causes cited by NIST for the WTC destruction.

[SanderO]

Because...

The retrofits would be hugely expensive and would expose the engineers and owners to liability and negligence lawsuits.... not to mention tenants not renewing leases. So let's all pretend that everything is OK... and hope nothing weird happens.

But the problems with the WTC were quite unique to the unorthodox engineering (cost saving)... and this does not apply to all steel framed towers.

[elreb]

WTC were quite unique to the unorthodox engineering (cost saving)...

Hog wash…prove it!

Our documents show quite the opposite.

[onesliceshort]

But the problems with the WTC were quite unique to the unorthodox engineering (cost saving)... and this does not apply to all steel framed towers.

From the same page..

According to NIST, the original Twin Towers were built to meet the 1968 NYC building code requirements.[3] This code required three hours of fire resistance for the steel column components and two hours of fire resistance for the floor assemblies. A startling discrepancy here is that the south tower was said to be completely destroyed less than one hour after the fires began. And what people often don’t realize is that fire is the primary explanation for failure of all three WTC buildings.

NIST did not explain this discrepancy directly. Instead, the NIST WTC reports, which amount to tens of thousands of pages, reflected the results of computer modeling that proposed three root causes.

“Widely dislodged” fireproofing – the Twin Towers
Linear thermal expansion – WTC 7
“Progressive global collapse” – all three buildings [4]

Progressive global collapse was a term that NIST used frequently throughout its investigation despite the fact that no tall building had ever collapsed completely due to fire. In fact, the only three instances of progressive global collapse for any reason other than demolition occurred all in the same place (at the WTC) at the same time (on 9/11).

With respect to the fireproofing (i.e. insulation) loss in the towers, NIST said –

“The WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.”

Incredible that SanderO flits over this image too.



This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Oct 31 2012, 09:29 PM

[elreb]

OSS,

As a hobby, I source and interpret [Bring light… belief, judgment, or circumstance] for several magazines and authors.

“SanderO” would not be well received in the real world.

On the other hand, he does provide what can be considered as grade 3 horse shit.

We actually need his type to prove the insanity of the official story.

When we talk about alligators in America…he talks about Crocodiles in Australia.

[onesliceshort]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

We actually need his type to prove the insanity of the official story.

Sad but true.

I will say one thing though, thanks to SanderO I've dotted most of the i's and crossed most of the t's while researching B7.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/spinstar.gif) "For he's a jolly good fellow..." (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spinstar.gif)

[SanderO]

Elreb and OSS,

I don't know what you mean by "received well in the real world"... But I am doing just fine in my work as an architect. We're just about to issue for bid a beach front steel moment framed house in the Hamptons. That's was very well received.

As I have stated many times... I am an architect.. I do not design high rise steel framed structures, though I have worked on them including Detroit Edison, East River Savings Bank and so forth. My understanding of structure is no better than the typical architect... we use structural consultants. I've worked with Guy Nordensen, and most recently with Severud Associates.

I became interested in 9-11 like many... waiting for the technical explanation on how those towers came down... and very disturbed by the political response and all the lies in the run up to war. The official account about the twins was nonsense and not even related to what we actually observed. The WTC 7 myth was 7 years in coming and I was already involved in the truth movement which seemed to be trying to figure it out on their own.

I am not a researcher by profession and don't do forensic analysis such as analyzing technical reports or photos. I have training in meteorology and navigation. I am only slightly more technically qualified than most. But my experience and qualifications make a lot of difference I have found. I do not hold myself out to be an expert.

I didn't look very deeply at the science and technical claims of the truth movement until I was pushed out of AE911T precisely because I was advocating that the group undertake FEA and building performance studies of the buildings at the WTC. Once quite literally severed from the group I did my own fact checking and discovered there were obvious factual mistakes and misread observations and I then tried to make sense from what I saw and what little I know about engineering, those buildings and physics. This got me more deeply into the actual details of those towers and into how their destruction should be investigated.

I soon realized that most of the 9/11 technical experts were blowing a lot of smoke their science was based more on wishful thinking, political perspective, poor use of logic, and most importantly inaccurate observations, or false certainty in their interpretation of the so called evidence they cite... which I have pointed out on several 9-11 forums. My comments are never well received because they challenge the conventional thinking inside the 911 truth movement.

I am usually attacked and my arguments are then rendered as disinfo. Most simply don't have the technical knowledge to engage in a discussion. So the approach is the ad hominem attack... discredit the person and not their arguments. I make mistakes and readily admit them... And I use caveats and words such as .. "likely" when I propose something. I've advocated there be a new no holds barred technical investigation with someone such as Richard Feynman to lead it... but he was such a rare gem that's likely not to happen. People such as David Chandler, Kevin Ryan, Niels Harrit are hardly what I would call doing rigorous scientific study... but it does fool most people. I consider most research to date to be agenda driven by non qualified researchers... and lots of amateurs have stepped up to the plate. It of course, doesn't matter the qualifications, but what does matter is the quality of work. Science teacher David Chandler's work is full of errors... So it Steven Jones', PhD. Gage clearly is not a researcher but a talking head and a marketing man.

What seems to be missing in much of the 911 truth research is interest in and understanding about how structures collapse or are destroyed intentionally. And this begins with lack of understanding of the structures themselves and the engineering and material science required. Instead there is a leap to suggest all manner of exotic weapons and devices used to destroy the towers with virtually no explanation of the mechanism... in a black box explanation which is supposed to pass for a scientific explanation of the destruction.

My interest in is understanding but this has turned me into an enemy of the truth movement which has staked its existence on the MIHOP inside job explanation... nothing short of this is acceptable. Many have even gone on to name all the guilty parties, nations, agencies... not for lapses, failures but for nothing short of planning and execution of the vast conspiracy involving a cast of thousands... no coincidence allowed... no natural processes possible, no group thinking by the media and the public... or the truth movement... no lapses in logic.

I appreciate the gathering of smoke information. But that will likely not explain what did or didn't bring the towers down.