It’s time to gather evidence in support of the official story behind WTC7.

[BuyingThyme]

Let’s just skip the authoritarian sources, and post evidence to which we all can relate.

Please, my fellow DUers, post instances (including photos, if you have ‘em) of structures falling into their footprints due to causes other than, or unrelated to, controlled demolition.

Don’t worry about having to go back to the world wars, or even the San Francisco earthquake; this is open to all information you, the independent thinker, see as relevant.

I have found one applicable instance with which some of you may be familiar:

There was an episode of the Brady Bunch where the kids built a huge tower of cards. When Marcia’s bracelet came in contact with the structure, the whole thing fell right down into its footprint. (Photo unavailable.)

What examples can you come up with to support the official story?

(No naysayers please.)

[Bolo Boffin]

1. "Let’s just skip the authoritarian sources, and post evidence to which we all can relate."

Let's just skip all the people that might actually know what they're talking about, says BuyingThyme, and make a hash of some pitchers!

Sheesh. No fair using the real answers! It is but to bwa.

[BuyingThyme]

2. Oh, no, Boloboffin's upset. I even gave you

the opportunity to go back to the world wars and dig up old photos of brick buildings.

Couldn't you find any?

[StrictlyRockers]

3. No he could not. And he probably didn't even try since he's not a truth advocate.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. And after you kicked my Sibel Edmonds video!

So you think Sibel is a big liar, huh? I disagree.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. No, not upset. Highly amused by your shenanigans.

When you want to have a serious conversation, you let me know, mmkay?

[BuyingThyme]

6. How is it that you could have such an adverse reaction

to something so basic?

What is it about this simple search for information that drives you batty?

[Bolo Boffin]

7. What is it about "authoritarian sources" that drives you batty?

By authoritarian sources, you mean things like the NIST interim report, right? As I said, people who actually know what they are talking about.

What is it about this sources that drive you batty?

[BuyingThyme]

8. What about that report are you referring to?

The part where they can't figure out why WTC7 fell?

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Is that what drives you batty about the report - that they "can't figure out why WTC7 fell?"

Really? When an "authoritarian source" acts all honest and open and says they need more time to get a handle on how the tower fell?

Is the openness and humility they display that drives you batty? Or maybe it was the provisional hypothesis? How about the recent update, where they said they were dealing with hypothetical blast scenarios? Does it drive you batty when people in authority take the objections of a few seriously?

Come on, don't be shy. What makes you crazy about this "authoritarian source"?

[BuyingThyme]

10. Well, now that you're admitting that you were trying to mislead me,

why don't you just go ahead and explain why.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. I haven't admitted anything of the sort.

Explain yourself.

[BuyingThyme]

15. Well, you pretended that the report said one thing,

then you admitted you were just making it up, and now you're claiming you said nothing at all.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Oooooo-K. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

19. Well, would you like to explain why you decided to pretend

that the NIST interim report says something that it does not?

[Bolo Boffin]

22. What did I pretend that it says? n/t

[BuyingThyme]

25. This thread is about the falling of WTC7. You decided to

make up a story about how the NIST interim report explains it, when in reality, all it does is come up with hypotheses.

You got caught.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. I reject that totally.

The NIST interim report speaks for itself. It is working on a scientific explanation, and your dismissal of it from a discussion about the collapse is ludicrous. THAT is what I was pointing out, your stupid suggestion that we can amass our evidence of how the building collapsed from anywhere but people who might know what they are talking about, i.e. "authoritarian sources."

And to avoid speaking about why such sources are out of bounds, you cook up this insanity about me. You are blowing out more smoke than the Salomon Brothers Building. Start dealing with reality.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BuyingThyme]

33. If you were interested in reality, would you be re-writing

the interim report?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

48. 6 years later -- still trying to get their (the NIST) fabrication coherent enough

to stand up to public scrutiny. What a joke. Wonder where you join up for I-Debunk_for_money.com?

[BuyingThyme]

56. Why don't they just ask the firemen. I mean, if they could

predict a total collapse with such precision, they can surely explain it to the satisfaction of the NIST.

It's so weird.

(Interesting how the bunkers use both angles simultaneously.)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

58. All the brilliant sources predicting the imminent "collapse"

have mysteriously been misplaced. Sorry. You'll just have to believe the bunkos.

[MervinFerd]

20. We got a real bright on here, don't we? nt.

[BuyingThyme]

23. Yes, your little friend keeps getting caught making things up.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Seriously, stop making these unsupported accusations.

They are not funny. They will get alerted from here on out.

[BuyingThyme]

26. So, now that you can't support what you said, you're

blaming it on me?

And you're so embarrassed that you need to alert me?

[greyl]

42. Horrible logic paraded with over-confident smugness is frustrating to some people. nt

[MervinFerd]

77. And when that is combined with intransigent obtuseness, it can grate..

on the nerves a little.

But, hey, this is why we are paid the big bucks.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jschurchin]

11. Ooh, Ooh, pick me, pick me

I think I found one, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6381213.stm

It's not exactly 47 stories, but close enough. However there is one thing that puzzles me, something about weakening the foundation. Oh well I'm sure the rocket scientist's have a explanation.

[BuyingThyme]

14. Nice work, Jschurchin.

We should find out if there was a chimney of a bakery under WTC7. That might clinch it.

[jschurchin]

27. Thanks BT

Bwahahaha...........Oh how right you are.

[MervinFerd]

13. Ok, Kids! It's time to prove the Earth moves around the Sun!

Let's not use any of those old Authoritarian Sources. No Astronomers. No text books. None of those Physics teachers from school. Let's just look for the most ignorant fools we can find and get -their- opinion. That's sure to be unbiased.

We --will-- learn the Truth(iness) of this!

[BuyingThyme]

16. Anybody who believes a modern structure of 47 stories

falls due to the breach of one card in the deck is a simpleton.

No offense, but the people who believe that are sick.

You could totally remove the center of the building, leaving two towers, and it they still wouldn't fall.

Or are you still stuck on the previous version -- the one where fire melted all the cards at the same time?

Which version are you on?

[MervinFerd]

18. So. The most eminent structural engineers in the entire world--

men and women with decades of training and experience-- are "sick" because their informed and educated opinions differs from yours? The finite element analyses are invalid and useless because they do not agree with -your- (very probably) completely uninformed opinion?

----Right-----

Just what, exactly, do you use for brains? And where do you keep them?

[BuyingThyme]

21. What engineers are you speaking of?

Or are you just making them up, as with your little friend?

[MervinFerd]

32. You are pulling our legs, right? Just pretending to be obtuse?

Because no conscious human being could -really- be this dumb.

You've got to be faking it.

[BuyingThyme]

35. Okay, unless you explain what engineers you're talking about,

we will assume they don't really exist.

[MervinFerd]

37. ditto the previous post.

Except that one begins to wonder about the pretence part.

[BuyingThyme]

41. Still no information about those engineers you made up?

[vincent_vega_lives]

59. yer joking right?

Shyam Sunder
Position
Deputy Director

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

Task
Lead Technical Investigator

Education
Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, B. Tech., (Honors), Civil Engineering, 1977
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, S.M., Civil Engineering, 1979
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sc.D., Structural Engineering, 1981


William L. Grosshandler
Position
Chief

Fire Research Division

Task
Associate Technical Investigator

Education
University of Wisconsin, B.S.,Mechanical Engineering, 1968
University of California, Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, 1976


H. S. Lew
Position
Senior Research Structural Engineer
Structural Systems and Design Group
Structures Division

Task
Analysis of Building and Fire Codes and Practices

Education
Washington University, B.S., Architectural Engineering, 1960
Lehigh University, M.S., Civil Engineering, 1963
University of Texas, Ph.D., Civil Engineering, 1967

Richard W. Bukowski
Position
Senior Engineer

Integrated Performance Assessment Group

Fire Research Division

Task
Analysis of Building and Fire Codes and Practices

Education
Illinois Institute of Technology, B.S., Electrical Engineering, 1970


Fahim Sadek
Position
Research Structural Engineer
Structural Systems and Design Group
Structures Division

Task
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Prediction

Education
Cairo University, Egypt, B.S., Civil Engineering, 1987.
Cairo University, Egypt, M.S., Structural Engineering, 1991.
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, Ph.D., Structural Engineering, 1996.


