NIST WTC 7

Diogenes

NIST will release their WTC 7 report on Thursday with a webcast.

buddyonair

should be interesting to watch. I am exited to see what the reason NOW is for building 7 coming down.

Thanks for the reminder.

meglome

buddyonair wrote: »

should be interesting to watch. I am exited to see what the reason NOW is for building 7 coming down.

Thanks for the reminder.

Well they said further investigation was required the last time. So I'd imagine they won't be contradicting themselves this time.

meglome

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

It's fire after all, well this is gonna set the cat amongst the pigeons. I can't wait.

humanji

I somehow get the feeling that it'll be dismissed as rubbish by a lot of the CT community. Am I being too pessimistic in my assumption?

buddyonair

I am watching the webcast of NIST right now and I have to say that I don't like it at all.

They were talking about the "not working sprinkler system".
There were 47 stories and the fire was burning on 6 or 7 stories top. The fire was not covering massivley all the burning stories and it was not hot enough.

And on the pics you can see that the fire was random and they was no big enough to pull down the building in that speed and with the precision of how it happened.

I would like to hear your opinions on this. Diogenes show me the truth.

Diogenes

buddyonair wrote: »

I am watching the webcast of NIST right now and I have to say that I don't like it at all.

They were talking about the "not working sprinkler system".

Yes because the WTC towers collapsed and severed water mains.

There were 47 stories and the fire was burning on 6 or 7 stories top. The fire was not covering massivley all the burning stories and it was not hot enough.

And on the pics you can see that the fire was random and they was no big enough to pull down the building in that speed and with the precision of how it happened.

I would like to hear your opinions on this. Diogenes show me the truth.

And the NIST agree however these fires were on key floors and raged long and hot enough to weaken structural supports.

I'm not going to rehash these tedious points again when we've already done them to death.

buddyonair

How could the fire be hot enough only through furniture. As far as I remember the other WTC buidlings needed plane fuel.

I have to admit that it was very much bad luck that those fires happened to be in "key positions" although the ignition of the fire was random debree from the other towers.

Diogenes

buddyonair wrote: »

How could the fire be hot enough only through furniture. As far as I remember the other WTC buidlings needed plane fuel.

Have you heard of the Windsor building in Madrid? The steel supported sections of that building were weakened to the point that they needed to be building down. That was a fire fueled only by the buildings contents.

I have to admit that it was very much bad luck that those fires happened to be in "key positions" although the ignition of the fire was random debree from the other towers.

That "random debris" was tonnes of concrete.

buddyonair

"tonnes of debris" cannot be used as an excuse as there was more than one building in the surroundings of the towers, hit by a great amount of debris but none of the others cought fire or came down afterwards. I don't mean the ones who were very close to the towers but in the same range like building 7.

In http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf they say "The fires moved from location to location, meaning that at any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed."

How could this moving fire reach those high temperatures needed to weaken the key columns? The temperature of those burned out placed should decrease again after all "combustibles needed ..." are "consumed" and the fire moved somewhere else? Meaning the fire should have lost its intensity even in the "key" areas?

I am sorry to bring this up again but because of the latest report yesterday, it should be worth talking about it today.

Diogenes

buddyonair wrote: »

"tonnes of debris" cannot be used as an excuse as there was more than one building in the surroundings of the towers, hit by a great amount of debris but none of the others cought fire or came down afterwards. I don't mean the ones who were very close to the towers but in the same range like building 7.

Incorrect several buildings surrounding the WTC towers were badly damaged by debris, and caught fire, they just didn't collapse on the day, but needed to be brought down in the weeks and months after the attack, because they were structurally unsound.

meglome

buddyonair wrote: »

"tonnes of debris" cannot be used as an excuse as there was more than one building in the surroundings of the towers, hit by a great amount of debris but none of the others cought fire or came down afterwards. I don't mean the ones who were very close to the towers but in the same range like building 7.

