Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: neutronflux

The article does claim that it takes 4000F for steel to evaporate the way it has in the photo. This is just one persons interpretation of it. They did get a closer look at it all than we get with the photo.

Its a corrosive thinning of the metal. I don’t know what to tell you other than you like taking other persons work out of context, totally ignore their point, and you try to create a false narrative around it.

The metal from the article in a close up


Metal cut by explosives

a reply to: neutronflux

I am fighting for your credibility here, I have better things I can do rather than trying to get into your mixed up head and sort out your own mess.

You happy with some surface corrosion as an explanation for the wafered knife edge, fine. You are the one that has to live with it. not me. You want to ignore what the steel says and rather throw around derogatory allegations...

i am trying to help bring you to a point where we can both understand what happened. If you are not even willing to accept that thermite is even a possibility in this. We ain't going no where.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I am fighting for your credibility here, I have better things I can do rather than trying to get into your mixed up head and sort out your own mess.

You happy with some surface corrosion as an explanation for the wafered knife edge, fine. You are the one that has to live with it. not me. You want to ignore what the steel says and rather throw around derogatory allegations...

i am trying to help bring you to a point where we can both understand what happened. If you are not even willing to accept that thermite is even a possibility in this. We ain't going no where.

The picture below is of metal attacked by corrosion.



The picture you are referring to was never used as an example of conventional explosives in the WORK YOU REFERENCED. Is that false.

a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal does have surface corrosion. All the metal beam there do. It is how the metal has been flattened with a thin knife edge, so thin that a couple of holes formed. This is thick 1 inch steel. I do find the word evaporation fits.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal does have surface corrosion. All the metal beam there do. It is how the metal has been flattened with a thin knife edge, so thin that a couple of holes formed. This is thick 1 inch steel. I do find the word evaporation fits.

The metal has not been worked on by explosives.

You originally post to the article in question.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I did find one photo but it is in a pdf file on page 7 link

With part of all these problems, you have established a strong connection between the evidence and ridiculous. It is why you feel stuck in the mud on this. Being aware of this connection will help you combat it. I know you have a very strong, analytical and logical mind in there.

This is what the article claims about the metal in the photo.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

www.ae911truth.org...


IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
Technical Statement: NIST did not take the FEMA documentation of melted steel and
sulfidation in its Appendix C forensic analysis as being indicative of something that could have contributed to the collapses. Instead, NIST claims, without a basis, that the damage was caused in the rubble pile, although the extreme temperatures required to melt steel and the presence of sulfidation have no logical mechanism there.
In February 2012 an FOIA request produced three photos, taken during October 2001, showing Dr. John Gross of NIST posing with a heavily eroded WTC 7 beam. These photos contradict Dr. Gross’ statements about not witnessing steel that had been subjected to high temperatures. In fact, Dr. Gross was on the team headed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who was responsible for discovering, during the FEMA investigation, the WTC 7 beam featured in the Appendix C forensic analysis, which was melted and sulfidated. This is one of the steel beams the ends of which Barnett had previously described as “partially evaporated.” Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.

I replied the thin metal would not be in a sheet. The metal would be a pooled, slagged, and fused to other metal if exposed to 4000F.

The paper does not present the metal in the picture in question as proof of explosives, but high temps. Is that false.

a reply to: neutronflux

I do see this as proof of high temps.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I do see this as proof of high temps.

Then how did the thin metal hold its shape?

Steel around 1800F


How did the thin metal hold its shape at 4000F

a reply to: neutronflux

Not all of the original steel bar did hold its shape. What is there is what was left after it cooled back down.

To me, looks like you used the steel bar to mix the molten metal in a blast furnace. What is left is what happens once you pull the bar out.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Not all of the original steel bar did hold its shape. What is there is what was left after it cooled back down.

To me, looks like you used the steel bar to mix the molten metal in a blast furnace. What is left is what happens once you pull the bar out.

What are you going on about.

The picture below is supposedly steel exposed to 4000F. Is that false?


Supposedly the steel was in the vicinity of something hot enough to get it to 4000F and make the steel evaporate? Yet there is a large section of thin metal sheet that held its shape? How? There is no way in hell that thin metal sheet would hold its original shape if it was exposed to 4000F. Structural steel is liquid by the time it gets to 2000F.

a reply to: neutronflux

The picture below is supposedly steel exposed to 4000F. Is that false?

No. It is true there is evidence of the steel being exposed to 4000F.