Frank Gayle
Position
Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division

Material Science and Engineering Laboratory

Task
Forensic Analysis of Structural Steel

Education
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1985), Ph.D., Metallurgy


Richard G. Gann
Position
Senior Research Scientist

Integrated Performance Assessment Group

Fire Research Division

Task
Prediction of Thermal and Tenability Environment

Education
Trinity College, B.S., Chemistry, 1965
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, 1970


John L. Gross
Position
Leader

Structural Systems and Design Group

Structures Division

Task
Structural Fire Response and Collapse

Education
Cornell University, Civil (Structural) Engineering,
B.S., 1969;
M.E., 1970;
Ph.D., 1980


Therese McAllister
Position
Research Structural Engineer

Task
Co-Project Leader, Project 6:
Structural Fire Response and Collapse

Education
Florida Atlantic University, 1979, BS Ocean Engineering

Oregon State University, 1986, MS Ocean Engineering

Johns Hopkins University, 1998, MS Structural Engineering

Johns Hopkins University, 2000, PhD Structural Engineering


Jason Averill
Position
Research Engineer

Integrated Performance Assessment Group

Fire Research Division

Task
Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications

Education
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
BS Civil Engineering, 1996
MS Fire Protection Engineering, 1998
Johns Hopkins University
Continuing Studies towards Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering


James R. Lawson
Position
General Physical Scientist

Fire Fighting Technology Group
Fire Research Division

Task
Fire Service Technologies and Guidelines

Education
Brewton-Parker College, A.A., Business Administration
Georgia Southern University, B.S., Industrial Education
Montgomery College, A.A., Computer Science, Science and Mathematics


Stephen Cauffman
Position
Acting Group Leader

Task
Program Manager

Education
B.S. Physics, 1988 George Mason University

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[BuyingThyme]

60. Okay now, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't run away.

What is it that you are claiming these people are saying about WTC7?

Please re-read the question before responding.

[BuyingThyme]

64. Ran away.

It's like fishing.

[vincent_vega_lives]

70. Are you just acting...

or are you actualy that dense?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[BuyingThyme]

144. There are no conclusions at the link. YOU MADE UP THE CONCLUSIONS.

You and the others have been busted.

Please continue to expose yourselves.

[vincent_vega_lives]

160. There is enough source data and educated analysis to come to

the conclusion that the conspiracy theorists here haven't a clue what their talking about.

[BuyingThyme]

161. Okay then. You just keep on educating your analysis.

Just let us know when you get some links that back up the things you say.

[vincent_vega_lives]

163. "educating your analysis"?

you are pointless.

[BuyingThyme]

165. You may have a point.

Give me something concrete to respond to. Anything.

[MervinFerd]

83. http://wtc .nist.gov/p ubs/WTC %20 Part% 20IIC%...

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[BuyingThyme]

143. Your little game is over. If you have any response to my demand

for whatever conclusions you keep referring to, post it. Otherwise, please, please, please just admit that you are making it up as you go along.

It's over for you and the others who do this.

[Grateful for Hope]

153. Merv

Please stop using an interim report that is not conclusive to bolster your POV.

[jberryhill]

29. "God Himself Could Not Sink This Ship"

The Titanic was specifically designed to survive a breach of its hull.

This iceberg nonsense needs to be investigated.

[BuyingThyme]

31. Thank you, Jberryhill. I think the Titanic example

says a lot.

What other examples can you come up with?

[jberryhill]

43. You mean?

Other than Scholars for 9/11 Truth collapsing into its own footprint?

The Titanic is particularly relevant. It was designed to survive an iceberg collision. But the OCT is that it was sunk by an iceberg.

Not only is that contradicted by the designers of the vessel, but anyone familiar with basic science knows it is IMPOSSIBLE.

First of all, icebergs float. Therefore an iceberg cannot "sink" anything.

Secondly, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute team refuses to bring up any of the hull samples for a full investigation. There are a lot of sulfur salts in the ocean since 1911, which clearly indicates that a large amount of thermite was used.

Third, the so-called "model" of the Titanic disaster has it sinking to the bottom of the ocean at near free-fall speed. That only happens in a controlled demolition.

Fourth, the Titanic hull is split into two large pieces widely separated from each other. Even if it ran horizontally across an iceberg, then how did the iceberg magically split the ship in half vertically? Can't happen.

Show me a picture - just one picture - of that iceberg.

[MervinFerd]

75. Exactly! Show me --any--- evidence the Titanic hit an iceberg!

Where are the photographs of that iceberg?

Where are the samples to show that it was really ice and not thermite?

Was the iceberg -melted- before anyone had a chance to fully analyze it? -Proof- of a coverup, I tell you. Proof!

[BuyingThyme]

148. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.

Are you saying that you and the other bunkers who are making things up in this thread about reports and engineers (which don't even exist) are the same people who came up with the conclusions about the Titanic?

That's very nice and all, but what does it have to do with anything?

[MervinFerd]

34. Indeed. Anybody who thinks an iceberg could sink that ship must be sick.

Just depraved. Probably contaminated by years of training and experience. That makes you dumb, you know.

[BuyingThyme]

36. Wait, aren't you supposed to argue that the hull melted?

You still haven't explained which version you're on.

[MervinFerd]

38. Yes, the Titanic was clearly hit by a dustification laser beam.

Only possible explanation. "You can't prove it's not true."

Hoopie Doopie, Whoopie Doo!

[BuyingThyme]

40. Look what you've been reduced to.

[vincent_vega_lives]

51. It's called parody

And I think its rather appropriate.

[BuyingThyme]

53. More solid information.

I'll bookmark.

[BuyingThyme]

39. What have we learned from this thread? LOOK!

I was expecting the authoritarians to swoop in and do their thing in this thread; no news there. But what we've learned about them is just fascinating.

Among other things, the regulars have fabricated information, cited reports which don't exist, and talked about engineers who were never born.

They, not us, are the ones who refuse to offer valid information and or sources. They, not us, are the ones who refuse to live in a reality-based world. But there's something much more significant...

We now know that these people are not only authoritarians, but they actually believe they are the authorities. They come here, thread after thread, and make things up with the expectation that people will just believe what they say.

Why, do you suppose?

[BuyingThyme]

44. This thread is still awaiting ANY of the evidence cited by the resident debunkers.

[BuyingThyme]

45. A new question: Can ANYTHING stated as gospel by the debunkers

in regards to WTC7 be backed up?

I mean, as soon as I started asking them what they hell they were talking about, they ran away. Not one link or source.

It's so weird.

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Your OP specifically excluded any "authoritarian sources"! n/t

[BuyingThyme]

49. Yet you posted anyways. But you forgot the links.

How weird.

[mhatrw]

46. Here ya go.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Wait. You mean none of those buildings so much as lost structural integrity?

[BuyingThyme]

50. I'm starting to figure these guys out.

They seem to be stuck on the fire theory but are too embarrassed to just say so.

In other words, even thought they still believe fire weakened the truss(es), initiating a series of events which led to implosion, they opt for framing their arguments around damage from impact. (We're talkin' WTC7 here.)

[vincent_vega_lives]

52. Keep figuring

:popcorn:

[BuyingThyme]

55. Well it's a good thing you're finally here. Please provide

links to all of the studies and reports referenced by your friends who refuse to do so. What a great opportunity for you.

[vincent_vega_lives]

73. Read this please and give us your analysis

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[BuyingThyme]

145. dupe

[BuyingThyme]

146. An analysis of a statement of known facts?

Why would somebody (you) ask for something like that? Oh, I see... You have no idea what's going on, and have been making it up all along.

I'm going to take a moment to explain to you what the link provided says. Please read this carefully, as it will hopefully get you to stop making false statements about WTC7. Here's what the link says:

WTC7 collapsed into it's footprint.

To review, this is what they are saying:

WTC7 collapsed into it's footprint.

[vincent_vega_lives]

162. I guess you answered my question

You certainly aren't acting. Tell me how these are not significant.

NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7
was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition.

Major Features Relative to the Working Collapse Hypothesis:
�� Framing Differences Above/Below Floor 7
�� Framing Relative to Con Ed Substation
�� Transfer System Between Floors 5 and 7
�� Floor Plan and Built Up Columns
�� Roof Layout

WTC 7 was modified:
• Penthouse structures added to the roof
• East half of floors 41 and 43 were removed and replaced
• HVAC and communication systems were added from floor 28 to the roof
• Fuel tanks and backup generators were added

After WTC 2 collapsed:
�� Some south face glass broken at lower floors
�� Dust covered lobby areas at floors 1 and 3
�� Power on in building, phones working
�� No fires observed

After WTC 1 collapsed:
�� Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 Promenade
�� No heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating
�� SW Corner Damage – floors 8 to 18
�� South face damage between two exterior columns - roof level
down 5 to 10 floors, extent not known
�� South Face Damage –
• middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• large debris hole near center around 14th floor
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more
damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby

General
�� No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby
�� No signs of fire or smoke below floor 6 from stairwell and lobby areas
�� Fire reported at west wall of floor 7 around 12:15 pm
�� In east stairwell, smoke was observed near floors 19-20; signs of a fire
observed on floor 23
Looking from southwest corner to the south face
�� Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11
�� Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
�� Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s
�� Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed
Looking from southeast corner to the south face
�� Fire on floor 12;1 area above covered with smoke
�� Fire on floors 11-121 moved to east face and progressed to the north
1 fires reported on floor 14, but photographs showed east face fires on floor 12

Fires in WTC 7—which began soon after WTC 1 collapsed—were observed on Floors 7, 8, 9,
and 11 near the middle about half an hour before collapse; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.
Fires were also seen on Floors 12, 13, 22, 29, and 30 at various times during the day.