Wikipedia wrote:

All seven original buildings in the complex were destroyed during the September 11, 2001 attacks. Three of the buildings collapsed: One World Trade Center (1 WTC, the North Tower), Two World Trade Center (2 WTC, the South Tower), and 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC). The Marriott World Trade Center (3 WTC) was crushed by the collapses of 1 WTC and 2 WTC. 4 World Trade Center (4 WTC), 5 World Trade Center (5 WTC), and 6 World Trade Center (6 WTC) were damaged beyond repair and later demolished. Three buildings not part of the complex were also destroyed: St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church was destroyed by the collapse of 2 WTC. The Deutsche Bank Building was damaged beyond repair by the explosions and collapse of 1 and 2 WTC; and Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall was damaged beyond repair by the collapse of 7 WTC; these are currently being deconstructed.

Didn't check if all this is correct, I thought the Deutsche Bank Building was saved but cost 1.5 billion to fix. It wasn't the same design as the WTC 1/2/7.

buddyonair wrote: »

In http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf they say "The fires moved from location to location, meaning that at any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed."

How could this moving fire reach those high temperatures needed to weaken the key columns? The temperature of those burned out placed should decrease again after all "combustibles needed ..." are "consumed" and the fire moved somewhere else? Meaning the fire should have lost its intensity even in the "key" areas?

The fires wouldn't need to weaken the beams that much. If the fires caused some the floor beams to collapse which happened in the WTC1/2. Then the main supports would have no support side to side and would be likely to bend. It wouldn't/didn't take much for a cascade effect to occur. You can see from the videos that the penthouse collapses into the building first then the rest follows.

It been stated several times but these buildings had a fairly unique design so they cannot be compared to most other building which caught fire previously.

Bonkey posted a set of questions from debunking911.com which I'll repost here.

bonkey wrote: »

I'd also suggest you have a look at this. There's an interesting 7-point challenge in there, which I'll take the liberty of copying here:

Quote:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

2) Which takes up a whole city block

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)

5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.

Nist site wrote:

The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a “sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,” yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos.

You can watch video after video from all over the world of controlled demolitions and the explosions are clear as day to hear. So because at the WTC no explosions could be heard the CT's invent new controlled demolition methods which have never been used and have never been shown to even work.

Kama

Perhaps I missed something crucial skimming the NIST...I'm unsure what you think this will change in CT.

For a rabid hardliner, the NIST will be 'Part of the System' so the report will be 'moar whitewash', and disregarded, or incorporated as further evidence of the integration of NIST into 'teh conspiracy', a la the nano-thermites conspiracy meme. On them, the report will make no impact, or confirmation bias will kick through and reinforce initial assumptions.

For those who accept the findings, the collapse thesis will most likely be downgraded to an ancillary hypothesis and hence avoid refutation, as is common even in properly scientific paradigms, falling back to more robust (haha less falsifiable) theories. Nuclear-thermite-crazyglue demolition will become less fashionable, mentioned less, as irrelevant to the 'real issue' of government complicity and so forth.

More books will be written by debunkers, more debunking the debunkers, and the whole happy industry will roll on...I'm sure a few people will be convinced by NIST; but I'm dubious as to whether many will. Of all the people I know on either side of this issue, the proportion who have changed side in the last 5+ years is negligable.

buddyonair

I think we all agree that every building has key columns. Damage to these columns can lead to major weakoning of the construction.

But can it lead to a symmetrical coming down of the building, as happened in wtc7? wouldn't it be more likely to have an effect to a certain area instead of destroying the WHOLE building? And even if the whole buidling is affected, all this should result in step by step coming down which should take definitly more than 8 secs?!

Besides, if it is that easy to pull down buildings, why are we using controlled demolitions which have to be coordinated for months, huge amount of explosives is needed, the sequence has to be computer controlled, etc.? For me all this sounds like a lot of work and money.