The way the metal has thinned is similar to the way a big block of ice melts away when exposed to warmer temperatures. There is a pattern there.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal does have surface corrosion. All the metal beam there do. It is how the metal has been flattened with a thin knife edge, so thin that a couple of holes formed. This is thick 1 inch steel. I do find the word evaporation fits.

The metal has not been worked on by explosives.

You originally post to the article in question.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I did find one photo but it is in a pdf file on page 7 link

With part of all these problems, you have established a strong connection between the evidence and ridiculous. It is why you feel stuck in the mud on this. Being aware of this connection will help you combat it. I know you have a very strong, analytical and logical mind in there.

This is what the article claims about the metal in the photo.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

www.ae911truth.org...


IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
Technical Statement: NIST did not take the FEMA documentation of melted steel and
sulfidation in its Appendix C forensic analysis as being indicative of something that could have contributed to the collapses. Instead, NIST claims, without a basis, that the damage was caused in the rubble pile, although the extreme temperatures required to melt steel and the presence of sulfidation have no logical mechanism there.
In February 2012 an FOIA request produced three photos, taken during October 2001, showing Dr. John Gross of NIST posing with a heavily eroded WTC 7 beam. These photos contradict Dr. Gross’ statements about not witnessing steel that had been subjected to high temperatures. In fact, Dr. Gross was on the team headed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who was responsible for discovering, during the FEMA investigation, the WTC 7 beam featured in the Appendix C forensic analysis, which was melted and sulfidated. This is one of the steel beams the ends of which Barnett had previously described as “partially evaporated.” Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.

I replied the thin metal would not be in a sheet. The metal would be a pooled, slagged, and fused to other metal if exposed to 4000F.

The paper does not present the metal in the picture in question as proof of explosives, but high temps. Is that false.

Can state this to be true. NIST started from a position that fire brought the buildings. NIST did not investigate other probable theories ie explosives.

Forget the towers, you can debate what happened there all day long.

Government investigation ie NIST messed up big time with their WTC7 study. Only one building needs to be demolition and it be proof the official story wrong and WTC7 was a clearly a planned demolition.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal does have surface corrosion. All the metal beam there do. It is how the metal has been flattened with a thin knife edge, so thin that a couple of holes formed. This is thick 1 inch steel. I do find the word evaporation fits.

The metal has not been worked on by explosives.

You originally post to the article in question.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I did find one photo but it is in a pdf file on page 7 link

With part of all these problems, you have established a strong connection between the evidence and ridiculous. It is why you feel stuck in the mud on this. Being aware of this connection will help you combat it. I know you have a very strong, analytical and logical mind in there.

This is what the article claims about the metal in the photo.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

www.ae911truth.org...


IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
Technical Statement: NIST did not take the FEMA documentation of melted steel and
sulfidation in its Appendix C forensic analysis as being indicative of something that could have contributed to the collapses. Instead, NIST claims, without a basis, that the damage was caused in the rubble pile, although the extreme temperatures required to melt steel and the presence of sulfidation have no logical mechanism there.
In February 2012 an FOIA request produced three photos, taken during October 2001, showing Dr. John Gross of NIST posing with a heavily eroded WTC 7 beam. These photos contradict Dr. Gross’ statements about not witnessing steel that had been subjected to high temperatures. In fact, Dr. Gross was on the team headed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who was responsible for discovering, during the FEMA investigation, the WTC 7 beam featured in the Appendix C forensic analysis, which was melted and sulfidated. This is one of the steel beams the ends of which Barnett had previously described as “partially evaporated.” Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.

I replied the thin metal would not be in a sheet. The metal would be a pooled, slagged, and fused to other metal if exposed to 4000F.

The paper does not present the metal in the picture in question as proof of explosives, but high temps. Is that false.

Can state this to be true. NIST started from a position that fire brought the buildings. NIST did not investigate other probable theories ie explosives.

Forget the towers, you can debate what happened there all day long.

Government investigation ie NIST messed up big time with their WTC7 study. Only one building needs

to be demolition and it be proof the official story wrong and WTC7 was a clearly a planned demolition.

Clever the way they covered it up by getting WTC1 to collape on it, badly damaging the south face and setting it on fire across multiple floors.

Genius move that one

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal does have surface corrosion. All the metal beam there do. It is how the metal has been flattened with a thin knife edge, so thin that a couple of holes formed. This is thick 1 inch steel. I do find the word evaporation fits.

The metal has not been worked on by explosives.

You originally post to the article in question.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I did find one photo but it is in a pdf file on page 7 link

With part of all these problems, you have established a strong connection between the evidence and ridiculous. It is why you feel stuck in the mud on this. Being aware of this connection will help you combat it. I know you have a very strong, analytical and logical mind in there.