Failure Sequence Timeline
Global collapse occurs as windows fail between floors 33-39
0.3 8.2 around column 55
0.1 7.9 West penthouse submerged
Façade kink formed along column 46-47
0.5 7.7 East end of roof starts to move
0.2 7.2 West end of roof starts to move
Movement of entire north face of WTC7 (visible above floor 21)
3.0 7.0 North side of west penthouse moves
1.8 4.0 Windows break along column 46 at floors 37 and 40
0.5 2.2 East penthouse completely submerged
0.4 1.7 3 windows break at floors 41 to 44
East penthouse submerged from view (now inside building)
0.3 1.2 4 windows fail at floor 40
2 windows at floor 40 fail between columns 44 - 45
0.9 0.9 East penthouse kinks between columns 44 and 45
0.0 0.0 Movement of east penthouse roofline
Observation from CNN Net Dub 7 47.avi


Initiating Event
�� First exterior sign of failure was at the east penthouse roofline,
aligned with interior columns 79, 80, and 81. Postulated
initiating events include the failure of these columns.

Vertical Progression
�� Columns 79, 80, and 81 supported large tributary areas for
floor spans of approximately 50 ft. Failure of column 79, 80, or
81 would likely result in failure at the floor-column connections
and would progress vertically up to the east penthouse.

NIST continues to evaluate the factors that could have caused column 79,
80, or 81 to fail
Possible contributing factors include:
�� Damage to components adjacent to truss #2 from debris impact
�� Damage to fireproofing from normal activities prior to event or debris
damage
�� Unusual fuel loads (fuel lines, high density of building contents)
Analysis to date indicates:
�� Massive size of columns 79, 80, and 81 appears to require severe
fires and/or damaged fireproofing to initiate thermally-related failures

Horizontal Progression
�� A vertical failure would pile debris on the east side of the building,
damaging or severing transfer girders and trusses between floors 5
and 7.
�� This secondary damage has been postulated to cause a horizontal
progression of failure in the core columns at or near floors 5 and 7.
Global Collapse
�� The global collapse occurred with few external signs and is postulated
to have occurred with the failure of core columns

Fuel System for Emergency Power in WTC 7
• NIST has reviewed and documented the fuel system for emergency power in WTC 7
• Floor 5—which did not have any exterior windows and contained the only
pressurized fuel distribution system on the south, west and north floor
areas—is considered a possible fire initiation location, subject to further data
and/or analysis that improve knowledge of fire conditions in this area.
• The two 6,000 gallon tanks supplying the 5th floor generators through a pressurized
piping system were always kept full for emergencies and were full that day.
• Both tanks were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after the
collapse. Some fuel contamination was found in the gravel below the tanks and
sand below the slab on which the tanks were mounted, but no contamination was
found in the organic marine silt/clay layer underneath.
• This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have
contributed to a fire on Floor 5.

Observations on Fifth Floor
• Critical columns (79, 80, 81) carrying large loads from about 2,000 ft2 of floor area were
present on the 5th floor.
• The 5th floor was the only floor with a pressurized fuel line supplying the emergency power
generators.
• Two 6,000 gallon fuel tanks supplying a pressurized line possibly contributed to fires; tanks
were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after collapse.
• In a 1997 facility condition survey, fireproofing was observed to be prominently missing on 5th floor
framing above main lobby; possible repair not confirmed.
• A majority of the 5th floor was not protected by sprinkler systems, with the exception of mechanical
space to east and office area to north side of building; no evidence of sprinklers in enclosures on
5th floor (also on floors 7, 8, and 9) which housed OEM generators and day tanks. Seventh floor
generator room may have been sprinklered, conflicting data.
• Two of the three sprinkler risers which were located next to stairs (#1 and #2) on the west side of
the building transferred towards center on the 5th floor along with stairs.
• Sprinkler systems on floors 1 through 20 were supplied directly from the city distribution system
through an automatic pump located on the 1st floor; water supply could be interrupted by loss of
power to fire pump or significant damage to underground city main in vicinity of building.

[BuyingThyme]

164. There are no conclusions there. You do not understand

what's going on.

[vincent_vega_lives]

54. How many of these buildings were constructed like WTC 7

and were hit by another building.

[Contrite]

57. Not the point. The point is how did it fall as it did?

If impact from flying parts of WTC1 were all that was needed to explain it, NIST would say so and be done.

If the fires were sufficient to explain it, NIST would say so and be done.

If both of these factors were adequate to explain it, NIST would say so and be done.

[William Seger]

62. If you don't understand why that IS the point

... then the probability of your understanding it is exactly zero.

> If impact from flying parts of WTC1 were all that was needed to explain it, NIST would say so and be done.

If the fires were sufficient to explain it, NIST would say so and be done.

If both of these factors were adequate to explain it, NIST would say so and be done.

The illogic of that is astounding. If NIST wanted to cover up a controlled demolition, they would have done so and been done with it. If they really want to understand what happened, that takes time and careful study.

[BuyingThyme]

63. Why don't they just ask the firefighters how they knew

it would come down?

[William Seger]

76. Because they already SAID how they knew

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Excerpt:

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas.By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

(ETA: bolding)

[BuyingThyme]

141. Well then, there you have it. All the NIST has to do is put this

incredibly stupid story in their report. Why waste any more time?

[William Seger]

105. Apparently the perps must have used...

... the same high-tech r-e-a-l-l-y r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-w explosives that they used to cause the tower perimeter columns to bow in for over half-an-hour before they collapsed. Or maybe the Dustification Beam Weapon just takes a long time to warm up.

[BuyingThyme]

142. Another incredibly stupid story.

[Contrite]

65. If you want to be a NIST apologist, fine.

But DON'T imply that I am stupid or lacking in logic.

NIST didn't even CONSIDER the possibility of CD. Now why is that, given there are so many questions out there about it?

They are taking their time alright. It seems the fire and debris explanation is not so simple to explain.

[Grateful for Hope]

66. Hey, Contrite

999 posts...!

Good point, BTW. If the reasons for the collapse were so obvious, it should have been a no-brainer for NIST to come up with a conclusive report fairly quickly.

[Contrite]

67. 1000!

Thanks, Hope!:pals:

[Grateful for Hope]

69. Congrats!

:party: :toast:

[William Seger]

71. What you said was illogical

And now, what you're saying is just wrong (see bolded text):

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

*

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

*

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

*

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

[Contrite]

78. I was speaking of the final NIST reports on WTC1&WTC2

Not the report, still to be published, on WTC7 and, besides, YOU were the one who moved the discussion to CD, not me.

[William Seger]

84. Oh? So what were you getting at, if not CD?

[Contrite]

97. I was asking questions vis a vis the "official story".

That is what the OP was about: looking for supporting documentation for the official story.

[vincent_vega_lives]

72. Not quite that simple

It's not if-and-or either. The NIST is interested in detailed data that is actually USEFULL to those responsible for building engineering and safety codes.

Not "the fire did it" or "the building was damaged". While that may seem significant to the likes of you...it is pretty much worthless to those who actually work with structures.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

[Contrite]

79. The "likes" of me?

What does that mean, exactly?

Is there something inferior about me, somehow? Something you know that you'd like to share, perhaps?

FYI, I DO "work with structures" and HAVE for about 15 years.

[vincent_vega_lives]

82. Do tell

Inferior? I have no idea. The 'likes' of someone who refers to complex factors in such a simplistic manner.

[Contrite]

86. That phrase is commonly used to demean someone

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/the+likes+of

"we don't want the likes of you around here"

It is not "commonly" used in a flattering or benign way. Unless you mean the old song "I like the likes of you".

Your definition is nowhere to be found.

I would define someone who refers to complex manners in a simplistic manner as "concise".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/concise

1. Expressing much in few words

[MervinFerd]

88. "Concise" = Gross Oversimplification of Inherently Complex Ideas?

Don't really think so.

"Concise" means the statement is made without irrelevant or distracting detail. Not that necessary and essential details are ignored.

[Contrite]

94. If we had the whole story then we'd know what is "necessary and essential"

and what is not.

[vincent_vega_lives]

90. It wasn't meant to be flattering

Nor did I define 'it'.

It implies you are not the only one around here to refer to the WTC-7 collapse is a simplistic matter...as in either-or, fire-damage. Hence the 'likes' of you.

That is far from 'concise'.

