NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!

Originally posted by Achorwrath
I know we are talking about WTC7.

As stated before there was debris damage to the building.

To the sides and roof.

Achorwrath - you're either being disingenuous or your research is not up to speed. NIST themselves already conceded that structural damage sustained from debris was not a determining factor in WTC7's collapse.

Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7’s structure in a way that contributed to the building’s collapse?
The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse... A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed... None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed...

NIST Fact Sheet

Originally posted by pteridine
It fell for 2.25 seconds in freefall [as best can be measured] because there was little or no resistance to the collapse for that time period.

Why was there no resistance in that time, pteridine? How does a 47 story skyscraper offer no global resistance to its own collapse for 2.25 seconds?

Why do you keep asking the question, Tezza?

Because you avoid answering it.

Are you looking for certainty in a collapse mechanism?

Are you prepared to believe a report that states a building fell at a freefall rate for part of its early collapse sequence, without questioning why? Don't answer that - I know you believe it.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Originally posted by Achorwrath
I know we are talking about WTC7.

As stated before there was debris damage to the building.

To the sides and roof.

Achorwrath - you're either being disingenuous or your research is not up to speed. NIST themselves already conceded that structural damage sustained from debris was not a determining factor in WTC7's collapse.

Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7’s structure in a way that contributed to the building’s collapse?
The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse... A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed... None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of the WTC towers?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed...

NIST Fact Sheet

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say NIST got it wrong and then use it to disprove a statemtn.

I have already said NIST's report was inaccurate, they failed to cover many items and missed a great deal of evidence.

Also, I have repeatedly said it was a combination of factors why does everyone need to think it was ONE thing?

In structural collapse it is very very rarely one thing.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say NIST got it wrong and then use it to disprove a statemtn.

Just because NIST's methodology and conclusion is bogus, it doesn't mean they faked all the forensics. I certainly don't take that view. Maybe you do. When they say "None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings", I don't assume they're lying.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
I have already said NIST's report was inaccurate, they failed to cover many items and missed a great deal of evidence.

OK - so rather than trying to defend their conclusion, don't you think you have a duty to fully support those like Professor James Quintiere* who demand a full independent peer review of NIST’s investigation?

Are you not outraged that NIST has spent over $20,000,000 of taxpayer's money (as of 2006) on an investigation which, in your words, was "inaccurate" and "failed to cover many items and missed a great deal of evidence"?

Are you not disgusted on behalf of all those who died in the towers and their families and on behalf of your country that this is the case?

*Ph.D., University of Maryland, former Chief of the Fire Science Division of NIST, over 35 years of fire research, including 19 at NIST, founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science, the principal world forum for fire research.

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

[edit on 23-3-2009 by EvilAxis]

Originally posted by EvilAxis

Originally posted by Achorwrath
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say NIST got it wrong and then use it to disprove a statemtn.

Just because NIST's methodology and conclusion is bogus, it doesn't mean they faked all the forensics. I certainly don't take that view. Maybe you do. When they say "None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings", I don't assume they're lying.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
I have already said NIST's report was inaccurate, they failed to cover many items and missed a great deal of evidence.

OK - so rather than trying to defend their conclusion, don't you think you have a duty to fully support those like Professor James Quintiere* who demand a full independent peer review of NIST’s investigation?

Are you not outraged that NIST has spent over $20,000,000 of taxpayer's money (as of 2006) on an investigation which, in your words, was "inaccurate" and "failed to cover many items and missed a great deal of evidence"?

Are you not disgusted on behalf of all those who died in the towers and their families and on behalf of your country that this is the case?

*Ph.D., University of Maryland, former Chief of the Fire Science Division of NIST, over 35 years of fire research, including 19 at NIST, founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science, the principal world forum for fire research.

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

[edit on 23-3-2009 by EvilAxis]

I am not sure how all this fits into my opinion on what happened.

So how do you explain the large chucks of debris found on 34th? and on the verizon building and old post office? Too far to fall? and the longer distances to the other buildins around.
Link

Take a look at that photograph, debris traveled much farther than the relatively short distance to WTC7.

As I have said repeatedly they made so many mistakes that their report only got one thing right.
The towers fell due to the event that took place.

