To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Cheerful Spring

It 10 minutes long it does not kill you to watch it and inform yourselves.

Cheerful Spring

This is a good analysis of the video if you watch it

In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at free fall, but the cover-up was transparent. In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged free fall, but couched it in a bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. This video displays the brazenness of the NIST WTC7 cover-up.

Overheal

1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

Overheal

Fun side note while we wait for Cheerful Spring to answer the room's 2 burning questions:

NIST will not tell you this. Twin tower steel was graded to resist 2000c temp

Information from the web the lengths they went to cover this up.
Kevin Ryan is the former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Mr. Ryan, a Chemist and laboratory manager, was fired by UL in 2004 for publicly questioning the report being drafted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on their World Trade Center investigation. In the intervening period, Ryan has completed additional research while his original questions, which have become increasingly important over time.

The reason he was fired. He disputed what they said about the steel.

UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, the steel's performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company. While Ryan's letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories.

NIST FAQ:

16. Was the steel in the WTC towers certified by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit) as some have claimed?

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was "certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours" is simply not true.

Also this Kevin Ryan person has no credentials in the field of metallurgy nor was he involved with any metallurgy at UL or in the certification or testing of solid materials aka. metals. https://www.metabunk.org/kevin-ryans-claims-about-ul-certifying-steel-components-for-the-wtc.t2370/

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

Fun side note while we wait for Cheerful Spring to answer the room's 2 burning questions:



NIST FAQ:

16. Was the steel in the WTC towers certified by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit) as some have claimed?

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was "certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours" is simply not true.

Also this Kevin Ryan person has no credentials in the field of metallurgy nor was he involved with any metallurgy at UL or in the certification or testing of solid materials aka. metals. https://www.metabunk.org/kevin-ryans-claims-about-ul-certifying-steel-components-for-the-wtc.t2370/

Kevin Ryan worked for underwriter labs. He got fired for disagreeing with NIST. You posting NIST conclusions. He is shining light who stood up for what was right.

Metabunk a sceptic site. They attack people who know more then they do.

Kevin Ryan true hero.

Kevin Ryan, former lab manger and scientist at Underwriter Lab finds significant discrepancies in the USA's official 9/11 World Trade Center reports. Kevin has read the entire 10,000 pages of the reports. He explains in detail why the report is not accurate and in many cases is misleading. He shows the official investigation was unscientific and deceptive through out the investigation. He shows report findings that are in direct contradiction to the actual physical testing - the floor models did not collapse!



http://www0.ae911truth.org/40-uncategorised/advanced-video-gallery/152-independent-investigator-kevin-ryan-chemist-and-former-underwriter-laboratories-site-manager.html

Overheal

I have plenty of responses in mind for your latest post, however first:

1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

The purpose of my post #2555 was mainly just to see if you were still lurking, because it seemed clear you were avoiding these questions. Thanks for confirming that.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

I have plenty of responses in mind for your latest post, however first:

1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

The purpose of my post #2555 was mainly just to see if you were still lurking, because it seemed clear you were avoiding these questions. Thanks for confirming that.

They're not questions. It asking me to speculation. How can I answer this truthfully?

I prefer to stick to what we know for sure WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Dr Hulsey 300,000 dollar study about WTC7 collapse is due in a couple of weeks. We know more about collapse then we did before. New info will be presented and will be peer-reviewed in scientific journals

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I prefer to stick to what we know for sure WTC7 was brought by controlled demolition.

Dr Hulsey 300,000 dollar study about WTC7 collapse is due in a couple of weeks. We know more the collapse then we did before. New info will be presented and will be peer-reviewed scientific journals

Except that, we don't "know for sure," that. If that were known for sure there would be no need for an upcoming study or a subsequent peer review, or this discussion. It's your opinion, only. Do try to employ some critical thinking skills, and do not present your opinion as a settled matter of fact.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

Except that, we don't "know for sure," that. If that were known for sure there would be no need for an upcoming study or a subsequent peer review, or this discussion. It's your opinion, only. Do try to employ some critical thinking skills, and do not present your opinion as a settled matter of fact.

Your opinion. I have seen how you act and behave and i don't care if i get banned your asshole

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kevin Ryan worked for underwriter labs. He got fired for disagreeing with NIST. You posting NIST conclusions. He is shining light who stood up for what was right.

He was an employee of a company who attempted to publicly undermine the reputation and credibly of said company by trying to implicate that it was involved in a conspiracy involving the deaths of thousands of people. Try doing that at any employer and see if you still have a job; his termination is not evidence of anything aside from.

Metabunk a sceptic site. They attack people who know more then they do.

They'd already had this conversation 6 years ago, and the information and the evidence is unchanged.

Kevin Ryan true hero.