[Contrite]

92. Simplistic? The official story is what's simplistic.

The BBC Building 7 fiasco lends about as much credibility to the official story of 9/11 as weapons of mass destruction do for the justification of invading Iraq.

Besides the advance reporting of just the collapse itself, how could the news anchor tell us the reason for the collapse before it happened?

"This was not the result of a new attack," states the anchor, "It was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks."

[vincent_vega_lives]

95. There was plenty of time to see that 7 was deteriorating

and plenty of press releases by those qualified to make such analysis to that effect prior to collapse. Many have been posted in these threads.

[Contrite]

96. The question remains: How did they know it was coming down?

And why did it do so at freefall speed, in its own footprint, in the manner of a CD? And what explains the explosions both reported and recorded?

[greyl]

109. Science and the brains to use it.

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

What is a transit?

[Contrite]

112. Have you seen this timeline?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a959wtc7damaged

After 9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001: WTC Building 7 Evacuated; Exact Timing Unclear

According to a soldier at the scene, WTC Building 7 is evacuated before the second tower is hit. However, a firefighter who arrived there after the second tower is hit is told that the building is being evacuated due to reports of a third plane, indicating that two planes have already crashed.

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
(9:04 a.m.) September 11, 2001: WTC 7 Alarms Activate; OEM Calls for Air Security and Warned of Plane Heading for New York

The second plane hitting the World Trade Center (see 9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001) causes internal alarms to go off in WTC Building 7, located just a few hundred feet away from the twin towers. The alarms warn there is no water pressure and that the building’s emergency power generator has been activated. Office of Emergency Management (OEM) staff, based in Building 7, immediately request air security over New York. They are told that federal support is on its way, but the Federal Aviation Administration instructs them to use NYPD and Port Authority Police Department air assets to clear the airspace around the WTC. They are also warned that the Kennedy Airport control tower is reporting an unaccounted for plane heading towards New York. A report by the Mineta Transportation Institute will claim that this plane is Flight 93, which later crashes in Pennsylvania. However, Flight 93 is still flying west at this time, and only reverses course and heads towards Washington at around 9:36 a.m. (see (9:36 a.m.) September 11, 2001). According to at least one person at the scene, WTC 7 is evacuated around this time due to the reports of this incoming third plane (see After 9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001).

Entity Tags: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Emergency Management, World Trade Center

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
9:30 a.m. September 11, 2001: Office of Emergency Management is Evacuated

The headquarters of New York’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM), which is on the 23rd floor of WTC Building 7, is evacuated. The headquarters was opened in 1999 and was specifically intended to co-ordinate the city’s response to disasters such as terrorist attacks (see June 8, 1999). <9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 283-284> A senior OEM official orders the evacuation after being told by a Secret Service agent that additional commercial planes are unaccounted for. <9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 305> All civilians were evacuated from WTC 7 around the time the second WTC tower was hit (see After 9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001). Despite these evacuations though, firefighters reportedly find individuals on the 7th and 8th floors of WTC 7 at around 12:10 to 12:15 p.m., who they then lead out of the building.

Entity Tags: Office of Emergency Management, Secret Service

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline


Why was it evacuated so soon? What actually caused the "bulge"? And, again, how did it go down symmetrically at free-fall speed?

[greyl]

113. I won't go along with your change of subject.

I want to hear a direct reply to my post before giving more of yours the courtesy.

[Contrite]

114. My direct reply is that Peter Hayden believed the building was going down.

The reasons Peter Hayden believed that are in his statement.

My question is what was the bulge in the building from, and how did that contribute to a straight down free-fall collapse? My other question is why was the building evacuated as early as it was when clearly there was no third plane--perhaps there was supposed to be a third plane but that part of the scenario didn't happen. I would also like to know why the firefighters were told not to fight the fires in the building. Why? Was the building unsafe for them to fight the fires? If so, why? Did the impact produce enough damage to make it unsafe? Did the impact bring the building down or were the fires contributory? If not, why weren't the fires put out?

Edited to add: There was a wide time span (by 2 p.m.) when they thought it was going to collapse, per Hayden, until it actually did. How is it that the BBC just happened to report that it had in fact collapsed a mere 20 minutes prior? Why did the feed get lost as it went down? And, finally, how is it that NYPD were videotaped on the streets telling workers at a pay phone to leave the area because the building was going to collapse right at the same time explosions were heard?

P.S. I know what a transit is. I work in the construction business and my husband, who is also my partner in the construction business, used to be a surveyor.

[greyl]

123. Not just Hayden, a substantial group of people on the scene.

Science was used to confirm their educated suspicion that WTC7 would probably collapse, and this happened before 2PM.
Agreed?

[Contrite]

168. What did you read that backs up their educated suspicion?

I'd like to see/read some of the science.

Who were members of the "substantial group of people"?

[mhatrw]

61. They were all steel frame high rises, like WTC-7. n/t

As for "hit with another building" please show us pictures of the damage to WTC-7 if you have any that show anything other than minor facade damage.

[William Seger]

68. Not "like WTC-7"

There isn't much doubt that the unique design of WTC7 is centrally involved with the collapse. If you don't understand why, well then, you're not really in a position to discuss it intelligently.

There aren't many photos that show the damage, but there are a few:


So, we have some photographic evidence, and we have the eyewitness testimony that says that gouge was about 10 stories high and went about 1/4 of the way into the building. What do you have to support your "minor facade" damage claim? Nothing.

[Contrite]

74. These

http://infowars.net/articles/August2006/230806wtccomplex.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm

[William Seger]

80. These... what?

I asked what evidence you have that there was only "minor facade" damage. I don't see any such evidence there.

[Contrite]

81. The photos are for comparison's sake.

Sorry you didn't get the point of that.

The video shows the improbable, freefall collapse and the unexplained "squib-like" jets going off in sequence at the top of the building.

If you want other photographic damage evidence, you can find it at websites that you probably don't care to frequent.

How about showing us the pictures of "actual damage" to WTC7 severe enough to cause complete and symmetrical collapse of the building at freefall speed?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

85. Yes. I'd like to see those too. I'll wait right here for you William.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

91. Comparison to what?

I asked for evidence of your claim that there was only "minor facade" damage, and you're showing me pictures of other buildings "for comparison?" Well no, I don't "get the point of that."

And what's "unexplained" about the "squib-like jets?"
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm (half-way down the page)

I showed you a picture of "actual damage" and we also have the eyewitness reports. Of course, if you start with the assumption that "complete and symmetrical collapse of the building at freefall speed" is impossible, then no evidence will ever be sufficient, will it?

[Contrite]

93. I didn't make a claim of "minor facade damage".

I said that if the damage from debris and fire were sufficient to explain the collapse then NIST would have been done with it long ago.

Do you think the photo you provided proves the collapse? If so, I guess NIST doesn't even need to issue a report.

I also provided you with other photos, as requested.

There are contradictory eyewitness reports. There are firemen who have reported the damage they saw was not sufficient to cause the collapse. There are firemen who reported explosions. There are firemen who said they were told the building was coming down well in advance of its collapse.

Do you deny that the building collapsed symmetrically and at freefall speed? What kind of assumption is required when there is actual video that shows it?

[MervinFerd]

98. You still haven't read the NIST documents, have you?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

If you had, you would not be making such stupid comments.


You can also read this:
http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

Until you actually know a little bit about what you are talking, you are really quite tedious.


The building DID NOT collapse symmetrically OR at "Free Fall Speed". Those claims are simply false.

[Contrite]

100. I have seen the documents.

They to me are not sufficient to explain the collapse. The videos do not lie.

[William Seger]

102. I think we're finished

At this time, the best guess of what caused WTC7 to collapse is a combination of damage and fires, and the effects of both can only be understood in terms of the unique design of the building. And just like with WTC1 and 2, "truthers" refuse the combination of those three elements by saying "the damage was insufficient" or the "fires were insufficient" depending on which is under discussion at the moment -- claims backed by absolutely nothing but their own (conspiracy-biased) opinions of what's "sufficient" and defended by ignoring any evidence that says their claims of "minimal damage" and "small fires" is incorrect, or any explanation of what role the buildings' designs played.

I think we've established that you're "just asking questions" for the singular purpose of making implications that you can't back up with any actual convincing evidence, and you're "just ignoring answers" that tell any different story. If you don't want to understand why the building collapsed, then the probability that you never will is 100%. For you, no, NIST doesn't need to issue a report because you already disbelieve whatever it's going to say.

> Do you deny that the building collapsed symmetrically and at freefall speed?

Do you deny that the same thing would happen with a progressive failure? If you do, then you don't know what you're talking about, and if you don't then your question is meaningless. That's a perfect example of why it should be called the 9/11 Denial Movement.

[Contrite]

103. I think that that is what you've established.

Who else is included in your "we"? Or do you mean it in the royal sense?

And yes I DO deny that a progressive colllapse of WTC7 would happen symmetrically and a free-fall speed.