Do I want the government to waste more money on a new investigation?
Personally no, the reason I say this is that even if a new investigation is done people will say that one is bogus if it supports the first one in any way.

So how many will we need for people to be satified?

The government for many years (going WAY back) has been spending money hand over fist on things like this.

Just take a look around these threads.
One side presents evidence and the other dismisses it, often out of hand without considering the basis in the event.

Who would conduct the investigation? How much would that cost? What physical evidence will they have on hand? Eye Witnesse memories will have fadded and will not be valid after almost eight years (this has been shown over and over in Psycological testing).
If both sides do not agree on those things then any investigation is not going to work.

What then?

So another 20 million of our money for a new investigation that might be thrown out by one side or the other anyway?
On top of the Billions being dumped down greedy companies?


Let me add that I would be all for a new investigation by a party that does not have a biased view of the events.

You cannot have that as it stands now - but if it could be done then yes we should do it in a controlled and methodical manner and not the rushed and botched job NIST did.


[edit on 23-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

[edit on 23-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

Just for clarification's sake: What debris damage to the roof of WTC7 are we talking about?

The second image shows impact with the annotation Minor.
How does the person that put that there know that was minor?

did he see what hit it? did he measure the size/wieght/impact velocity to see what the impact energy would be?

The simple answer there is no.

So that statement of minor damage is false and someone's opinion.

ever see a bullet hole? it is very small but the internal damage done by the fluid shock is masive and terrible.

But looking at the tiny hole you would not know that.

that is also along one of the sides that it not directly supported by top to bottom colunms


[edit on 23-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

Would not it also be an opinion to state that the damage was major? NIST did seem to have done a somewhat thorough analysis of what actually hit WTC7 from videos taken of the North Towers collapse. It can be found starting on page 130 of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol1. If you have a better analysis please post it.

Also I'm not understanding your statement "that is also along one of the sides that it not directly supported by top to bottom colunms" From the diagrams and information I'm seeing, only columns 47 through 54 on the North side (the side opposite the damage) were inset. And they were inset to be inline with the Con Edison columns which were 6ft 9in more to the south. Please post any more information about this that you have.

As I stated before (and this is getting really old) I feel NIST discounted a great deal of items.

I did not see anything covering shear forces in their report, nor did I see them cover shifting forces by the generators on the fifth floor.

So despsite the fact that buldings and the streets surounding WTC7 were impacted by Debris you are saying that NIST got that part right?

And there was limited damage?

I do not believe I said major damage, if I did I should not have.

I have said there was known damage to the roof and side facing WTC 1 & 2.

But again you bring NIST into this when you state their findings were false.

Bad evidence = bad conclusion. if you refute the internal findings of the paper itself then the paper as a whole should not be used to support conclusions.

Link

Link

In both of these look at the damage to the front, how can that be as damaged as it is without damage to the roof?


Here are more - just look at the images

Link

Link

The damaged side would appear to be over the side unsupported by the Con Ed Foundation.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
The second image shows impact with the annotation Minor.
How does the person that put that there know that was minor?

did he see what hit it? did he measure the size/wieght/impact velocity to see what the impact energy would be?

The simple answer there is no.

So that statement of minor damage is false and someone's opinion.

Using your same reasoning, one could also say the notion of the damage being "major" is false and just someone's opinion.

ever see a bullet hole? it is very small but the internal damage done by the fluid shock is masive and terrible.

A bullet hole does not cause structural fatigue on the human body, it causes other types of trauma to the living tissues. Your bones would still hold you up just fine, if you could still manage to stand with the pain. There is no comparison.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by pteridine
Are you looking for certainty in a collapse mechanism?

Are you prepared to believe a report that states a building fell at a freefall rate for part of its early collapse sequence, without questioning why? Don't answer that - I know you believe it.

Don't forget that NIST lied in the first place and had to be "schooled" by a high school physics teacher.

So, now we have 2 questions of why. Why did NIST lie about it to begin with and why did WTC 7 fall at free-fall for 2.25 seconds (8-stories)?

Originally posted by Achorwrath
The second image shows impact with the annotation Minor.
How does the person that put that there know that was minor?

did he see what hit it? did he measure the size/wieght/impact velocity to see what the impact energy would be?

The simple answer there is no.

So that statement of minor damage is false and someone's opinion.