This is what the article claims about the metal in the photo.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

www.ae911truth.org...


IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
Technical Statement: NIST did not take the FEMA documentation of melted steel and
sulfidation in its Appendix C forensic analysis as being indicative of something that could have contributed to the collapses. Instead, NIST claims, without a basis, that the damage was caused in the rubble pile, although the extreme temperatures required to melt steel and the presence of sulfidation have no logical mechanism there.
In February 2012 an FOIA request produced three photos, taken during October 2001, showing Dr. John Gross of NIST posing with a heavily eroded WTC 7 beam. These photos contradict Dr. Gross’ statements about not witnessing steel that had been subjected to high temperatures. In fact, Dr. Gross was on the team headed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who was responsible for discovering, during the FEMA investigation, the WTC 7 beam featured in the Appendix C forensic analysis, which was melted and sulfidated. This is one of the steel beams the ends of which Barnett had previously described as “partially evaporated.” Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.

I replied the thin metal would not be in a sheet. The metal would be a pooled, slagged, and fused to other metal if exposed to 4000F.

The paper does not present the metal in the picture in question as proof of explosives, but high temps. Is that false.

Can state this to be true. NIST started from a position that fire brought the buildings. NIST did not investigate other probable theories ie explosives.

Forget the towers, you can debate what happened there all day long.

Government investigation ie NIST messed up big time with their WTC7 study. Only one building needs

to be demolition and it be proof the official story wrong and WTC7 was a clearly a planned demolition.

Clever the way they covered it up by getting WTC1 to collape on it, badly damaging the south face and setting it on fire across multiple floors.

Genius move that one

NIST even stated for years they did understand how building seven collapsed. Took them around six years to come up with probable collapse scenario at column 79 centred around floor 12 and 13.

Their probable collapse scenario is a cover-up of what really happened.

NIST denied Freefall- 200 person team at NIST missed the building experienced a freefall collapse. Truthers had to fill them in about this major detail. Freefall is the evidence the progressive collapse theory is bull#. NIST claimed the progressive collapse was not instantaneous and was slow and there was resistance in Aug 2008 ( final draft of the study) realising the messed up they reworked freefall in and released a revised the final complete report in Nov 2008 and they claimed they thought of freefall during the entire process ( bull#)

Their finite models (theory) are not correct. They are claiming the girder that supposedly slipped off its seat and started a chain reaction of collapsing floors was unprotected. This has been proven to be false and NIST has got away with this fraud for 11 years.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal does have surface corrosion. All the metal beam there do. It is how the metal has been flattened with a thin knife edge, so thin that a couple of holes formed. This is thick 1 inch steel. I do find the word evaporation fits.

The metal has not been worked on by explosives.

You originally post to the article in question.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I did find one photo but it is in a pdf file on page 7 link

With part of all these problems, you have established a strong connection between the evidence and ridiculous. It is why you feel stuck in the mud on this. Being aware of this connection will help you combat it. I know you have a very strong, analytical and logical mind in there.

This is what the article claims about the metal in the photo.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

www.ae911truth.org...


IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
Technical Statement: NIST did not take the FEMA documentation of melted steel and
sulfidation in its Appendix C forensic analysis as being indicative of something that could have contributed to the collapses. Instead, NIST claims, without a basis, that the damage was caused in the rubble pile, although the extreme temperatures required to melt steel and the presence of sulfidation have no logical mechanism there.
In February 2012 an FOIA request produced three photos, taken during October 2001, showing Dr. John Gross of NIST posing with a heavily eroded WTC 7 beam. These photos contradict Dr. Gross’ statements about not witnessing steel that had been subjected to high temperatures. In fact, Dr. Gross was on the team headed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who was responsible for discovering, during the FEMA investigation, the WTC 7 beam featured in the Appendix C forensic analysis, which was melted and sulfidated. This is one of the steel beams the ends of which Barnett had previously described as “partially evaporated.” Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.

I replied the thin metal would not be in a sheet. The metal would be a pooled, slagged, and fused to other metal if exposed to 4000F.

The paper does not present the metal in the picture in question as proof of explosives, but high temps. Is that false.

Can state this to be true. NIST started from a position that fire brought the buildings. NIST did not investigate other probable theories ie explosives.

Forget the towers, you can debate what happened there all day long.

Government investigation ie NIST messed up big time with their WTC7 study. Only one building needs

to be demolition and it be proof the official story wrong and WTC7 was a clearly a planned demolition.