Gordon Ross, of Scholars for 9-11 Truth, provided a momentum transfer analysis which showed that the momentum of falling floors above the impact area would be absorbed by the lower floors prior to column buckling, and therefore collapse would not proceed. Progressive collapse theory is not supported by this analysis.

From high school physics, a floor by floor gravitational collapse of the undamaged 90 floors of the north tower would take almost 80 seconds, not including the time delay to break the columns of each floor. But the towers collapsed entirely in 9-16 seconds, close to freefall speed. <5>

That the South Tower collapsed due to progressive collapse as described above makes no sense. The top 34 floors begin to topple, so there is no huge mass of material bearing down on the untoppled floors. The toppling 34 floors are in free fall; no crushing mass bearing down on them, so why did the building disintegrate into dust?

http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/84/worldTradeCenter.shtml

[AZCat]

137. 80 seconds? Gak - I think somebody's math needs to be checked.

Do you have a link to the high school physics-based model that produced such a conclusion? I couldn't find one from your link.

[Contrite]

167. No, the author didn't provide one. But I found these stats.

1. Photos of Destruction at World Trade Center, people running from the collapse, picture of a woman looking at a wall of the dead

2. Formulas:
Height = (1/2) (acceleration due to gravity) * (time)squared

The North Tower of the World Trade Center:
- Height of North Tower = 1,368 feet
- Acceleration due to gavity = 32 feet/sec(squared)

- 1,368 = (1/2) (32) (t)squared
- Multiply by both sides by 2: 2,736 = 32t(squared)
- Divide both sides by 32: 85.5 = t(squared)
- Square root of both sides: 9.2 seconds = t

- Solving for time in seconds one gets: 9.2 seconds
- Meaning: an object that goes into complete freefall from the top of the North Tower hits the ground in 9.2 seconds (in a vacuum)
- Time for North Tower to collapse: approximately 10 seconds (.8 second difference for drag from air)

Therefore, the numbers are statistically equal; ergo, the North Tower went into complete freefall.

Had it been a *true* structural failure, it would have taken a much longer time.
- 110 floors of North Tower/2 floors collapsing per second = 55 seconds
- 110 floors of North Tower/3 floors collapsing per second = 36.6 seconds
- 110 floors of North Tower/4 floors collapsing per second = 27.5 seconds

55 seconds, 36.6 seconds and 27.5 seconds are not even close to 9.2 seconds.

http://www.archive.org/details/Sept12200112accelerationduetogravitytimesquared

Better?

P.S. How are your projects going?

[AZCat]

176. I was sick all last week with the flu...

so I am behind on just about everything. My parents are in town this weekend - there was an art show in Phoenix we went to - so I can't catch up by working over the weekend. I'm just going to have to eat a deadline at the beginning of the week, which will suck, but nobody said life was fair. :(

Regarding the collapse times - drag from air resistance doesn't come into play until higher velocities are reached, because the drag is proportional to the square of the velocity. It also depends on the density of the falling object - the "terminal velocity" of an object that is not dense is much slower than for a dense object. It also doesn't make sense to model the floor collapses linearly - the time for collapse of each floor is quite different at the beginning than at the end because the of greater momentum involved (momentum being the product of mass and velocity). The actual failure of each floor can happen pretty quickly, as anyone who has witnessed material failure can attest to. Large forces can bend or snap a piece of metal like it wasn't even there - think of any car wreck you have seen and how little time it took for the sheet metal or steel frame to crumple during the impact.

The model also assumes each floor waits to fail until the floors above it have done so. The shock from the impact of the falling mass doesn't have to stop at one floor - it's going to travel through the structure and possibly damage or destroy connections other than those first in line. I read an interesting journal article some time ago that talked about these pressure vessels used to contain the partial detonation of a nuclear warhead ignition device. The vessels would actually ripple during the detonation from the pressures created, and I can imagine the same sort of reaction occuring in the remaining structure of the towers during collapse as the growing mass of falling debris lands on it. IIRC there are multiple story sections of the perimeter columns in the debris pile, which indicates that the failures did skip a story occasionally. This would speed up the rate of collapse by initiating movement of lower sections prior to the arrival of the sections already in motion.

P.S. - I haven't forgotten about Building #7, but I barely started looking at it when I got sick and wasn't capable of much during that whole period. I'll try to get to it soon.

[Contrite]

180. What do you think of Gordon Ross's analysis?

(Sorry about your flu. I know a lot of people who have been sick lately.)

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.html


Conclusion:

The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 secondsafter impact.

A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point.

The analysis shows that the energies expended during the time period of the plastic shortening of the first storey height of the vertical columns is sufficient to exhaust the energy of the falling section and thereby arrest collapse. This however is not the full extent of the plastic strain energy demand which exists. The next immediate task for the falling mass to continue in its descent would be the plastic shortening within the remainder of the buckle length. As has already been stated a buckling failure mode has a minimum length over which it can act and in the case of the towers would be several storey lengths. Each additional storey length involved in the buckle would add a further demand of about 450MJ for a further downward movement of 0.111metres. This also shows that collapse arrest is not dependent upon an expenditure of energy in concrete pulverisation, since even if this expenditure were disregarded the input energy would be exhausted during plastic shortening of the second storeys affected.

The analysis can be extrapolated to show that the energy expended within the plastic shortening phase of a six storey buckle would ensure that a fall by the upper section through two storeys under full gravitational acceleration would also be resisted at an early stage. A similar response would be elicited from an opposed three or more storey drop delivering the same levels of energy at impact. It can be further envisaged that a collapse initiated by a fall through a greater number of storeys, would be either arrested or significantly and noticably slowed when regard is taken for energy demands both in the fall by the upper section, and by inclusion of demands identified but not quantified in this article. It should also be noted that this analysis examines only the energy levels required up to a point in time during the plastic shortening phase. Energy demands which involve further phases of the collapse mechanism, such as buckling of beams and disassociation of end connections, spandrel plates and floor connections are further massive energy demands which must then be satisfied.

Assumptions and disregards:

A buckling failure is notable because of the characteristic reduction in load required to continue failure after yield is reached, being distinct from a compressive failure where the load to continue failure after yield is substantially greater than the yield load, and will reach a maximum at the Ultimate Load. In the immediate time period after impact the force applied by the falling section will manifest as such a compressive load. Euler calculations show that columns of the dimensions used in the towers would not fail due to buckling over a length of one storey height, but would instead adopt a compressive failure mode. The load would increase to yield levels, and due to the work hardening which would be present here but not in a buckle failure, thereafter increase towards the Ultimate Load level and this would manifest as plastic compression or shortening, until such time as enough length of column to satisfy the minimum length requirements of buckling, had been exposed to the load. The tower columns when viewed individually had dimensions which would dictate a minimum length for buckling of three or more storey heights. When the bracing of the spandrel plates and corners of the perimeter columns, and the horizontal and diagonal bracing is taken into regard the minimum buckling length would extend over many storey heights. At this point the load would continue to manifest as plastic compression or shortening, but also as a tendency to buckle the column, rather than continue in compression failure. The energy profile would thereafter become that of a buckle failure.The analysis would be justified in using the greater energy demand characteristics of a compressive failure mode for the first instances of the collapse, but I have chosen a buckling failure mode as this mode has the lowest energy demand.

The assumption of constant velocity of the falling mass ignores the immediate deceleration which would be felt by the falling mass. As an example, if we asumed that the velocity was halved over the distance covered in this analysis the time would be extended by one third, giving more time for the energy to dissipate to more remote points.
The analysis assumes a linear distribution in the elastic deflections and velocities of the affected floors during calculation of the momentum transfer and elastic strain energy. Since most of the column sections involved would have undergone almost their full elastic deflection, this treatment underestimates the energy demands within those calculations.

Only a second iteration has been used to show the number of floors taking part in the momentum and velocity changes of the collision. A full iteration would give about 30 storeys, and allowing that the falling mass was decelerated to half of its original velocity would allow time for the propagation to extend loading to more than 40 storeys below the impact. My assumptions have the affect of reducing the number of storeys which take part. This together with the assumption that only a portion of the elastic deflection will apply underestimates the energy requirements of this task.

The characteristic of steel to show an increase in Young's modulus in response to an impact load is acknowledged as a further energy demand but is not quantified.
It should be understood that the energy losses referred to as momentum losses cannot be re-employed as strain energy or in the energy required to pulverise the floors, thereby reducing the total energy demand. These energy transfers would exist irrespective of the state of repair of the floors after collision and would exhibit as heat in the impacted materials.