Kevin Ryan, former lab manger and scientist at Underwriter Lab finds significant discrepancies in the USA's official 9/11 World Trade Center reports. Kevin has read the entire 10,000 pages of the reports. He explains in detail why the report is not accurate and in many cases is misleading. He shows the official investigation was unscientific and deceptive through out the investigation. He shows report findings that are in direct contradiction to the actual physical testing - the floor models did not collapse!



http://www0.ae911truth.org/40-uncategorised/advanced-video-gallery/152-independent-investigator-kevin-ryan-chemist-and-former-underwriter-laboratories-site-manager.html

I'm not seeing that any of his work is peer reviewed. If he could prove the investigation was unscientific, there would be recognized scientific bodies which could independently verify that claim - they haven't, nationally or internationally, including recognized scientific bodies without political obligations to the United States.

You appear to again, be void of the Critical Thinking to identify that you are - through confirmation bias - willing to accept his claims because he has a scientific background (albeit an unrelated one, in Chemistry and Environmental Health), and he's "Read all 10,000 pages" of the report (edit: Who did so by charging headlong into the process with the goal and aim of attempting to conclude it was all bunk, which is itself a big red flag indicator of experimenter/confirmation bias) - which just *screams* "I didn't want to read or understand this so I trust this yahoo to tell me that the things I assume about this report are true, are true."

And now we come back around, to the questions you don't want to answer: if just purely for the sake of argument we establish the Assumption that the towers came down in a controlled demolition conspiracy:

1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your opinion. I have seen how you act and behave and i don't care if i get banned your asshole

Ah now see, you are able to discern fact and viewpoint; so there is no reason to give you a pass on claiming that the controlled demolition conspiracy is a settled matter of fact.

What about my asshole? I would hate to see you lose your cool when met with the meager resistances offered by critical thinking, logical deductive reasoning, and academic research skills.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

He was an employee of a company who attempted to publicly undermine the reputation and credibly of said company by trying to implicate that it was involved in a conspiracy involving the deaths of thousands of people. Try doing that at any employer and see if you still have a job; his termination is not evidence of anything aside from.

They'd already had this conversation 6 years ago, and the information and the evidence is unchanged.


I'm not seeing that any of his work is peer reviewed. If he could prove the investigation was unscientific, there would be recognized scientific bodies which could independently verify that claim - they haven't, nationally or internationally, including recognized scientific bodies without political obligations to the United States.

You appear to again, be void of the Critical Thinking to identify that you are - through confirmation bias - willing to accept his claims because he has a scientific background (albeit an unrelated one, in Chemistry and Environmental Health), and he's "Read all 10,000 pages" of the report - which just *screams* "I didn't want to read or understand this so I trust this yahoo to tell me that the things I assume about this report are true, are true."

And now we come back around, to the questions you don't want to answer: if just purely for the sake of argument we establish the Assumption that the towers came down in a controlled demolition conspiracy:

1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

I have no interest stop replying to me. You ignored the evidence I presented earlier. You're a debunker.

Look him up do some research see if his claim was even true. There plenty of info online that will verify he was right and not lying. But I know you not do this, as you not could be bothered to watch a 10-minute video like I asked you to. Yet you can write a long post not a bother for you. I done and apply for a mod position on a debunker forum.

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

Ah now see, you are able to discern fact and viewpoint; so there is no reason to give you a pass on claiming that the controlled demolition conspiracy is a settled matter of fact.

What about my asshole? I would hate to see you lose your cool when met with the meager resistances offered by critical thinking, logical deductive reasoning, and academic research skills.

I losing my cool because you acting like a child. I responded in goods faith early today and replied to your detailed posts. I asked you to watch a short video and you just fobbed me off but then you go on the attack again and join the others. This is sad behaviour.

I would have had more respect for you if you watched the video, broke it down, and then highlighted where I was wrong. I have no time for someone who does not want to know or cares what the conspiracy side is saying. It best we don't reply to each other anymore.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have no interest stop replying to me. You ignored the evidence I presented earlier. You're a debunker.

Look him up do some research see if his claim was even true. There plenty of info online that will verify he was right and not lying. But I know you not do this, as you not could be bothered to watch a 10-minute video like I asked you to. Yet you can write a long post not a bother for you. I done and apply for a mod position on a debunker forum.

It really didn't take much to shut your argument down, huh?

The video isn't addressing anything the NIST already doesnt, on their own website, proudly:

NIST wrote:

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_draftreports.cfm), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

You've made the insinuation that because the investigation took 6 years, that it must have meant that they spent 6 years on the kinematics of the <6 seconds that involved WTC7. I don't see how you don't recognize that as a silly notion. Or that you think that if a body took somewhere in the realm of 3 months to re-evaluate its scientific position, when scientifically challenged, in a scientific forum, and this process ended up with them renewing or clarifying their conclusions, that this is somehow conspiratorial and not science as usual - but that is an indicator to me that you have never engaged in the scientific method in any research or longitudinal capacity. In laymans terms it goes Hypothesis, Experiment, Data, Results, Analysis, Conclusion, Peer Review, Further Analysis, New Conclusions (if any), Peer Review, Acceptance, Publication, - and that process can go on in perpetuity. Just look at god damned Pluto, that poor bastard.

If his claims were true, it would have been picked up by a broader scientific audience by now; just on the stuff you've tried to pass off here, I can't say in any independent fashion as someone with an education and degree in mechanical engineering that I buy into it.