Clever the way they covered it up by getting WTC1 to collape on it, badly damaging the south face and setting it on fire across multiple floors.

Genius move that one

NIST even stated for years they did understand how building seven collapsed. Took them around six years to come up with probable collapse scenario at column 79 centred around floor 12 and 13.

Their probable collapse scenario is a cover-up of what really happened.

NIST denied Freefall- 200 person team at NIST missed the building experienced a freefall collapse. Truthers had to fill them in about this major detail. Freefall is the evidence the progressive collapse theory is bull#. NIST claimed the progressive collapse was not instantaneous and was slow and there was resistance in Aug 2008 ( final draft of the study) realising the messed up they reworked freefall in and released a revised the final complete report in Nov 2008 and they claimed they thought of freefall during the entire process ( bull#)

Their finite models (theory) are not correct. They are claiming the girder that supposedly slipped off its seat and started a chain reaction of collapsing floors was unprotected. This has been proven to be false and NIST has got away with this fraud for 11 years.

So was WTC1 collapsing on it and causing all that damage and fire part of the plan or just a happy accident?

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal does have surface corrosion. All the metal beam there do. It is how the metal has been flattened with a thin knife edge, so thin that a couple of holes formed. This is thick 1 inch steel. I do find the word evaporation fits.

The metal has not been worked on by explosives.

You originally post to the article in question.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I did find one photo but it is in a pdf file on page 7 link

With part of all these problems, you have established a strong connection between the evidence and ridiculous. It is why you feel stuck in the mud on this. Being aware of this connection will help you combat it. I know you have a very strong, analytical and logical mind in there.

This is what the article claims about the metal in the photo.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

www.ae911truth.org...


IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
Technical Statement: NIST did not take the FEMA documentation of melted steel and
sulfidation in its Appendix C forensic analysis as being indicative of something that could have contributed to the collapses. Instead, NIST claims, without a basis, that the damage was caused in the rubble pile, although the extreme temperatures required to melt steel and the presence of sulfidation have no logical mechanism there.
In February 2012 an FOIA request produced three photos, taken during October 2001, showing Dr. John Gross of NIST posing with a heavily eroded WTC 7 beam. These photos contradict Dr. Gross’ statements about not witnessing steel that had been subjected to high temperatures. In fact, Dr. Gross was on the team headed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who was responsible for discovering, during the FEMA investigation, the WTC 7 beam featured in the Appendix C forensic analysis, which was melted and sulfidated. This is one of the steel beams the ends of which Barnett had previously described as “partially evaporated.” Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.

I replied the thin metal would not be in a sheet. The metal would be a pooled, slagged, and fused to other metal if exposed to 4000F.

The paper does not present the metal in the picture in question as proof of explosives, but high temps. Is that false.

Can state this to be true. NIST started from a position that fire brought the buildings. NIST did not investigate other probable theories ie explosives.

Forget the towers, you can debate what happened there all day long.

Government investigation ie NIST messed up big time with their WTC7 study. Only one building needs

to be demolition and it be proof the official story wrong and WTC7 was a clearly a planned demolition.

Clever the way they covered it up by getting WTC1 to collape on it, badly damaging the south face and setting it on fire across multiple floors.

Genius move that one

NIST even stated for years they did understand how building seven collapsed. Took them around six years to come up with probable collapse scenario at column 79 centred around floor 12 and 13.

Their probable collapse scenario is a cover-up of what really happened.

NIST denied Freefall- 200 person team at NIST missed the building experienced a freefall collapse. Truthers had to fill them in about this major detail. Freefall is the evidence the progressive collapse theory is bull#. NIST claimed the progressive collapse was not instantaneous and was slow and there was resistance in Aug 2008 ( final draft of the study) realising the messed up they reworked freefall in and released a revised the final complete report in Nov 2008 and they claimed they thought of freefall during the entire process ( bull#)

Their finite models (theory) are not correct. They are claiming the girder that supposedly slipped off its seat and started a chain reaction of collapsing floors was unprotected. This has been proven to be false and NIST has got away with this fraud for 11 years.

So was WTC1 collapsing on it and causing all that damage and fire part of the plan or just a happy accident?

WTC1 collapse started after 10am. WTC7 collapsed at 5.20pm. The damage was on the northwest side. Everyone accepts the building failure begun on the Northeast side!

NIST made so many mistakes and omissions are present, i truly believe they are covering up what happened. Why you have to ask them.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

The picture below is supposedly steel exposed to 4000F. Is that false?

No. It is true there is evidence of the steel being exposed to 4000F.