The kinetic energy being considered is that of the impacting mass of the falling section. There is kinetic energy in the now moving lower storeys but this has been lost by the impacting mass. The only source of energy which is available to the falling mass is potential energy and unless that energy is released by collapse of further columns the falling mass will come to a halt. As the propagation wave continues to load columns further down the tower the energy will spread through lower storeys as elastic strain energy which is recoverable, unlike plastic strain energy. As the upper section decelerates, the force which it is capable of exerting will reduce, and the elastic deflection will reduce in response. As this drops the elastic strain energy previously absorbed by the lower storeys will convert back to potential energy. In other words it will unload, or bounce. The towers were best characterised as being a series of springs and dampers, being struck with a large but relatively slow moving and less substantial series of springs and dampers.

Damage in this analysis aside from the storey removed in order to initiate collapse is limited to the damage to the two storeys which impacted each other, and even this was not sufficient to move the impacted columns through the plastic shortening phase and into the rapid plastic phase which is characterised and accompanied by the onset of buckle points. It should be noted that this concentrates the energy of the impact. In reality several of those storeys nearest to point of impact and especially those with columns of lighter cross section in the upper falling section would each suffer a portion of that damage. This would further serve to dissipate the energy at points remote from the collapse front.

An initiation mechanism involving a total and instantaneous loss of all load bearing ability on one storey, sufficient to cause a 3.7m drop under full gravitational acceleration followed by a neat impact is not credible. This is presented to show the relative sizes of the energies involved. This analysis underestimates the energy demands by using a constant value of velocity, equal to the velocity at impact, 8.5 m/sec. This is an assumption made in favour of collapse continuation.
This analysis also assumes that each storey had the same mass. The effect that this assumption has, is to underestimate the energy losses at collision. No account has been taken of the mass which falls outside the tower perimeter, and most notably neither of the expulsion of large amounts of dust early in the collapse, nor of the energy requirement to cause these masses to move outside the perimeter.

This analysis takes no regard of the energy consumed in damage caused to spandrel plates or other structural elements, nor disconnection of the floor to column connections, crushing of floor contents, nor of any other energies expended. No account is taken of any strain energy consumption during the initial fall through the height of one full storey, though this would be a substantial proportion of the initial energy input.

References:

<1> Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE,

9/13/01, Expanded 9/22/01, Appendices 9/28/01)

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis

By Zdenek P. Bazant1, Fellow ASCE, and Yong Zhou

<2> Energy transfer in the WTC collapse by F. R. Greening

[AZCat]

183. Words, words, words...

I have trouble reading long documents on the computer. I'll have to print out Ross' paper at work (I don't have a working printer at home) and read it there. I'll be there later today so I'll try to remember to do it then.


OT: the flu has been running rampant this winter, it seems. I am not the only one in our office who was been out, and several other people I'm working with on various projects have been sick for several days also. The flu vaccines in our area run out pretty quickly so not as many people were innoculated this season as in the past - that might have something to do with it.

[AZCat]

186. Okay, I've printed it out.

I wouldn't expect anything right away, but I'll try to get to it this week (probably before the Building #7 thing).

[Contrite]

187. Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. n/t

[AZCat]

190. It's the least I can do.

Sometimes I can be pretty lazy and not read up on this stuff as much as I should, so it is a good thing that someone else is asking me to review them - maybe I'll actually get to it this time.

[MervinFerd]

89. It's time to gather evidence for the official story of the Titanic Sinking...

But ignore the opinions of everyone who actually knows anything about that ship.

Dear God, what a dreary thread.

Sometimes I -miss- White Plastic Chairs.

[Contrite]

101. Green plastic trees are nice too.

Maybe you can go somewhere where there are both, and CHILL.

[MervinFerd]

99. Here's the CounterPunch article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

Excerpt:
All of the structural analysis done by FEMA and NIST points to a failure of Truss 1 or Truss 2 -- Truss 2 seems more likely to me -- as the initiating failure in WTC 7. The sequence is as follows:

-> thermal weakening of Truss 2 leads to its failure,

-> the loss of support low in the eastern interior propagates to the roof,

-> the weight (and dynamic force) of material falling onto the diaphragm based on Floor 5 tips this rigid layer of the building,

-> this causes failure of column joints to the diaphragm,

-> lack of vertical support through the diaphragm progresses up the interior of the building west of Truss 2 (and/or Truss 1),

-> the difference in collapse timing east and west of Truss 2 creates a vertical crack/crease/kink/fold/break through the building above Truss 2 (Column 80),

-> a progressive collapse propagates up and material falls freely,

-> since the building implodes, exterior walls falls in.

To sum up:

The blast of hot debris from WTC 1 kindled fires in WTC 7 and caused an emergency power system to feed the burning to the point of building collapse.

One of the building's major bridging supports was heated to the point of exhaustion by the burning of an abundant store of hydrocarbon fuel.

An oil well fire under a loaded bridge.

[Contrite]

104. The Garcia article has been answered intelligently by Kevin Ryan.

Allow me to post that in response:

http://stj911.org/ryan/counterpunch.html

[MervinFerd]

121. giggle.

That article is neither intelligent, nor a rebuttal.

Ryan is the water quality technician, right?

[Contrite]

166. Kevin Ryan is a chemist and a former executive at Underwriters Laboratories

http://www.ultruth.com/Kevin_Ryan.htm

Kevin Ryan is 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, remain unanswered by UL or NIST.

[Bolo Boffin]

169. Who got fired from his job running water testing because he lied about UL's position on 9/11.

[Contrite]

170. Who got fired for questioning Frank Gayle/NIST

He was a site manager, not a "water tester".

Friday, November 12, 2004
(911Truth.org news service -- updated 11/13, 11/14)

An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

In a letter dated Thursday (11/11, complete text below), UL executive Kevin Ryan called on Frank Gayle, director of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell, to "do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."

Kevin Ryan is Site Manager at Environmental Health Laboratories (EHL) in South Bend, Indiana. This is a division of UL, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because 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, it suggests incipient disagreements between UL and NIST about the true cause of the WTC collapses.

Gayle is deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and head of the "NIST and the WTC" team. A draft of the government agency's final report on the WTC collapses is due in January.

Ryan copied the letter to Gayle in e-mails to David Ray Griffin, author of the New Pearl Harbor, and to Catherine Austin Fitts, who is a member of the 911Truth.org board. Griffin requested and received permission to distribute Ryan's letter to other parties. The letter was published Friday (11/12) at septembereleventh.org, the site of the 9/11 Visibility Project.

911Truth.org called Ryan Friday to confirm his authorship. Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but others at UL are aware of his action.

The letter raises disturbing questions, pointing out that the temperatures of fuel fires in the towers on September 11 appear to have been far too low to cause a failure of the structural steel.

A chemist by profession, Ryan said he considers Gayle to be a good scientist and an honest person. Given the impact of September 11 on events around the world, Ryan said everyone needs to know the full truth of what really happened on that day.

In a related development, the New York Times reported Friday (11/12) that the NIST team under Gayle is planning to hold some of its deliberations in secret. "The announcement has been sharply protested by advocates for families of the 9/11 victims, who said they were considering a lawsuit to force the agency to open the meetings to the public," the Times wrote.

As the Times noted, the NIST investigation was started in 2002 after lobbying by, among others, the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, an organization created by Monica Gabrielle and Sally Regenhard, both of whom lost family on September 11.

Gabrielle told the Times that NIST should have "one job, and one job only - to find out the truth of what happened to those buildings and to report to the public about it. You don't owe industry, the Port Authority or federal agencies anything. You owe it to the public - the truth, no matter where it goes." (See www.nytimes.com)

-911Truth.org (nl)

He did not LIE about UL:

--------------

Text of an e-mail letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle, Nov. 11:



---------

From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: [e-mail]

Date: 11/11/2004

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html

2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187

3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php

5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11)

6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

South Bend

[Bolo Boffin]

172. Who got fired for using his position to advance ideas as if they came from UL. n/t

Can't you guys get anything right?

[Contrite]

173. How on earth...

did you derive that from this?

"In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements."

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690

In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15

At the time of the floor tests, I worked for Underwriters Laboratories (UL). I was very interested in the progress of these tests, having already asked some sensitive questions. My interest began when UL's CEO, Loring Knoblauch, a very experienced executive with a law degree from Harvard, surprised us at the company's South Bend location, just a few weeks after 9/11, by saying that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC buildings. Knoblauch told us that we should all be proud that the buildings had stood for so long under such intense conditions. In retrospect it is clear that all of us, including Knoblauch, were ignorant of many important facts surrounding 9/11 and did not, therefore, see his statements as particularly important.