It would be much cheaper and most of all much easier to go with this way from now on?

buddyonair

This new report from NIST is comparable with the those frames they brought out in relation to the pentagon attack.

humanji

buddyonair wrote: »

Besides, if it is that easy to pull down buildings, why are we using controlled demolitions which have to be coordinated for months, huge amount of explosives is needed, the sequence has to be computer controlled, etc.? For me all this sounds like a lot of work and money.

Because it's unpredictable. Controlled demolitions take months because they have to be 100% positive that no one will be hurt and that only the building is destroyed with no damage to anything else.

meglome

Kama wrote: »

Perhaps I missed something crucial skimming the NIST...I'm unsure what you think this will change in CT.

For a rabid hardliner, the NIST will be 'Part of the System' so the report will be 'moar whitewash', and disregarded, or incorporated as further evidence of the integration of NIST into 'teh conspiracy', a la the nano-thermites conspiracy meme. On them, the report will make no impact, or confirmation bias will kick through and reinforce initial assumptions.

For those who accept the findings, the collapse thesis will most likely be downgraded to an ancillary hypothesis and hence avoid refutation, as is common even in properly scientific paradigms, falling back to more robust (haha less falsifiable) theories. Nuclear-thermite-crazyglue demolition will become less fashionable, mentioned less, as irrelevant to the 'real issue' of government complicity and so forth.

More books will be written by debunkers, more debunking the debunkers, and the whole happy industry will roll on...I'm sure a few people will be convinced by NIST; but I'm dubious as to whether many will. Of all the people I know on either side of this issue, the proportion who have changed side in the last 5+ years is negligable.

You're absolutely correct. The real hope is that as the years pass the idea that this super conspiracy could be kept hidden will seem more and more ridiculous. Unfortunately all it will take is someone 'in the know' to announce they have 'proof' and off we go again. I love the internet but it has also given voice to those on the fringes to validate what could often only be described as delusions. Many people seem to have replaced their true believe in religion with worldwide conspiracy. I'm not going to be the one who suggests there are no conspiracy's but the populist ones dont stand up too well.

meglome

buddyonair wrote: »

I think we all agree that every building has key columns. Damage to these columns can lead to major weakoning of the construction.

But can it lead to a symmetrical coming down of the building, as happened in wtc7? wouldn't it be more likely to have an effect to a certain area instead of destroying the WHOLE building? And even if the whole buidling is affected, all this should result in step by step coming down which should take definitly more than 8 secs?!

The building DID NOT COME DOWN SYMMETRICALLY. This is what's pushed by the CT's. Look at the footage of the site before they cleaned any of it up and you can see clearly that this did not happen.

Again this building had a very unique design, a cone in a cone design. A 'standard' steel framed building would not collapse in the same way. Once key columns fail the weight of a forty story building is going to hit the ground hard and fast.

buddyonair wrote: »

Besides, if it is that easy to pull down buildings, why are we using controlled demolitions which have to be coordinated for months, huge amount of explosives is needed, the sequence has to be computer controlled, etc.? For me all this sounds like a lot of work and money.

It would be much cheaper and most of all much easier to go with this way from now on?

What humanji said and... Most steel framed buildings have a cube design so it's very difficult to have catastrophic failure but the cone in a cone design can, it seems, collapse with the loss of a few key columns.

buddyonair

meglome wrote: »

I love the internet but it has also given voice to those on the fringes to validate what could often only be described as delusions. Many people seem to have replaced their true believe in religion with worldwide conspiracy. I'm not going to be the one who suggests there are no conspiracy's but the populist ones dont stand up too well.

I am not sure about that. Galileo was convinced the earth is NOT the center of the universe but his religion told him that his opinion is wrong.

I never bought into CT but the official story is something simply too smooth.
Believe it and pay your taxes. Asking questions and having your own opinion is not good.

Btw, the internet also gives people the chance to think they are the best as they know everything better...

meglome

buddyonair wrote: »

This new report from NIST is comparable with the those frames they brought out in relation to the pentagon attack.