Let's take that photo you posted earlier, which you claim is a photo that proves the steel melted. To me, it looks more like spaghetti bolognase, but that's beside the point, it is from a FEMA recovered sample from the WTC, but they did not conclude (nor would I, reading their paper) that it is evidence of steel melting:

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Now be aware, it uses phrases that laypersons will latch on to like, "intergranular melting," which the 911research site introduces as 'consistent with the theory of thermite arson.' Let me just warn you right now that is some flat earther level logic. Intergranular melting is a phenomenon that involves very microscopic scales (micro-meter in fact), and is not going to apply to a surface that doesn't have a rough edge (ie. it's not gonna happen to a virgin steel I-beam, it's going to happen to one that's been ripped in half in the middle of a fire. The science shows the pieces in the photo experienced up to 1000 C (which is consistent with the temperature data NIST determined). Not to mention we're misled by truthers into thinking that because the piece is red in the photo it must be hot(?) - but that is oxidation, ie. rust. Iron oxide is red.

And to be clear, this is what melted steel looks like



And here's a train track joint - which is achieved by using thermite in a crucible to melt a billet of steel and pour it directly into form. Notice, no crazy red **** aside from the iron oxidation:



But this all still begs the questions:

1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

King Mob

Cheerful, you have not once posted in good faith. You are pathologically incapable of doing so.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It embarrassing a moderator ignores the evidence provided. NIST denying freefall at their own press conference and then changing their mind three months later. It not like I have not provided the evidence in video format.

1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This is a good analysis of the video if you watch it

In its draft report, released in August 2008, NIST attempted to cover up evidence that WTC7 fell at free fall, but the cover-up was transparent. In its final report, released in November 2008, NIST finally acknowledged free fall, but couched it in a bizarre framework that continues to deny its clear significance. This video displays the brazenness of the NIST WTC7 cover-up.

1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kevin Ryan worked for underwriter labs. He got fired for disagreeing with NIST. You posting NIST conclusions. He is shining light who stood up for what was right.

Metabunk a sceptic site. They attack people who know more then they do.

Kevin Ryan true hero.

Kevin Ryan, former lab manger and scientist at Underwriter Lab finds significant discrepancies in the USA's official 9/11 World Trade Center reports. Kevin has read the entire 10,000 pages of the reports. He explains in detail why the report is not accurate and in many cases is misleading. He shows the official investigation was unscientific and deceptive through out the investigation. He shows report findings that are in direct contradiction to the actual physical testing - the floor models did not collapse!



http://www0.ae911truth.org/40-uncategorised/advanced-video-gallery/152-independent-investigator-kevin-ryan-chemist-and-former-underwriter-laboratories-site-manager.html

1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Your opinion. I have seen how you act and behave and i don't care if i get banned your asshole

1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I have no interest stop replying to me. You ignored the evidence I presented earlier. You're a debunker.

Look him up do some research see if his claim was even true. There plenty of info online that will verify he was right and not lying. But I know you not do this, as you not could be bothered to watch a 10-minute video like I asked you to. Yet you can write a long post not a bother for you. I done and apply for a mod position on a debunker forum.

1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

It really didn't take much to shut your argument down, huh?

The video isn't addressing anything the NIST already doesnt, on their own website, proudly:



You've made the insinuation that because the investigation took 6 years, that it must have meant that they spent 6 years on the kinematics of the <6 seconds that involved WTC7. I don't see how you don't recognize that as a silly notion. Or that you think that if a body took somewhere in the realm of 3 months to re-evaluate its scientific position, when scientifically challenged, in a scientific forum, and this process ended up with them renewing or clarifying their conclusions, that this is somehow conspiratorial and not science as usual - but that is an indicator to me that you have never engaged in the scientific method in any research or longitudinal capacity. In laymans terms it goes Hypothesis, Experiment, Data, Results, Analysis, Conclusion, Peer Review, Further Analysis, New Conclusions (if any), Peer Review, Acceptance, Publication, - and that process can go on in perpetuity. Just look at god damned Pluto, that poor bastard.

If his claims were true, it would have been picked up by a broader scientific audience by now; just on the stuff you've tried to pass off here, I can't say in any independent fashion as someone with an education and degree in mechanical engineering that I buy into it.

Let's take that photo you posted earlier, which you claim is a photo that proves the steel melted. To me, it looks more like spaghetti bolognase, but that's beside the point, it is from a FEMA recovered sample from the WTC, but they did not conclude (nor would I, reading their paper) that it is evidence of steel melting:

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Now be aware, it uses phrases that laypersons will latch on to like, "intergranular melting," which the 911research site introduces as 'consistent with the theory of thermite arson.' Let me just warn you right now that is some flat earther level logic. Intergranular melting is a phenomenon that involves very microscopic scales (micro-meter in fact), and is not going to apply to a surface that doesn't have a rough edge (ie. it's not gonna happen to a virgin steel I-beam, it's going to happen to one that's been ripped in half in the middle of a fire. The science shows the pieces in the photo experienced up to 1000 C (which is consistent with the temperature data NIST determined). Not to mention we're misled by truthers into thinking that because the piece is red in the photo it must be hot(?) - but that is oxidation, ie. rust. Iron oxide is red.