Over the next two years, however, I learned more about the issues, like the unprecedented destruction of the steel evidence and the fact that no tall steel-frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. And I saw video of the owner of the buildings, stating publicly that he and the fire department made the decision to "pull"---that is, to demolish---WTC7 that day,16 even though demolition requires many weeks of planning and preparation. Perhaps most compelling for me were the words of a genuine expert on the WTC. This was John Skilling, the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers.17 (The NOVA video, incidentally, gave this credit to Leslie Robertson. But Robertson, who never claimed to have originated the design, was only a junior member of the firm , and Skilling was known at the time to be the engineer in charge.) In 1993, five years before his death, Skilling said that he had performed an analysis on jet plane crashes and the ensuing fires and that "the building structure would still be there."18

By 2003, all of this information was available to anyone who cared. The details were, without a doubt, difficult to reconcile with testimony from officials, reporters, and scientists who were supporting the official story. But in November of that year, I felt that answers from UL were needed. If, as our CEO had suggested, our company had tested samples of steel components and listed the results in the UL Fire Resistance Directory almost forty years ago, Mr. Skilling would have depended on these results to ensure that the buildings were sufficiently fire resistant. So I sent a formal written message to our chief executive, outlining my thoughts and asking what he was doing to protect our reputation.

Knoblauch's written response contained several points. He wrote: "We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them." He pointed to the NYC code used at the time of the WTC construction, which required fire resistance times of 3 hours for building columns, and 2 hours for floors. From the start, his answers were not helping to explain fire-induced collapse in 56 minutes (the time it took WTC2, the South Tower, to come down). But he did give a better explanation of UL's involvement in testing the WTC steel, even talking about the quality of the sample and how well it did. "We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on," he wrote, "and it did beautifully."19

This response was copied to several UL executives, including Tom Chapin, the manager of UL's Fire Protection division. Chapin reminded me that UL was the "leader in fire research testing," but he clearly did not want to make any commitments on the issue. He talked about the floor assemblies, how these had not been UL tested, and he made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel. But even an introductory textbook lists UL as one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119."20 He went on to clarify that UL tests assemblies of which steel is a component. This is a bit like saying "we don't crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car." In any case, Chapin suggested that we be patient and wait for the report from NIST, because the investigation into the "collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7" was an ongoing process and that "UL is right in the middle of these activities."21

For the most part, I did wait, although I shared my concerns with Chapin again at UL's Leadership Summit in January 2004. I encouraged him to ask for a company news release on our position, but this did not happen and I never heard from him again. By the time UL tested the floor assembly models in August of that year, I had been promoted to the top management job in my division, Environmental Health Laboratories, overseeing all company functions. Two months later, NIST released an official update that included the floor test results, as well as Frank Gayle's results, in which steel temperatures were predicted. These results clearly invalidated the major theories of collapse, because pancaking could not occur without floor collapse and steel does not turn to licorice at the temperatures discussed.

After reviewing this update, I sent a letter directly to Dr. Gayle at NIST. In this letter, I referred to my experiences at UL and asked for more information on the WTC investigation and NIST's soon-to-be-published conclusions. NIST had planned at the time to release its final report in December, with time allowed for public comment. After I allowed my letter to become public,22 this date was moved to January 2005, and then nothing was heard from NIST for several months.

Other than UL's involvement in testing the steel components, the facts I stated had all been reported publicly, but when I put them together plainly, they were considered outrageous. Five days after I sent my letter, I was fired by UL for doing so. The company made a few brief statements in an attempt to discredit me, then quickly began to make it clear that its relationship with the government, perhaps due to its tax-exempt status, was more important than its commitment to public safety.

For example, in spite of Tom Chapin's previous statements, UL suggested that it had played only a "limited" role in the investigation. Despite what our CEO, Loring Knoblauch, had written and copied to several executives, UL said there was "no evidence" that any firm had tested the steel used in the WTC buildings.23 In doing so, UL implied that its CEO not only had fabricated this story about testing the WTC steel but had also spoken and written about it for several years without anyone in the company correcting him. As I see it, the only other option was that the company claiming to be our "Public Safety Guardian" was lying to us about the most important safety issue of our lives.

My experiences give a taste for the delicate nature of our critical turning point. But to keep our focus, we should examine what NIST did with the results of its physical tests, which had failed to support its conclusions. Did NIST perform more tests, at least to prove its key argument that much of the fireproofing on the steel in the Twin Towers popped off due to the impact of the airliners? No, it did not. Instead, NIST put together a black box computer model that would spit out the right answers. This black box model was driven by initial parameters that could be tweaked. When the parameters that had initially been considered "realistic" did not generate results that "compared to observed events," NIST scientists performed their final analysis using another set of parameters they called "more severe."24 When they were finished, their model produced video graphics that would enable anyone to see the buildings collapse without having to follow a train of logic to get there.

Tom Chapin of UL was one of those doomed to make public comments in support of NIST's final report. His comments were innocuous enough but he did hint at something of value. "The effect of scale of test assemblies...," Chapin said, "requires more investigation."25 This may be the closest thing to a straightforward statement that we will ever see from UL on the matter. But it seems clear enough that results showing zero floor collapse, when scaled-up from the floor panels to a few floors, would still result in zero floor collapse. Perhaps a more direct version of Chapin's comment might be that test results negating predetermined conclusions should not be used to prove them.

Other than the video, NIST left us with only some vague statements about a few sagging floors suddenly destroying two hundred super-strong perimeter columns and forty core columns. But since sagging floors do not weigh more than non-sagging floors, it is difficult to see how this might occur, especially so uniformly. NIST claimed the perimeter columns saw increased loads of between 0 and 25% due to the damage, but it never reconciled this with the original claim that these columns could resist 2000% increases in live load. And the outward-buckling theory, suggested by Thornton, was changed again to inward buckling---apparently the forces involved were never well defined. Additionally, NIST suggested that the documents that would support testing of the steel components, along with documents containing Skilling's jet-fuel-fire analysis, could not be found.26

Ultimately, NIST failed to give any explanation for the dynamics of the towers as they fell, about how and why they dropped like rocks in free-fall. For both buildings, NIST simply stated that "once the upper building section began to move downwards . . ., global collapse ensued," as if just saying so was enough.27 As for WTC7, NIST as of yet has not elaborated on its "working collapse hypothesis," which was vaguely presented in June 2004.28 The bottom line is that, after more than four years, it is still impossible for the government even to begin to explain the primary events that drive this War on Terrorism.

So much has been sacrificed, and so much has been invested in this story, that we all have a need for supportive answers. But when we look for those answers, all our "mind's eye" can see is this smoky black box, where scientific results are reversed to support politically correct, pre-determined conclusions. That critical point of divergence, where our lives were turned upside down and all logic followed, has always been too painful to imagine. But now, without expert accounts of pancaking floors and licorice steel, it cannot be imagined at all.

Some of us remain hopeful that we can still achieve a critical mass awareness of the need for truth, and in doing so pull the support out from under what John McMurtry calls "the 9/11 Wars."29 But if we cannot, even as the hopes for peace fade and the number of 9/11 families continues to grow, we should remember how we got this story and how it was propped up despite all the evidence against it. Because whatever happens next, after the smoke clears, our children may have a need to know.

[Bolo Boffin]

174. I derived that from this:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm

But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

[Contrite]

175. The CEO's written response indicates that UL did test the steel

Knoblauch's written response contained several points. He wrote: "We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them." He pointed to the NYC code used at the time of the WTC construction, which required fire resistance times of 3 hours for building columns, and 2 hours for floors. From the start, his answers were not helping to explain fire-induced collapse in 56 minutes (the time it took WTC2, the South Tower, to come down). But he did give a better explanation of UL's involvement in testing the WTC steel, even talking about the quality of the sample and how well it did. "We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on," he wrote, "and it did beautifully."19

This response was copied to several UL executives, including Tom Chapin, the manager of UL's Fire Protection division. Chapin reminded me that UL was the "leader in fire research testing," but he clearly did not want to make any commitments on the issue. He talked about the floor assemblies, how these had not been UL tested, and he made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel. But even an introductory textbook lists UL as one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119."20 He went on to clarify that UL tests assemblies of which steel is a component. This is a bit like saying "we don't crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car." In any case, Chapin suggested that we be patient and wait for the report from NIST, because the investigation into the "collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7" was an ongoing process and that "UL is right in the middle of these activities."21

It seems to me Kevin was calling them on their lies, particularly Tom Chapin, and this is why he was canned.

[AZCat]

177. I don't know if I am reading this right...

but if I am correct then the difference pointed out by Chapin is indeed legitimate. It is possible under modern building codes to either evaluate the individual components of an assembly or the whole assembly when assigning fire ratings. When the fire ratings of the individual components are known, a method known as the "prescriptive approach" can be used to determine the fire rating of the assembly. Testing the whole assembly and assigning a fire rating is known as the "performance approach". I don't know that much about fire protection ratings and assemblies but I can attest to how this works for other building systems. When a "Type I" kitchen hood is designed for a restaurant the required exhaust volume is different depending on which approach is used and, in my experience, is much lower when the hood has been tested as an assembly (lower by a factor of 2 in some cases).