I'm not sure what you mean. The footage from the pentagon is pretty crap alright. But the fact the plane flew across a major highway and hundreds of people actually saw it means I'm personally not too worried about the footage. Nearly everywhere I've ever worked had fairly basic and crappy security systems, that's different now but back in the day it wasn't.

buddyonair

meglome wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean. The footage from the pentagon is pretty crap alright. But the fact the plane flew across a major highway and hundreds of people actually saw it means I'm personally not too worried about the footage. Nearly everywhere I've ever worked had fairly basic and crappy security systems, that's different now but back in the day it wasn't.

I don't know. We are talking about the pentagon here and not some 7/11 shop.

Kama

Hehe I'm strictly agnostic on most CT; I'm not convinced by either 'side' (as if there's just 2). I doubt it will go away with time though, just fuse and combine with more-and-less legitimate parts of CT. Its an oppositional discourse, if a generally fairly impotent and self-satisfied one, and there are more than enough 'hooks' in the social world to latch on to. Paranoia is self-justifying in general as a mental mode, whether its directed towards Al-Qaeda or Bilderbergers, seek and ye shall find.

meglome

buddyonair wrote: »

I am not sure about that. Galileo was convinced the earth is NOT the center of the universe but his religion told him that his opinion is wrong.

I never bought into CT but the official story is something simply too smooth.
Believe it and pay your taxes. Asking questions and having your own opinion is not good.

Btw, the internet also gives people the chance to think they are the best as they know everything better...

I'm taking about true believers nothing more. I don't want to believe either side is telling the truth, but all the time I come across 'truthers' who refuse to believe anything that doesn't agree with their world view. It can be spelt out in great detail right in front of them and they still won't believe it, they just don't want to. Actually Galileo is a very good example, people simply believed the earth was the centre of the universe, he used science to show they were wrong but many continued to believe.

There's nothing too smooth about the official report, it does however try to follow science and fact which is something the CT's don't seem to worry about much. I have my own opinions so that's why I've looked at all the facts I can find. I don't believe the hype nor do I have a 'side'. For CT's to prove their point's they have resorted to misquoting, lying and making up new technologies so do I automatically never trust a government on anything or do I look at it in the round and see.

The parts of the internet I'm talking about are giving a chance for people to find others who will agree with them no matter how ridiculous their opinions are.

meglome

buddyonair wrote: »

I don't know. We are talking about the pentagon here and not some 7/11 shop.

This was 2001, not today and as I've already said the plane crossed a major highway so hundreds of people saw it. It would be different if there were five eye-witnesses and bad footage but there are hundreds.

Kama

There's no fun in fundamentalism, regardless of what they're selling. CT is no different in this; plus these days everyone always wants to be a repressed and silenced minority, or at least feel they are one hehe. CT fills this role admirably.

Meh, its the difference between say RA Wilson and Dan Brown or David Icke. One tells you 'the Truth', while the other leads you to question your assumptions and try on different world views.

meglome

Kama wrote: »

There's no fun in fundamentalism, regardless of what they're selling. CT is no different in this; plus these days everyone always wants to be a repressed and silenced minority, or at least feel they are one hehe. CT fills this role admirably.

Meh, its the difference between say RA Wilson and Dan Brown or David Icke. One tells you 'the Truth', while the other leads you to question your assumptions and try on different world views.

Well put.

Flamed Diving

buddyonair wrote: »

I am not sure about that. Galileo was convinced the earth is NOT the center of the universe but his religion told him that his opinion is wrong.

Fortunately, personal opinion has no role to play with such assertions. All that matters is the evidence. Once the evidence became so overwhelming, even those of strong religious conviction simply had to reject heliocentrism. Unfortunately, the evidence is not so strong for your theories, and hence the echoes of laughter from the halls of reason.

bonkey

buddyonair wrote: »

I think we all agree that every building has key columns. Damage to these columns can lead to major weakoning of the construction.

