August 21st: NIST report states WTC-7 "Did not collapse from explosives"

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
32 kg/m^2 ???? Was that an average???

For the 11th and 12th floors.

Read pages 48/115 through 50/115 of the NIST report. It's all in there.

On the 11th and 12th floors, which will be seen later to have been the sites of significant and sustained fires, the mass of additional paper materials was described as very high

Described by WHO as 'very high'? If there was no one in the building at the time of the fires, then who was there to see how much paper was on fire?

reply to post by Soloist


I was responding to the absurdity of your comments by responding with an absurd question. I can't believe you actually took the time to answer it.

Anyway, if your logic tells you that a steel building collapsing from fire would probably look the same as one being demo'd, my logic would tell me not to listen to you.


[edit on 24-8-2008 by JimBeam]

Originally posted by talisman
The Usain Bolt and Phelps analogy has problems. For one, people have in the past broken records before, so that is not unusual in and of itself. Moreover, it seems something more extraordinary would have to take place in order for this analogy to really work.

And the Wright Brothers?

Now you have egg on your face.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Have you read the NIST report?

Jet fuel was not present in WTC 7. NIST estimated possible fuel loads of 32 kg/m^2 on some floors and 20 kg/m^2 on other floors. Yep, common office furniture and supplies.

I never thought that paper could be so lethal, along with the timber desks and those oh-so-heavy filing cabinets.

Why do YOU think that it is code is to have fire protection on the steel, in steel framed buildings? It isn't to prevent fire spread... hmmm it must be to keep the building from failing long enough to allow the occupants to escape, right?

Oh wait! I just did a search, and Cheney's cousin, 17 times removed owns 100 shares in ACME Fire Protection Materials Corp. This proves that the whole fire protection codes are a sham, put in place by the evil NWO and Bu#ler in order to line their pockets.

11!!!111!!!11!!eleventy!!11!!!!11

Hmmmm......

Read pages 48/115 through 50/115

Do you have a direct link? My report is a two-part, 400 page each job.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

Which do you think carries the most evidential weight supporting its side of the story?

Well, if you go by the court cases brought up, and then dismissed for lack of evidence, I'd say NIST is correct.

Oh wait!! Some of the judges have ties to the Bilderberg Group!! On e guy has a step brother that has a cousin that has an uncle 4 times removed that has a sister that worked as a secretary for them! ZOMG!!11!!111!!1eleventy!!11!!! Inside jorb!!!!

dismissed for lack of evidence

Doesn't prove anything in its own right.

(not a one-liner).

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

dismissed for lack of evidence

Doesn't prove anything in its own right.

(not a one-liner).

Other than there is NO believable evidence to any rational, unbiased person to point to an inside jorb.

I thought that would be self evident.

But then, troofers have a problem separating their own personal beliefs, based on their particular political beliefs.... from facts that 99.999% of the rational population recognizes as true and/or false.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Do you have a direct link? My report is a two-part, 400 page each job.

One of the first few posts in this thread by ThroatYogurt has the link to the 115 page report.

I forget which one I used, but you can download it from there.

I see it! I got the other two reports.

Page 53/115 shows the damage to the building.

What does it remind you of?

911research.wtc7.net...

This didn't collapse - and look - THE WHOLE SIDE IS MISSING!!!!!! It took demo teams to take the rest of it down!

911research.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Ha ha! Miscommunication rules!!

I don't know what miscommunication you're talking about. I recalculated the linear thermal expansion from NIST's own values?

No, here's what I'm talking about, as far as lateral displacement, or "walk-off".

i286.photobucket.com...

Tell me. Do you understand what "walk off" means? It means the beam was strong enough to shear all those bolts without buckling itself first. Ever hear of "strong column-weak beam" design? I have. It means the beam is weak to allow for a buckle of the beam during an extreme earthquake (i.e. strong lateral forces). Do you think 2 inches is enough to do this?

The floor beams coming from the left are the 50 fters. The end not seen is butted into the ext columns, and since only an idiot would suggest that an exterior column, designed to carry about 1/120th of the 34floors of the building's load PLUS wind loads would only be as strong as a floor girder designed to carry only about 1/40th of a single floor, it's safe to say that 4" of push was on the end pictured.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here? And I hope the bolded part is not directed toward me as it is another violation of the T&C's that you guys get away with on a daily basis.

ANyways, what it says is that the floor beams pushed the girder pictured off of column 79, resulting in the above floor to come down.

Yes. I haven't said differently. They also said that it took 6 floors crashing down in the towers to collapse 1 floor. I guess the engineers in WTC 7 didn't build to near the same spec.?

Hey, I also asked earlier in the thread about 7 being moment framed... you seem to affirm that here.

Read though the report again. It says only the exterior connections were moment connections. The interior were shear connections (braced connections). But, I let that one go because you were correct 50 %. But, I guess you want to dig deeper?

So does that make your statement about a braced frame building falling to one side not applicable here, now?

I guess not as the interior connections were shear connections which are braced.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
reply to post by mirageofdeceit

 

Yes, that's a perfect example of a video that shows absolutely NO EXPLOSIVE BLAST at the onset of collpase.

