Architects, Engineers, and Scientists Analyze Failings of NIST's WTC 7 Final Report!

Originally posted by dariousg
What is implausible is that those connections just happened to give way ALL at once and the entire building (a rectangle) fell at once. A uniform collapse.

No they didn't. The east penthouse failed over 6 seconds before the rest of the structure. This is neither uniform nor simultaneous.

As for the math:
...
Is that the math you were talking about? Because I HAVE watched the videos. Probably more times than is healthy.

If you have watched the videos, did you miss the little timer at the bottom which indicated how long it took the buildings to fall? The claim that they fell "at freefall" has been around for years and has been shown wrong in every way possible. More information can be found here:
911myths.com...
debunking911.com...

If you want to present a particular video, we can both measure starting and end points and see if we agree.

Originally posted by Valhall
I believe it is closer to 16 seconds.

Watching the video of the guy running away and having his camera turned back toward the falling tower, I'm inclined to agree with you.

But, I can't hold it against anyone for this error as it was the 911 commission (I think or NIST) that state 9 and 11 seconds. I know NIST corrected themselves for their FAQ and called the exterior falling through the air that amount of time, but I'm pretty sure one of them stated that the buildings fell in that amount of time. But, I agree, now we know better as more evidence comes to light.

Originally posted by gottago

Originally posted by pteridine
I don't understand why people are excited about molten metal. Can anyone explain that?

Burning jet fuel and office contents cannot produce temperatures that can melt steel. That requires furnace-like conditions. Pools of molten metal were widely reported during the clean-up of ground zero by workers, firemen, police, and others.

This is a glaring anomaly that was ignored during the investigation and leads to the question, What huge energy input caused the metal to melt, and linger?

[edit on 9-9-2008 by gottago]

Has anyone considered the airplane? The temperature was hot enough to melt aluminum and magnesium and in 80 tons of aircraft, there was more than enough of those metals to leave evidence. If the melted metal was steel, burning titanium, magnesium, and aluminum could get things hot enough to melt building framework. My guess is that at least some of the molten metal was airplane.

pterdine links to molten steel
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by pteridine My guess is that at least some of the molten metal was airplane.

But that still would not add up to amount of molten metal and steel found in the basements of all the buildings (1,2.6, and 7) and in the debris pile.

No planes hit buildings 6 and 7.



[edit on 10-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by pteridine

Has anyone considered the airplane? The temperature was hot enough to melt aluminum and magnesium and in 80 tons of aircraft, there was more than enough of those metals to leave evidence. If the melted metal was steel, burning titanium, magnesium, and aluminum could get things hot enough to melt building framework. My guess is that at least some of the molten metal was airplane.

Yes, everyone has considered the airplanes, and rejected them. First, why should "the temperature [be] hot enough to melt aluminum and magnesium and 80 tons of aircraft?" Aircraft do not melt when they crash.

The aluminum skin may burn, and soft contents, but major components, no. Nothing near 80 tons is going to melt, and certainly not the engines, where titanium is used. And even NIST had a hard time finding many pieces of structural steel from the impact zones that exhibited heating beyond 250C.

There was no material organic to an airplane or to the buildings that can ever explain the molten steel/metal/iron in the rubble piles.
Ablating and sublimating tonnage of steel propeled from the sides of the buildings.
Nothing organic to this equation plane + building + ____?_____ = molten steel.

Originally posted by gottago
Yes, everyone has considered the airplanes, and rejected them. First, why should "the temperature [be] hot enough to melt aluminum and magnesium and 80 tons of aircraft?" Aircraft do not melt when they crash.

Aluminium melts at around 660C. Fires can reach 1200C. Planes do actually melt when on fire. The rest of your post is mostly accurate, and frankly speculating that 'spontaneous thermite' reactions are the reason for molten steel is just speculation.