And to be clear, this is what melted steel looks like



And here's a train track joint - which is achieved by using thermite in a crucible to melt a billet of steel and pour it directly into form. Notice, no crazy red **** aside from the iron oxidation:



But this all still begs the questions:

1. You claim Larry Silverstein blew up WTC 7, whom did he employ to blow it up?

2. Did he blow up WTC 1 and 2, if so, how did he do it? which team did he use?

This post is misleading. NIST progressive collapse fire hypothesis assumes the steel and columns connections failed at a slow rate across the width of the building. They even said at their own press conference their collapse analysis models showed the failures were not instant. And there was structural resistance or support in this particular case in stage 2. The slow sequence of failures according to them categorically rules out freefall. NIST conclusions are entirely based on these findings and never changed even with the new revision of their study released in Nov 2008.

In this particular case, NIST is not updating their study and making the necessary changes to their body of work. NIST and there no doubt at all has not reevaluated its position they doubled down. They now claim in stage 2 Freefall occurred but notice how they don’t explain it in great detail anywhere the mechanism behind it. You always have to keep in mind their original claims freefall was impossibility the failures were not instantaneous and there was structural support underneath. The progressive collapse fire scenario is not consistent with a freefall scenario.

Kevin Ryan was ridiculing the NIST hypothesis in a public viewable setting. Underwriter Labs had contracts with the US government to carry out work. He spoke about it without notifying UL according to them yet in his letter addressed to NIST he said the opinions he had were his own. UL made the choice to fire him for speaking out. He was not just making claims about the steel resistance to fire he claimed the NIST collapse theory regarding the towers was wrong. He stuck his neck out and they got rid of him. Kevin Ryan claimed the steel could resist 2000F temps and UL had tested the steel at these temps. It not like he was outside looking in he was working for the company and was familiar with the studies been done by UL. The disagreed with Kevin Ryan and sided with NIST. The problem is UL is one of the leaders in fire research testing. They would have tested the WTC steel and observed the resistance to fire. They would have certified the steel and its resistance despite what NIST claimed.

This again is very misleading. NIST never not even one time said fires reached 1000c temp inside building seven. You post without doing any research first. If you don’t believe me the NIST papers are online. The hottest any fire got to was 600c and this died off in 15 minutes around the columns. Fires move on and fires go out.

NIST estimates are around 400c for the fire in the afternoon around column 79 that failed and started the collapse. WTC7 is an office building with paper and pencils and wood. Eventually, this just burns out. It’s the reason truthers are interested in the FEMA study from 2002. You posted the FEMA report what did they actually say? The steel melted likely melted due to a combination of sulphur and high heat 1000c.

WTC7 fires never reached this temp of 1000c (PROBLEM) and abundance of sulphur they still are unable to answer where it came from (PROBLEM) I find it curious NIST denies steel was melted or molten steel in a hot fire scenario WAS seen when the FEMA report says otherwise. Are you posting a picture of stainless steel? We have a genuine picture of a yellow liquid flowing beside the steel columns at ground zero. It matches exactly molten steel observed in a foundry when flowing. The construction workers, firemen, helpers many others they all said this was molten steel liquid found in the rubble. You can disagree this was molten steel that fine, your viewpoint.

Overheal

The slow sequence of failures according to them categorically rules out freefall.

How does it? The slow sequence of failures is what led to the catastrophic failure event, which was the 5+ seconds of collapse, which involved a period in the event where the outside face of the structure seen in the video is for all intents and purposes, in freefall for a total ~2.25 seconds.

They now claim in stage 2 Freefall occurred but notice how they don’t explain it in great detail anywhere the mechanism behind it.

You've read the report in full yourself I imagine and confirmed that? Bearing in mind that it's a post-event analysis in a real world setting - even in a laboratory setting, we still don't know everything. And, they already ruled out thermite (in vivid detail) which is where the conspiracy goes with this.

Kevin Ryan was ridiculing the NIST hypothesis in a public viewable setting. Underwriter Labs had contracts with the US government to carry out work. He spoke about it without notifying UL according to them yet in his letter addressed to NIST he said the opinions he had were his own. UL made the choice to fire him for speaking out. He was not just making claims about the steel resistance to fire he claimed the NIST collapse theory regarding the towers was wrong. He stuck his neck out and they got rid of him. Kevin Ryan claimed the steel could resist 2000F temps and UL had tested the steel at these temps. It not like he was outside looking in he was working for the company and was familiar with the studies been done by UL.