Another great find!

Starred!

So, you agree that all it would take would be enough thermite/mate to sever 9 floors worth of vertical support on one column to fell a building?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
they disproved it. Using scientific method.....

Please research what the "scientific method" is.

www.eas.slu.edu...

Notice the green part? It says "test with a experiment". So, the NIST has failed. Period. And computer models don't count as they can be manipulated. Sorry. I give NIST as about as much credit now as I do Hutchenson with his "effect". Give me some solid proof NIST. That's all I ask. Is it so hard?

Thermate:

There's no device around that can cut horizontally through col 79.

Why cut horizontally, when the going theory is that the horizontal bracing was severed vertically?

And a huge amount would need to be used, an amount that logic says couldn't go unnoticed.

Could you calculate this amount for us please? After all, you are the one making the claim.

There are devices that could cut vertically through the girder however.

Thanks for the acknowledgement.

But what makes this preferable over thermal expansion of the floor beams, which then push off the girder, which then allows the floor to fail?

Because even NIST states that it takes 6 floors to fail 1 floor in a dynamic collision.

In order to make thermate a more probable explanation, you must first prove that thermal expansion couldn't do as specified.

I await your proof of this.

I'm sorry, but thermate has already been proven in it's uses. It is now up to your side to give proof of "thermal expansion" being able to achieve this. Balls in your court my friend, I'm sorry to say.

Originally posted by Soloist
Hush-A-Boom® charges

Wow. I was only joking when I said you guys should coin that phrase. It's good to know someone's listening though.

Originally posted by Griff

1-Notice the green part? It says "test with a experiment".

2-Because even NIST states that it takes 6 floors to fail 1 floor in a dynamic collision.

I'm sorry, but thermate has already been proven in it's uses.

1-So a software program that predicts effects of RDX going off, based on past experience, isn't an experiment? is the only experiment that is allowed in your world a real life experiment - that they must blow RDX in a building exactly the same as 7 and get the same results in order to verify it? Do you do this in your designs? Build it and then test it to failure, or do you use previous experience?

2- so you're using statements for the towers and using it here? And here I was, thinking that engineers had a little more integrity about making these kinds of statements. Guess I was wrong. NIST predicts a significant amount of heat in the lower floor beams too. Maybe you need to quit ignoring that and factor that little tidbit in before you make sweeping statements about how many falling floors it would take.

3- Yep. Never used for demolition of a building. Proven.

Originally posted by Griff

So, you agree that all it would take would be enough thermite/mate to sever 9 floors worth of vertical support on one column to fell a building?

Sure.

Why wouldn't I?

Originally posted by Griff

1-I don't know what miscommunication you're talking about. I recalculated the linear thermal expansion from NIST's own values?

2-Tell me. Do you understand what "walk off" means? It means the beam was strong enough to shear all those bolts without buckling itself first. Ever hear of "strong column-weak beam" design? I have. It means the beam is weak to allow for a buckle of the beam during an extreme earthquake (i.e. strong lateral forces).

3-I have no idea what you are trying to say here?

4-I guess the engineers in WTC 7 didn't build to near the same spec.?

1-I was clearly talking about a lateral displacement of the connections, and you give me lateral displacement of the building. Really, this is to be expected from you though. Getting a straight answer outta you can be like squeezing blood out of a turnip. Why you do this is unfathomable. Actually, it is, would be a violation of T&C to explain it.

2- Yes. Walk-off is when it is pushed off its bearing seat. The bolts aren't there to hold the weight. Only to keep it aligned. I didn't know that buildings in NYC were designed for extreme earthquakes. Or are you making another non-relevant point here... as usual.

3- 1 end of the floor beam (that underwent thermal expansion) butted into the external columns. the other acted on the girder. So you saying that 2" on each end is demonstrably false. the girder will be weaker in resisting lateral forces (weak beam) than the ext column. So all 4" will act against the girder.

4- no idea. But you're also ignoring that the floors below were heated, which would weaken them. Also, you're comparing it to a statement that NIST made regarding a perfectly intact truss and applying that here, when the conditions inside 7 clearly weren't pristine. Again, not surprising...

Other than there is NO believable evidence to any rational, unbiased person to point to an inside jorb.

Nor is there any believable evidence to any rational, unbiased person to point to mid to low level Saudi Terrorists.

GG on that point sir.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
And the Wright Brothers?

Your analogy would hold more weight if there were people before the Wright brothers who had the same overall design in physics but failed. Do you guys understand that fires have been studied before 9/11?

1-So a software program that predicts effects of RDX going off, based on past experience, isn't an experiment? is the only experiment that is allowed in your world a real life experiment - that they must blow RDX in a building exactly the same as 7 and get the same results in order to verify it? Do you do this in your designs? Build it and then test it to failure, or do you use previous experience?

And the original calculation failed, so they changed numbers.
And that failed so they changed numbers.
And that failed so they changed numbers.
And that failed so they changed numbers.
And that failed so they changed numbers.
And that failed so they changed numbers.
And that failed so they changed numbers.
And that failed so they changed numbers.
And that worked so they kept it.

That is pseudosience and not the scientific method. It is clearly definable, period.