Actually, since a buildings structural integrity DOES NOT depend on a roof parapet wall, then the whole damn wall could fail and NOT cause any significant lose of structural integrity.

That's what "minor damage" means.

that is also along one of the sides that it not directly supported by top to bottom colunms

And as I've said before: Since those columns transferred their load at level 5, ANY damage above level 5 to those columns WOULD NOT affect the structural integrity of the interior columns. Since the interior columns held ALL that load to begin with from day one....so there would not need to be a transfer of loads from damaged to undamaged when the load was already transferred.

[edit on 3/23/2009 by Griff]

reply to post by Achorwrath

I'm sure NIST did disount a great deal of items. But I'm only talking about two items here: the roof damage and the exterior columns.

On the roof damage: when you said "So that statement of minor damage is false and someone's opinion" I reverted to a binary way of thinking and assumed you meant if it wasn't minor then it must be major. I suppose there could be three categories: minor damage, damage, and major damage. So I guess it's safe to assume now that you believe it was not minor and it was not major, but it was just damage. I have looked at the pictures you referenced and there's no way for me to tell whether the damage is minor, just damage, or major and what or if it would have any effect on the building. What affect would this damage have if it was not minor or major? As of now I have no idea how to figure out what you believe the effects of this damage may have had with out a qualifying term such as minor or major.

Also I've seen you state many times in this thread there were no exterior columns below the fifth floor. You even hinted that this may be the answer to the Second Stage of free fall. But in all the floor plans I see exterior columns marked. I'm not exactly sure of what they were composed or their strength. So any more information you can share about this would greatly be appreciated.

As for using the NIST document in arguments, number one would be that I never stated their findings are false. I'm not educated enough to make a total judgement like that. I do, however, have a strong suspicion that their conclusions are false. But I think we may have a problem with definition... when you say "findings" do you mean the evidence they gathered or their interpretation of that evidence?

To me the NIST report is like any other investigation: you gather facts and evidence and you piece them together to form an opinion of the event. Just because one does not agree about the opinion does not necessitate one not use the facts in their arguments. Some people put more weight into one fact than another. Others disregard some facts as meaningless, others find it's the key to the whole solution. So once a report is released there should be a discussion, such as everyone here is having, talking about the facts and evidence and what conclusions we can get out of them. I see no reason to disregard the NIST report and the evidence it presents.

My problem with the NIST report is that it felt rushed, and very much like they were trying to find a way to make Fire (which is sounded like they were predsiposed to that) the cause. for WTC7 it felt the same way, like they already had their minds made up and we just finding parts to fit their already decided conclusion.

There was a lot of suppositions and places where their internal conslusions did not meet up with what they were saying, if you understand me.

My Apologies for the confusion of the columns.
what I should have been saying, is that on the side of the building where the fracture appears and on the side where the damage was reported the colums do not extend all the way down to the Con-Ed foundation. Also on the right of the building was the loading dock which was also open for two floors (If I remember right)

Now there was minimal visual damage, but there was reports of large pieces hitting in the center of the smaller side of the building (not over the con-ed foundation) there was also reports of damage to the southwest and southeast corner. Fires were on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30 as well as a large uncontrolled fire on 11 and 12.

It was also reported that Diesel fuel tanks were located on the 6th or 7th floor these supplied fuel to the generators on the 5th.

Looking at the damage and thinking about shear and not general buckling I still think that the general bucking of one or more columns (possibly due to internal collapse (that might not have been visible) would have put too much shear stress, the fracture looks like shear when you look at it, this is when supporting trusses break away cleanly from the supporting columns and drop. The columns themselves were also not continuous but could have failed at the floor connections.
Either internal collapse or the failure of a support column would have been enough in mu opinion to cause the collapse.

take a look at buildings subjected the earthquakes, I have seen them fall in on themselves in video. and that is usually casued by shear and not buckling.

Last thing I want to point out, do you think the developers, desginers, city, port authority and owners would have an interest in concealing a poorly designed modified building?

I have been looking at the way WTC7 was put together and I keep wondering how that ever flew. then I read about the building be modified and nine generators put in the on the fifth floor and I wonder how that got approved.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

reply to post by bsbray11


The comparison is still valid, as it shows that visible damage is not an indication of true damage.