He was in a completely different department, he had no visibility to that. You don't seem to understand how big companies work - ITT for instance when I worked in the Conoflow/Compact Automation division, has no direct access or interoperability to Goulds Pumps or ITT Mining division. They simply don't need it, for one: an engineer or plant manager for a division manufacturing and engineering pneumatic pistons and flow regulators has no need for access to network drives that involve the manufacture of mining equipment. Not to mention that would be a huge cybersecurity issue - the company has roughly 10,000 employees, if only 10 engineers are working on the supply chain for a product, then only they (and a couple people at corporate, and some IT people) need access to those files. Especially when you do sensitive ****, like Nuclear Reactor subassemblies, NVGs, and other things which are tightly export controlled. You know who doesn't need access to that? At least 9,000 other employees. You don't give machinists access to anything except the drawing they're machining from and the CAM file they're running a machine with, they do not need (nor is it at all safe) to give them access to go into the CAD and change the model (without engineering approval? *shudder* You can *kill* people that way, especially with nuke parts and CNG regulators). General Electric does this, too - I just spent 2 days this week at their Advanced Manufacturing Works learning what little they could disclose to partner with Clemson University on use of their AM machines for making polymer and metal 3D prints. GE AMW doesn't have access to information that GE Turbine or GE Renewables or GE Medical are working on - they don't need it, there are export controls, there are cybersecurity and corporate espionage considerations. In turn GE AMW doesn't share their sensitive information with the other branches. Hell, if other GE branches need AMW to R&D a 3D printed component for them, they are charged money for it, it comes out of their budget as if they were customers. That's how corporations do business. Similarly Underwriters Laboratories runs numerous discrete divisions and in numerous countries and is far from an open ecosytem (case in point: UL sells test data). UL assuredly runs tests on all sorts of sensitive information, both military, private, and company-internal. There is no need for an Environmental Science division to know everything the division handling a steel assembly is up to, nor would they be able to put it to good use, or frankly understand all the particulars. In short, Kevin Ryan can claim all day whatever he wants about what another UL division is, but he has no credibility to say so, he had no access to that. For that matter, he claims he was given this information by someone who might have had some credibility, but he has no direct evidence that correspondence ever actuality happened. In the words of Donald Trump: "where are the emails!?"

This again is very misleading. NIST never not even one time said fires reached 1000c temp inside building seven. You post without doing any research first. If you don’t believe me the NIST papers are online. The hottest any fire got to was 600c and this died off in 15 minutes around the columns. Fires move on and fires go out.

NIST estimates are around 400c for the fire in the afternoon around column 79 that failed and started the collapse. WTC7 is an office building with paper and pencils and wood. Eventually, this just burns out. It’s the reason truthers are interested in the FEMA study from 2002. You posted the FEMA report what did they actually say? The steel melted likely melted due to a combination of sulphur and high heat 1000c.

WTC7 fires never reached this temp of 1000c (PROBLEM) and abundance of sulphur they still are unable to answer where it came from (PROBLEM) I find it curious NIST denies steel was melted or molten steel in a hot fire scenario WAS seen when the FEMA report says otherwise.

Again that's not what the FEMA report says - you're confusing the liquefaction that happened at the surface grain boundaries under temperatures of about 1000 C with the notion that the steel melted. You're also confusing the NIST conclusion that "the east side of the building [...] the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees Celsius," with the notion that 'exceeded 600 C' doesn't include 1000 C at points - which is last I checked in excess of 600 C. There is no exclusion that there may have been flashpoints in the fire that reached around 1000 C. Think about the Internal Combustion Engine for a petrol car: the spark plug's job is to ignite the fuel, which gets to between 500 - 850 C in most engines. It achieves this ignition with a spark - an arc of plasma across the electrodes, pushed by tens of thousands of volts (and mere microamperes) - that plasma, right in it, can reach 100,000 degrees F, though it peters out to 10,000 F and below. But, it doesn't need to be sustained, it just needs to start the combustion. So, even though it reaches temperatures that can exceed twice as hot as the sun, as the molecular/molar scale, you still don't melt any of the steel or aluminum in your engine, because it still only amounts to mere fraction of a joule of total energy, and just like boiling water steel has to get to absorb latent heat of fusion (250 J/g). Larger electrodes are how MIG/TIG welding works for joining/cutting steel. In short though, it takes a TON of energy to change the phase of steel from a solid to a liquid, and in the case of the microscopic liquefaction at those grain boundaries that's only possible at the micro scale because those are effectively very tiny pieces (micrograms) of steel that were broken off from the larger crystal structure of a once solid member of steel. In the case of welding, you're only melting a dime-sized (less, really) portion of steel at a time, and using a lot of energy to do so (eg. 20 kVA). But the point of that is (tl;dr) that just because the temperature in your piston is generally to be considered to be hotter than 800 C, doesn't mean there isn't a point in there somewhere that isn't, you know, 100,000 degrees F, and similarly "exceeds 600 C" doesn't mean its not possible to experience hot points of 1000 C (or more!) especially if you have accelerants in your microscopic, grain boundary phenomenon, like sulphur or phosphorous, which are fairly reactive elements...

Here is the chemical composition of A36 steel:

Carbon, C 0.25 - 0.290 %
Copper, Cu 0.20 %
Iron, Fe 98.0 %
Manganese, Mn 1.03 %
Phosphorous, P 0.040 %
Silicon, Si 0.280 %
Sulfur, S 0.050 %

Source of the sul[f/ph]ur? Right there, at the phenomenon, already baked into the steel. It's almost as if all the conditions and parameters existed to reach temperatures at the surface of that sample upwards of 1000 C. What a concept!