There is only one published account of 2800F temperatures I am aware of, and this is a second hand account. There are no primary sources of any measurement of material temperature or composition (edit: that support the 'molten steel' claim). Yes there most certainly was molten metal or hot glowing liquid of some kind, but there are unfortunately quite a lot of candidates for this material. Even glass will glow and flow 'like lava' at the upper range of fire temperatures.

Not to mention that quotes are regularly used from Mark Loizeaux and Leslie Robertson, both quotes which the men deny.

Apologies if I've missed any questions, I have not been particularly well the last few days, damn British weather

[edit on 10-9-2008 by exponent]

Originally posted by exponent

Sure, NIST references the work of Dr Bazant whos calculations indicate that the KE released by a single floor failure would be enough to overwhelm the next floor down. Because momentum is conserved this next floor will impact the subsequent floor with even greater KE and so begins a progressive or 'pancake' collapse.

Do those calculations take into the account that each floor was designed to support the floors above them?

The calculations are redundant anyway...

1)The "collapse" was instantaneous; the buildings fell instantly without "progress", it was a free fall(theyfell freely), not one piece of the buildings were encumbered by another...at least not from what I saw from the vidoes).

2)The "collapse" was global, every piece of the tower fell from the top floor to the bottom, if the "collapse" was not global, then there should have been at least some resistance since each floor was obviously built to support the floors above.

3)I put the word collapse in quotes because from a technical standpoint WTC1 and WTC2 exploded - that would explain the debris flying outwards and the disappearance of the central core.




[edit on 9/10/2008 by CallMeBlu]

Originally posted by CallMeBlu
Do those calculations take into the account that each floor was designed to support the floors above them?

Yes

1)The "collapse" was instantaneous; the buildings fell instantly without "progress", it was a free fall(theyfell freely), not one piece of the buildings were encumbered by another...at least not from what I saw from the vidoes).

They did not, collapse times exceeded free fall times by a significant margin. As much as 150%

2)The "collapse" was global, every piece of the tower fell from the top floor to the bottom, if the "collapse" was not global, then there should have been at least some resistance since each floor was obviously built to support the floors above.

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here, the towers did collapse entirely. The towers were not designed to resist the upper section falling on the lower section in any manner.

3)I put the word collapse in quotes because from a technical standpoint WTC1 and WTC2 exploded - that would explain the debris flying outwards and the disappearance of the central core.

You've been reading too many conspiracy websites, the core of both towers survived the longest of all structural elements. Indeed several firefighters survived the collapse inside the core of the North Tower.

No offence intended, but you are speculating wildly about a topic you are clearly not fully informed about. I suggest you read the work of people such as Gregory Urich, a member of the truth movement and an engineer. He has quite rigorously shown that a purely gravity driven collapse is both plausible and fits the evidence we have.

No offence intended, but you are speculating wildly about a topic you are clearly not fully informed about. I suggest you read the work of people such as Gregory Urich, a member of the truth movement and an engineer. He has quite rigorously shown that a purely gravity driven collapse is both plausible and fits the evidence we have.

No offence taken, I know I have alot more reaserch to do, I was just working with what I got so far.

Originally posted by CallMeBlu
No offence taken, I know I have alot more reaserch to do, I was just working with what I got so far.

This is the best response that can probably be given. Kudos.

Originally posted by CallMeBlu
Do those calculations take into the account that each floor was designed to support the floors above them?

I just want to interject something here. It may be semantics but if we are to truely search for truth, sometimes semantics are worth it.

The columns of a building are designed to hold the floors from ground to roof (including the roof). The individual floors are not designed to hold the floors above them.

But, NIST did find that it would take 6 or more floors falling on 1 floor for said floor to collapse. But, since the tops were more than 6 floors each, they were able to achieve global collapse.

But, I agree with Valhall that the physical evidence indicates that the core failed before the exterior. Something which NIST ignores I believe.

Edit: To exponent: Just because people survived in the lower portion of the core, doesn't tell us what happened to the core higher up. My opinion of course.