[edit on 23-3-2009 by Achorwrath]


Mod edit: Replaced large quote with reply link.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/23/2009 by Hal9000]

reply to post by tezzajw


The report stated a fact: the building fell at freefall for part of its collapse.

When we look at possible explanations, ignoring the secret gravity ray type stuff, there is not much to consider. Either expansion of the steel with shearing of fasteners or planned demolitions, of some sort, shearing beams could have allowed for such catastrophic failure. Gravity acts the same regardless of the cause, so the speed is not diagnostic of the cause.

We first consider that the building collapse was not controlled and the building did not "fall in its own footprint" so a demolition would have had to be a hurried job. The careful implosions take many pre-cuts, charge placements, cabling, and wiring which would have taken weeks to months, required evacuation of the building, and would not have been covert. Allowing a preset demolition sequence to feel the effects of fire for hours is as far-fetched as secretly placing the charges and cutting beams in an occupied building to begin with. Any demolition would have had to have been planned and executed within hours. Evidence of this type of activity is lacking but we must consider the possibility.
Preplanning the demolition with contingencies would have been just as difficult because the damage to the building would not have been known before the event and the permutations too complex to estimate. If this were the case, had charges been preset but without precuts, they would have been blown when the towers fell, using the towers for cover of the noticeable noise, flash, smoke, and smell of high explosive. They would have been larger charges or more of them to ensure the job. Waiting hours would have been detrimental. For a planned demolition, the clever people who planned and executed the plot were exceptionally incompetent.
The possibility exists for several teams, say five each, to enter the building, go to a storage area, place the charges and fire them. Given the state of the damaged building, they would have had to have something of a deathwish and seems like the hard way to do things; if the building was to be blown up and the towers were to be blown up, they would have gone together. Even so, no teams were seen entering the building.
Further, there is no physical evidence for explosions, explosive residue, explosive effects, thermite/ate, planning documents, witnesses to a demolition team, explosive charges, or anything else.
Considering the lack of any evidence for explosives, it seems unlikely that WTC #7 was purposely brought down. The only explanation, and the simplest explanation, is what was concluded by the NIST report until new evidence is brought to light. Until that time, it is the only logical conclusion.

reply to post by Achorwrath

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that NIST seems to have built their report around a pre-determined conclusion.

As for the roof damage, I'm still not quite clear as to whether this caused much damage or not and if or how it influenced the collapse. But on the inset columns on the northside, what I see being described is that the load above floor 7 was transferred not only to the interior columns but also to the Con Edison structure. Or as NIST states it, "...these steel assemblies distributed the load of the upper floors of WTC7 onto the structural frame of the Con Edison substation and the structure of the lowest four floors of WTC 7." (From NCSTAR 1a-1) And then in NCSTAR 1-9 they say this was to "bring them in line with the substation columns, which were offset 6 ft 9in to the south." So by reading that I'm assuming the columns were joined with Con Edison columns which ran from the third floor to the foundation, but NIST doesn't describe the Con Edison structure, so I can't be sure. So I, being a layman, ask myself how much of the load went into the Con Edison structure and how much went into WTC7's interior structure. So if Truss One did fail I'm still picturing resistance to prevent free fall from those sections that were joined with the Con Edison structure.

Considering the LACK of evidence?

www.studyof911.com...

Originally posted by Achorwrath
My problem with the NIST report is that it felt rushed, and very much like they were trying to find a way to make Fire (which is sounded like they were predsiposed to that) the cause. for WTC7 it felt the same way, like they already had their minds made up and we just finding parts to fit their already decided conclusion.

We definitely agree on this.

One thing though. You said it would take all this det cord and explosives to bring down the building, but then also state that one column would bring it down. Why the need for so much explosive if only one column was needed?

Even without damage, you are saying that the loss of one column would bring the entire building down. Because the damage led to the column collapsing. And also because the exterior columns already transferred their load to the interior. So, why the need for so much explosive to down one column?

Originally posted by pteridine
Even so, no teams were seen entering the building.

Who were those guys in hard hats saying "move back...the building's about to blow" then?

I can't find the video right now, but it's a few guys with hard hats and wire cutters coming out of the building.

Now, I don't really believe they were the ones demolishing the building, but it does show that there were "teams entering the building" which refutes your claim above.