Cheerful Spring

Overheal wrote: »

How does it? The slow sequence of failures is what led to the catastrophic failure event, which was the 5+ seconds of collapse, which involved a period in the event where the outside face of the structure seen in the video is for all intents and purposes, in freefall for a total ~2.25 seconds.

You've read the report in full yourself I imagine and confirmed that? Bearing in mind that it's a post-event analysis in a real world setting - even in a laboratory setting, we still don't know everything. And, they already ruled out thermite (in vivid detail) which is where the conspiracy goes with this.



He was in a completely different department, he had no visibility to that. You don't seem to understand how big companies work - ITT for instance when I worked in the Conoflow/Compact Automation division, has no direct access or interoperability to Goulds Pumps or ITT Mining division. They simply don't need it, for one: an engineer or plant manager for a division manufacturing and engineering pneumatic pistons and flow regulators has no need for access to network drives that involve the manufacture of mining equipment. Not to mention that would be a huge cybersecurity issue - the company has roughly 10,000 employees, if only 10 engineers are working on the supply chain for a product, then only they (and a couple people at corporate, and some IT people) need access to those files. Especially when you do sensitive ****, like Nuclear Reactor subassemblies, NVGs, and other things which are tightly export controlled. You know who doesn't need access to that? At least 9,000 other employees. You don't give machinists access to anything except the drawing they're machining from and the CAM file they're running a machine with, they do not need (nor is it at all safe) to give them access to go into the CAD and change the model (without engineering approval? *shudder* You can *kill* people that way, especially with nuke parts and CNG regulators). General Electric does this, too - I just spent 2 days this week at their Advanced Manufacturing Works learning what little they could disclose to partner with Clemson University on use of their AM machines for making polymer and metal 3D prints. GE AMW doesn't have access to information that GE Turbine or GE Renewables or GE Medical are working on - they don't need it, there are export controls, there are cybersecurity and corporate espionage considerations. In turn GE AMW doesn't share their sensitive information with the other branches. Hell, if other GE branches need AMW to R&D a 3D printed component for them, they are charged money for it, it comes out of their budget as if they were customers. That's how corporations do business. Similarly Underwriters Laboratories runs numerous discrete divisions and in numerous countries and is far from an open ecosytem (case in point: UL sells test data). UL assuredly runs tests on all sorts of sensitive information, both military, private, and company-internal. There is no need for an Environmental Science division to know everything the division handling a steel assembly is up to, nor would they be able to put it to good use, or frankly understand all the particulars. In short, Kevin Ryan can claim all day whatever he wants about what another UL division is, but he has no credibility to say so, he had no access to that. For that matter, he claims he was given this information by someone who might have had some credibility, but he has no direct evidence that correspondence ever actuality happened. In the words of Donald Trump: "where are the emails!?"

Again that's not what the FEMA report says - you're confusing the liquefaction that happened at the surface grain boundaries under temperatures of about 1000 C with the notion that the steel melted. You're also confusing the NIST conclusion that "the east side of the building [...] the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees Celsius," with the notion that 'exceeded 600 C' doesn't include 1000 C at points - which is last I checked in excess of 600 C. There is no exclusion that there may have been flashpoints in the fire that reached around 1000 C. Think about the Internal Combustion Engine for a petrol car: the spark plug's job is to ignite the fuel, which gets to between 500 - 850 C in most engines. It achieves this ignition with a spark - an arc of plasma across the electrodes, pushed by tens of thousands of volts (and mere microamperes) - that plasma, right in it, can reach 100,000 degrees F, though it peters out to 10,000 F and below. But, it doesn't need to be sustained, it just needs to start the combustion. So, even though it reaches temperatures that can exceed twice as hot as the sun, as the molecular/molar scale, you still don't melt any of the steel or aluminum in your engine, because it still only amounts to mere fraction of a joule of total energy, and just like boiling water steel has to get to absorb latent heat of fusion (250 J/g). Larger electrodes are how MIG/TIG welding works for joining/cutting steel. In short though, it takes a TON of energy to change the phase of steel from a solid to a liquid, and in the case of the microscopic liquefaction at those grain boundaries that's only possible at the micro scale because those are effectively very tiny pieces (micrograms) of steel that were broken off from the larger crystal structure of a once solid member of steel. In the case of welding, you're only melting a dime-sized (less, really) portion of steel at a time, and using a lot of energy to do so (eg. 20 kVA). But the point of that is (tl;dr) that just because the temperature in your piston is generally to be considered to be hotter than 800 C, doesn't mean there isn't a point in there somewhere that isn't, you know, 100,000 degrees F, and similarly "exceeds 600 C" doesn't mean its not possible to experience hot points of 1000 C (or more!) especially if you have accelerants in your microscopic, grain boundary phenomenon, like sulphur or phosphorous, which are fairly reactive elements...

Here is the chemical composition of A36 steel:

Carbon, C 0.25 - 0.290 %
Copper, Cu 0.20 %
Iron, Fe 98.0 %
Manganese, Mn 1.03 %
Phosphorous, P 0.040 %
Silicon, Si 0.280 %
Sulfur, S 0.050 %

Source of the sul[f/ph]ur? Right there, at the phenomenon, already baked into the steel.