[edit on 9/10/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
Edit: To exponent: Just because people survived in the lower portion of the core, doesn't tell us what happened to the core higher up. My opinion of course.

Sure, I'm just trying to counter all these claims of the core vanishing etc. You can see it on many videos / photos of both buildings. Aman Zafar is a good example:
www.amanzafar.com...
www.amanzafar.com...

reply to post by exponent


Oh, no problem. I can agree with that.

On a side note. I have contacted Aman before because he had a perfect view of WTC 7 from the south. Unfortunately he says all he has pictures of are before collapse and after. I have to wonder why he didn't take pictures of the collapse when he was watching it all day?



[edit on 9/10/2008 by Griff]

ignore me -I misunderstood.

[edit on 9-10-2008 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Griff

But, I agree with Valhall that the physical evidence indicates that the core failed before the exterior.

What evidence would that be?

All the steel was recycled, so you have no evidence from which to draw any conclusions.

That is, unless you both want to submit a report that... let's see-

a.stacks the deck
b.rigs the results
c.means you need to be brought up on charges
d.found wanting
e.completely unacceptable
f.manipulates your models
g.rewrites key phrases of your reasoning for not publishing the other scenarios - thereby eliminating phrases that could be used against you in the report.
h.jacks with the numbers until you get initiation of failure
i. elevate the temperature FAR beyond any data you have to support until the floors fail
j.unethical
k.grossly flawed
l.manipulated
m.has tremendous data gaps
n.has a flawed approach, methodology, dismissal of evidence, and interpretation of data
o.stacks the deck. Big time.
p.paper would be worthless if the parameters you set the simulation up for were unrealistic or unfounded.

exponent, don't forget that the entire exterior of the building was clad in aluminum.

A few things that seem to be consistently missed/side-lined:

* NIST never investigated the core column collapse for WTC1 and 2. Every official documentary/video I've seen, shows the core remaining intact, even when they're explaining how a pancake collapse works

* When NIST explains the WTC7 collapse, they neglect to explain how the building collapses globally when one column is allegedly at fault

* How one column can even be responsible for total global failure at the same time

* Why the building appears to be intact until it all suddenly fails

* Why all the NIST videos of a global collapse look nothing like the actual collapse, and terminate about 1 second after collapse begins

* Why the exterior walls never showed signs of buckling, or failed, when the supporting columns down one side all failed, *PRIOR* to global collapse of the building (thre is no evidence of this in any video of the Windows, either)

* How a couple of news channels could possibly report the event 23 minutes early. Who fed them the information? Who were the structural engineers watching the building, giving updates?

* Why is it WTC2 collapsed 57 minutes after impact, yet it was 7 hours before WTC7 collapsed (don't say fireproofing)?

* How did the columns in WTC7 manage to fail the way they did pre-global collapse without sections of the building falling asymmetrically, yet it only took the failure of one column to bring down the building (their model)?

Answers on a postcard to NIST at the usual address.

I want answers to these questions. Fire does not explain all this.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Griff

All the steel was recycled, so you have no evidence from which to draw any conclusions.

a.stacks the deck
b.rigs the results
c.means you need to be brought up on charges
d.found wanting
e.completely unacceptable
f.manipulates your models
g.rewrites key phrases of your reasoning for not publishing the other scenarios - thereby eliminating phrases that could be used against you in the report.
h.jacks with the numbers until you get initiation of failure
i. elevate the temperature FAR beyond any data you have to support until the floors fail
j.unethical
k.grossly flawed
l.manipulated
m.has tremendous data gaps
n.has a flawed approach, methodology, dismissal of evidence, and interpretation of data
o.stacks the deck. Big time.
p.paper would be worthless if the parameters you set the simulation up for were unrealistic or unfounded.

Now we know how NIST got their results for what happened to WTC 7.
NIST report not worth the paper it was printed on.