NISTs position - if I understand it correctly - is that the damage to the columns did not play a key part in the collapse. The debris-impact from the collapse of both towers played a role primarily in the starting of fires, and in the disabling of the water-supply.

The ensuing office-fire, all on its own, is what caused the collapse.

This is notable for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it is not what has been accepted as the most likey cause up until yesterday...which was based on the NIST working hypothesis.

Lets not lose sight of that...up until yesterday's announcements, pretty-much everyone familiar with NISTs work was of the opinion that damage to a key column, caused by falling debris was what caused the failure.

This is important, because it shows that WTC7 was absolutely and categorically not a case of "come up with a theory, and then tweak the model to make it work" as has been (falsely) alleged with the analysis of WTC 1 and 2.

It also is notable because it indirectly implies that although WTC7 was built "generally" conformant with building codes at the time, it had a serious design flaw which has hithertofore been unidentified - that of the risk from expansion of long, horizontal support trusses. This risk may exist in other buildings and NIST have strongly suggested that buildings with this feature be re-evaluated.

Who knows...maybe that last point will give rise to a whole new conspiracy theory that NIST were behind it all, trying to kick-start some new consultancy industry for the money, or something.

But can it lead to a symmetrical coming down of the building, as happened in wtc7?

wouldn't it be more likely to have an effect to a certain area instead of destroying the WHOLE building?

You need to look at NISTs findings a bit more closely, I think.

The fires did have an effect on a certain area of the building. That effect, in turn, caused a progressive, internal collapse. The internal collapse ultimately resulted in the outside facade failing when there was effectively no building inside it to hold it up any more.

There was no symmetrical collapse of the building...merely a mostly-symmetrical collapse of teh outside-facade. The "tube within a tube" design, ironically, is partially why the collapse was so neat. The outer facade stayed in place long enough to contain the spread of the main collapse. Then it fell.

And even if the whole buidling is affected, all this should result in step by step coming down which should take definitly more than 8 secs?!

Which is why, strangely enough, it did take more than 8 seconds.

Besides, if it is that easy to pull down buildings, why are we using controlled demolitions which have to be coordinated for months, huge amount of explosives is needed, the sequence has to be computer controlled, etc.? For me all this sounds like a lot of work and money.

It would be much cheaper and most of all much easier to go with this way from now on?

Absolutely. Far easier.

Just like it would be far easier (and cheaper) to stick ten times as much explosives into the building, and detonate it all at once...rather than a carefully-controlled sequence, calculated to control the fall as needed, and all the rest of it.

It might, however, be far less predicatable, and a hell of a lot more dangerous.

bonkey

buddyonair wrote: »

I don't know. We are talking about the pentagon here and not some 7/11 shop.

And?

Why would the Pentagon need better cameras?

Perimeter security was provided by armed soldiers - a damn sight more effective than any camera.

Think where the crap camera pictures that did capture stuff were from. Again - not somewhere you needed high, long-distance resolution. And again, not somewhere that the camera was providing security.

Mahatma coat

the first thing I noticed from the report was that the Diesel had nothing to do with it.


I will sit down later on today and tomorrow and go through the whole thing. does it include a detailed plan of the building showing where the Core/Substation started and finished.

also the report only says that the sprinklers were broken in some sections of the building

buddyonair

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the first thing I noticed from the report was that the Diesel had nothing to do with it.
I will sit down later on today and tomorrow and go through the whole thing. does it include a detailed plan of the building showing where the Core/Substation started and finished.
also the report only says that the sprinklers were broken in some sections of the building

They say that there was a problem with the sprinklers in the lower levels.
I can't remember if they said where it exactly started but I don't think so.

civdef

Thought this report would generate more discussion here TBH.

Anyway, I for one was glad to have it confirmed that fire makes building fall down, will keep me in a job for another while yet.