If you watched the video you see why. NIST said there was still structural support and the failures were not instantaneous during Stage 2 of the collapse. For this reason, freefall was ruled out. When it collapsed at 2.25 seconds the perimeter and core steel columns were gone completely they were not buckling or taking the time to break away. The only way the 84 columns in WTC7 could be gone is by controlled demolition. The vital core columns extend from the bottom floor to the top floor.

NIST calculations are wrong also they extended the time for the collapse of floors to occur. This is observable data you can see from the outside how fast the building came down. Never mind their analysis is flawed the thermal expansion at girder 79 on Floor 13 could not have happened the way they said it did. The calculated the seat length incorrectly to expand to the east, NIST claimed there were no shear studs connections securing the steel beams and concrete flooring where the failure started. The shear studs would stop movement and swaying. In fact, the Truthers got their hands on the Frankel construction drawings for WTC7 and the steel beams and girders had shear studs. It made no sense the construction workers would have shear studs on some floors and not on others. They also claimed the girder had no web plate and fasteners. They basically ran a simulation removed the construction elements the girder expanded and progressive collapse then started according to them. In my mind, their study was fraudulent as they ignored the construction phases and the elements on the girder that would have prevented a failure.

Kevin Ryan talked with people who did the work he asked around and got information from them. I would not character assassinate and not get his side of the story first. .. He worked for the company I am not inclined to write his story off.. Was he wrong in stating the steel could resist 2000F temp? There no evidence his wrong. The Twin Towers collapsed in less than an hour after the planes impacted the towers.

Kevin Ryan 2 minutes in his side of the story. I just watched it now and he says the CEO of the company talked about it.

FEMA claimed the iron and sulphur liquid formed in a hot environment of 1000c. I not confused at all you dismissing what they claimed for your own reasons. The reports speak for itself. Do you think FEMA was not aware the steel had a low percentage of Sulphur content? The there percentage was too high this is the reason they sought out other explanations for the source of the sulphur.

WTC7 had fireproofing and insulation to protect the steel. There not a shred of evidence the fires were 1000c celsius at any time.. If you continue to make this claim please back it up with official documentation from NIST?

Cheerful Spring

Overheal does this look like 1000c fires to you?

Photo before 1pm




This image was captured at 4 pm. Notice no raging fires or out of control fires around this time.



There fires in the bottom floors taken at 3pm but it not 1000c I bet my life on it.

The Nal

lol. Hand picked photos showing no fires or small fires. What nonsense.

Genuine question - Alex Jones etc aside - has anyone ever seen a worse "researcher" then Cheerful Spring? Hes hilarious.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

lol. Hand picked photos showing no fires or small fires. What nonsense.

Genuine question - Alex Jones etc aside - has anyone ever seen a worse "researcher" then Cheerful Spring? Hes hilarious.

You free to post your own images of fires in WTC7 and we can compare. If you believe the fires were burning uncontrollably between 3pm and 5pm at 1000c it should take you long to find them.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You free to post your own images of fires in WTC7 and we can compare. If you believe the fires were burning uncontrollably between 3pm and 5pm at 1000c it should take you long to find them.

Yup loads of pics out there, as you well know, which you decided not to post in your latest transparent attempt to prop up a completely debunked theory.

You do know that the fires were inside of the building don't you?

Theres also lots and lots of proof from firefighters that the building was unstable before 3pm but you ignore that too and/or add them to the list of the conspirators.

Which must be in the tens of thousands by now I guess. Yet you can't name one of them.

Cheerful Spring

The Nal wrote: »

Yup loads of pics out there, as you well know, which you decided not to post in your latest transparent attempt to prop up a completely debunked theory.

You do know that the fires were inside of the building don't you?

Theres also lots and lots of proof from firefighters that the building was unstable before 3pm but you ignore that too and/or add them to the list of the conspirators.

Which must be in the tens of thousands by now I guess. Yet you can't name one of them.

You do not post the pics you say exist. The building was not unstable. NIST even said so in their own report.

Anyway, I going to take a break and come back when Dr Hulsey study is out I post when the new info available. All we have right now is the NIST report. The Truthers will have their own Study out soon and can be peer-reviewed by mainstream architects and engineers.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The only way the 84 columns in WTC7 could be gone is by controlled demolition.

What critical thinking led you to believe that? Why is that the only way? Why not by the ways previously described to you? Why not by aliens? Why not by portals? Why not by Merlin's beard?

Never mind their analysis is flawed the thermal expansion at girder 79 on Floor 13 could not have happened the way they said it did.

why not?

The[y] calculated the seat length incorrectly to expand to the east, NIST claimed there were no shear studs connections securing the steel beams and concrete flooring where the failure started. The shear studs would stop movement and swaying. In fact, the Truthers got their hands on the Frankel construction drawings for WTC7 and the steel beams and girders had shear studs. It made no sense the construction workers would have shear studs on some floors and not on others.