The way the metal has thinned is similar to the way a big block of ice melts away when exposed to warmer temperatures. There is a pattern there.

We are not talking about ice. We are talking about structural steel that loses 60 percent of its ability to resist load and hold its strength at 1200F. Steel can be forged welded around 2000F.

There is no way in hell if that metal was thinned by evaporation at 4000F that it held its original shape, wasn’t slagged over. And wasn’t fused to other items. I am sorry you don’t get it.

a reply to: neutronflux

We are talking about how solids and liquids react to heat.

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes the metal does have surface corrosion. All the metal beam there do. It is how the metal has been flattened with a thin knife edge, so thin that a couple of holes formed. This is thick 1 inch steel. I do find the word evaporation fits.

The metal has not been worked on by explosives.

You originally post to the article in question.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

I did find one photo but it is in a pdf file on page 7 link

With part of all these problems, you have established a strong connection between the evidence and ridiculous. It is why you feel stuck in the mud on this. Being aware of this connection will help you combat it. I know you have a very strong, analytical and logical mind in there.

This is what the article claims about the metal in the photo.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

www.ae911truth.org...


IGNORING THE RESULTS OF FEMA 403, APPENDIX C
Technical Statement: NIST did not take the FEMA documentation of melted steel and
sulfidation in its Appendix C forensic analysis as being indicative of something that could have contributed to the collapses. Instead, NIST claims, without a basis, that the damage was caused in the rubble pile, although the extreme temperatures required to melt steel and the presence of sulfidation have no logical mechanism there.
In February 2012 an FOIA request produced three photos, taken during October 2001, showing Dr. John Gross of NIST posing with a heavily eroded WTC 7 beam. These photos contradict Dr. Gross’ statements about not witnessing steel that had been subjected to high temperatures. In fact, Dr. Gross was on the team headed by Dr. Jonathan Barnett, who was responsible for discovering, during the FEMA investigation, the WTC 7 beam featured in the Appendix C forensic analysis, which was melted and sulfidated. This is one of the steel beams the ends of which Barnett had previously described as “partially evaporated.” Such evaporation required temperatures exceeding 4,000° F.

I replied the thin metal would not be in a sheet. The metal would be a pooled, slagged, and fused to other metal if exposed to 4000F.

The paper does not present the metal in the picture in question as proof of explosives, but high temps. Is that false.

Can state this to be true. NIST started from a position that fire brought the buildings. NIST did not investigate other probable theories ie explosives.

Forget the towers, you can debate what happened there all day long.

Government investigation ie NIST messed up big time with their WTC7 study. Only one building needs

to be demolition and it be proof the official story wrong and WTC7 was a clearly a planned demolition.

Clever the way they covered it up by getting WTC1 to collape on it, badly damaging the south face and setting it on fire across multiple floors.

Genius move that one

NIST even stated for years they did understand how building seven collapsed. Took them around six years to come up with probable collapse scenario at column 79 centred around floor 12 and 13.

Their probable collapse scenario is a cover-up of what really happened.

NIST denied Freefall- 200 person team at NIST missed the building experienced a freefall collapse. Truthers had to fill them in about this major detail. Freefall is the evidence the progressive collapse theory is bull#. NIST claimed the progressive collapse was not instantaneous and was slow and there was resistance in Aug 2008 ( final draft of the study) realising the messed up they reworked freefall in and released a revised the final complete report in Nov 2008 and they claimed they thought of freefall during the entire process ( bull#)

Their finite models (theory) are not correct. They are claiming the girder that supposedly slipped off its seat and started a chain reaction of collapsing floors was unprotected. This has been proven to be false and NIST has got away with this fraud for 11 years.

So was WTC1 collapsing on it and causing all that damage and fire part of the plan or just a happy accident?

WTC1 collapse started after 10am. WTC7 collapsed at 5.20pm. The damage was on the northwest side. Everyone accepts the building failure begun on the Northeast side!

NIST made so many mistakes and omissions are present, i truly believe they are covering up what happened. Why you have to ask them.

Yes it burned uncontrolled for 7 hours after WTC1 collapsed on it badly damaging the south face. Was that deliberate or a happy accident?

a reply to: Jesushere

You

NIST denied Freefall- 200 person team at NIST missed the building experienced a freefall collapse.

Would you care to give the time frame from the start of the WTC 7 penthouse starting to fall into WTC 7? The time the penthouse started to move until the facade of WTC 7 started to move downward. Then the time from the first downward motion of the penthouse to the total collapse of WTC 7.

And please cite the collapse times from WTC 7, and where those times come from.