That's an awfully big assumption. You aren't leaving room for the possibility that not all floors were engineered equally, and indeed in many high rises they aren't. The top floors are always smaller and lighter because they hold less weight, and being less weight themselves alleviates the spec needed on the floors below. You're also assuming that they wanted to stop moving and swaying (and thermal expansion, even) at all points in the design. Over-constraining a structure can induce internal stresses within it. Buildings aren't designed to be fully rigid, they are designed to sway, and act as spring/dampers against applied forces (Eg. wind, seismic activity), and they are designed with some degree of thermal expansion in mind.

They also claimed the girder had no web plate and fasteners. They basically ran a simulation removed the construction elements the girder expanded and progressive collapse then started according to them. In my mind, their study was fraudulent as they ignored the construction phases and the elements on the girder that would have prevented a failure.

That's hardly surprising to anyone who has ever done Finite Element Analysis (you haven't, I have). When you are designing a structure or assembly you are modeling analytically. They didn't have the same order of magnitude of computer power 10 years ago that we do today, and even still a fully discretized model like you're suggesting would take unnecessary computing power and time to come up with results that are still within the ballpark of R=0.99 for hundreds or thousands of fold more computational resources - so why bother? When you design an assembly the thing to consider is what loads does it need to be specified for (mechanical, thermal) and then you design it for a predictable failure mode - which isn't always at the fasteners, but eg. the steel member itself. Say a steel floor beam: the objective is to hold x,xxx ksi of floor stress (Force/Area), the failure mode you want is plastic yielding, in which the beam fails in the middle (not at the fasteners holding it in place), this failure mode means the floor will bend downward, like an overloaded bookshelf. The bend aka. strain is enough to let people realize in most cases hey wow, this floor is overloaded, and get off or out safely, and because the beam has bent past its plastic yield point, it doesn't return to its original state (elastic failure theory).

Basically their analysis just had to show that the steel went well beyond its ultimate strength, to the limits that it would either fail in the beam itself or that the shear bolts holding it in place would fail. There was no reason to FEA the stress at the bolts until that point, and a big waste of time and effort.


This link explains the failure action of steel pretty well https://www.cmrp.com/blog/faq/analysis-design/exploring-stress-strain-curve-mild-steel.html

This is of course all forgetting that the original 1960s design of the structure made assumptions like the ability to handle a fire started from a single event (not several, as in WTC7) and that there would be a water supression effort in place - except there was no functional supression in WTC7 (the collapse of the towers broke the mains, etc) and the FDNY had decided not to divest resources to the collapse of the towers (and the recovery and the rubble removal) to stop the fires or inevitable collapse of WTC7 which had already been evacuated after the planes hit.

Kevin Ryan talked with people who did the work he asked around and got information from them.

But not any proof. This is all just conjecture.

I would not character assassinate and not get his side of the story first.

It is not character assassination to point out the fact that his background was in chemicals and his work was in environmental safety and that he was not involved in mechanical engineering, architecture, fire protection engineering, or metallurgy.

Was he wrong in stating the steel could resist 2000F temp? There no evidence his wrong. The Twin Towers collapsed in less than an hour after the planes impacted the towers.

There is evidence and I already provided it to you: https://fsel.engr.utexas.edu/pdfs/LEE_PhD_Dissertation_opt1.pdf

At 1000 C (less than 2000 F), steel has an ultimate strength of less than 4 ksi, vs. when it is at room temperature where it has well over 60 ksi.

Kevin Ryan 2 minutes in his side of the story. I just watched it now and he says the CEO of the company talked about it.

He can say it all he wants but where is evidence the conversation took place? Is he just allowed to put words into the CEO's mouth? What does the CEO say about this?

FEMA claimed the iron and sulphur liquid formed in a hot environment of 1000c. I not confused at all you dismissing what they claimed for your own reasons. The reports speak for itself. Do you think FEMA was not aware the steel had a low percentage of Sulphur content? The there percentage was too high this is the reason they sought out other explanations for the source of the sulphur.

They mentioned it, very clearly in their report.

Perhaps the WTC asbestos fireproofing was treated with sulfur: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3256106A/en

Or perhaps the sulfur in the metal compound was sufficient to cause the reaction. The FEMA report lists this as "suggestions for further research." It was not in their scope to investigate. It could well be that a) the steel had enough sulfur in it for the phenomena (ie. FEMA acknowledged concern this event could happen to other steel structures in the future), b) the asbestos was treated chemically with sulfur in its manufacture, c) thermite!!!@#1312! or d) aliens and lizardpeople teleported sulfur powder there

WTC7 had fireproofing and insulation to protect the steel. There not a shred of evidence the fires were 1000c celsius at any time.. If you continue to make this claim please back it up with official documentation from NIST?

FEMA's metallurgical analysis suggests the steel they believed was from WTC7 experienced temperatures of up to 1000 C. NIST determined the temperatures in WTC7 Exceeded 600 C. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You do not post the pics you say exist. The building was not unstable. NIST even said so in their own report.

Anyway, I going to take a break and come back when Dr Hulsey study is out I post when the new info available. All we have right now is the NIST report. The Truthers will have their own Study out soon and can be peer-reviewed by mainstream architects and engineers.

See you in 2023 so