It may seem like hair-splitting, but it is an important difference (that is assuming I am reading it correctly).

[Contrite]

178. I think the problem is this

"For example, in spite of Tom Chapin's previous statements, UL suggested that it had played only a "limited" role in the investigation. Despite what our CEO, Loring Knoblauch, had written and copied to several executives, UL said there was "no evidence" that any firm had tested the steel used in the WTC buildings.23 In doing so, UL implied that its CEO not only had fabricated this story about testing the WTC steel but had also spoken and written about it for several years without anyone in the company correcting him."

It seems that Kevin was seeking further clarification and in the end UL decided to disavow its involvement, despite what the CEO had said. I think the point of his statement about Chapin is that he was redirecting the discussion away from UL's involvement in testing the steel components by stating that UL did not test "structural steel".

[AZCat]

179. But that's what I mean.

Testing the assembly is not the same thing as testing the components individually, especially when the integrity of the assemblies in question is up for debate. If there had been no plane crash and the assemblies failed before their rated times then the testing agency would have to answer for it. But since the assemblies might have lost some or all of their fireproofing in the critical areas UL can claim that any failure that occurred prior to the rated time of the assembly was due to the disruption of the insulation and not because of an incorrect fire rating.

I don't know what Chapin was saying over those several years - if he was telling the correct story or not. It's possible that whoever is remembering him doing this is remembering incorrectly. It would be nice to see either speech transcripts or copies of whatever he wrote so we could check.

[Contrite]

181. I see

And, yes, it would be nice to see all the documents referenced, including Knoblauch's memos.

However, Kevin does point out that everything he said in his letter to Gayle, which he made public, was already publicly known, and there did exist a discrepancy between what the CEO Knoblauch and Tom Chapin were saying, so I don't think he misrepresented anything and therefore didn't deserve to be fired for stating the facts.

[Contrite]

182. Also, NIST didn't prove the fireproofing loss to let UL off the hook

Kevin says: Did NIST perform more tests, at least to prove its key argument that much of the fireproofing on the steel in the Twin Towers popped off due to the impact of the airliners? No, it did not. Instead, NIST put together a black box computer model that would spit out the right answers. This black box model was driven by initial parameters that could be tweaked. When the parameters that had initially been considered "realistic" did not generate results that "compared to observed events," NIST scientists performed their final analysis using another set of parameters they called "more severe."24 When they were finished, their model produced video graphics that would enable anyone to see the buildings collapse without having to follow a train of logic to get there.

Tom Chapin of UL was one of those doomed to make public comments in support of NIST's final report. His comments were innocuous enough but he did hint at something of value. "The effect of scale of test assemblies...," Chapin said, "requires more investigation."

And, again, I think the problem Kevin is pointing out is that UL was trying to downplay its involvement in the testing, and exposing them is ultimately what got him in trouble.

[AZCat]

184. Ryan seems (like many) to not understand how the NIST model worked.

To call it a "black box computer model" is to fail to understand how simulations of nonlinear phenomena are constructed. Perhaps Ryan needs to do a little research into this before shooting his mouth off about things he doesn't understand.

Chapin is making a valid point about how testing that leads to a fire rating for building assemblies should be re-examined. Ryan doesn't understand the distinction that I have pointed out in my previous posts between a prescriptive approach and a performance-based approach - not surprising since this isn't his area of expertise - and is interpreting the comments of from UL incorrectly.

While the NIST certainly didn't invoke damage to the fireproofing on behalf of UL, it does innoculate them from serious charges (they could lose their ability to test and certify) that they incorrectly certified the structural assemblies.

[Contrite]

188. I think that is correct.

To Chapin's credit, he did indicate that the tests were lacking. I think UL should have stepped up and made an issue of it, even if it would have potentially made them culpable. And I think that is what Ryan was looking for too.

[AZCat]

189. I agree.

I'm not really sure why Ryan was fired. While I don't agree with a lot of the points in his original letter and I don't think it was the smartest thing to do, I don't see it as reason enough to can someone unless somebody at UL was freaking out over potential liability from the collapses. It would have been nice if UL had been a little more forthcoming, but I don't expect much backbone from organizations anymore (I had that beaten out of me a long time ago).

[HCE SuiGeneris]

106. If you have bothered to watch all the available

videos of WTC7, it it clearly evident the building has been relieved of any support, in any portion of the building, as it freely falls to ground. There is no pancaking, no lean or lurch as weaker portions give way. It becomes, in one instant, a million floating elements that release to the ground in an absolute free-fall.

[jberryhill]

107. No Lean?

Take a look at still pictures taken after it fell. The north wall fell south, and the south side went clear across the street.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

108. I have viewed pictures and video. The video is

irrefutable.

[jschurchin]

111. I'm afraid you are arguing with someone

to whom if brains were dynamite he couldn't blow his nose, but it's your conversation. Good Luck:banghead:

[jberryhill]

115. Is this irrefutable to your "no lean" idea?

That's the north side.

Looks like it leaned to the south.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

116. Like I said. 46 stories of rubble has to end up somewhere.

North side leaning south would indicate the implosion caused it to fall in upon itself. I believe this is the intent when buildings are demolished.

[greyl]

117. Maybe this will help broaden your idea of what that indicates:

[jberryhill]

135. Oh, so the problem is the words "no lean"

"North side leaning south", as you put it, combined with the south side leaning south, is what I call "leaning". To the south. By strange coincidence, the south side of the building is the one which took the hit earlier in the day from a falling tower, and it is where the firefighters noted extensive damage prompting them to evacuate the area.

If all of the buildings were demolished intentionally, then why would anyone bother to evacuate the area around WTC 7. They didn't evacuate the towers first. Yet, strangely, nobody was hurt by the collapse of WTC 7. Did the people in charge suddenly have a change of heart and start caring if anyone got killed?

But, if one side looks like this:



And the other side looks like this:



Then you call that "no lean".

And you are further saying that if the north side falls in, and the south side falls out, that is an implosion causing the building to "fall in on itself." And this is apparently because people who implode buildings intend to make the north sides of the buildings fall over the wreckage, but not the south sides.

I had never heard before of this "north side - south side" distinction made in building demolitions.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

110. Wow. 46 stories of debris made it all the way across the street. Wow.

[greyl]

118. The building didn't collapse straight down, iow. nt

[MervinFerd]

120. The Video Diagnosis. You haven't read the assigned articles, have you?

It is NOT clearly evident. Except maybe to you.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

159. You have an assignment for me bunkie? I didn't receive the handout.

[vincent_vega_lives]

119. An oil well fire under a loaded bridge.

And we all know that would have ZERO effect on steel.



It all began when a car pulled in front of a gasoline truck to avoid missing an exit, and the truck, to keep from hitting the car, swerved and plowed into a bridge support under I-65 Southbound. The truck, which was hauling 37,475 liters (9,900 gallons) of fuel, exploded into a fireball that was estimated to have reached more than 1,093C (2,000F) at one point. The heat caused several of the bridge's steel girders to sag approximately 2 to 3 meters (7 to 10 feet), collapsing the structure.

[talksabout]

122. something I just learned about WTC 7 this evening.

It had been reinforced so that it was basically a "building within a building"....who knew?

""The Times reported:

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...

In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.""

http://infowars.net/articles/march2007/010307BBC_WTC7.htm

[MervinFerd]

124. That's explained in the NIST document; you should read it.

The building was bigger than the one originally planned; this resulted in a somwhat complex structure at the base

The collapse scenario takes this into account.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

129. Are you willfully ignoring that the NIST report is not official? I replied to you on another

thread yesterday with the link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=145291&mesg_id=145416

Also, there is also an injunction being filed to stop further investigations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=145084

So how can you continue to refer to a report that has not been finalized and lead other readers to it for reference?

[greyl]

131. So, it's not part of the Official Conspiracy Theory then? It's just the work of hundreds of

scientists? I'll buy that.
Do you honestly believe that the NIST is wondering if fires and structural damage caused the collapse?
They are after extremely specific detail at levels beyond your imagination.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

133. You are not getting my point. You are providing information tha is not Finalized and in an Official

Report. Somewhere down the road they might have changed their findings. You don't know that

I know I can't respond to a report that yet doesn't exist.

[greyl]

134. No, I put your point in accurate and honest context.

"They are after extremely specific detail at levels beyond your imagination."

[jberryhill]

139. But the 'truther' stuff is "finalized and official"?

Where is this "finalized and official" report of the controlled demolition of wtc 7? I missed that one, but apparently a lot of other people have read it.

[MervinFerd]

132. It's an interim report; more work is planned. And?

These are serious people who are doing analyses that you cannot even begin to understand.

But, the information provided dustifies the assertion that progressive collapse is impossible. That's all that's needed here.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

136. But I will reiterate, it is not finalized and the information that you are using might not

be in the final report. Period.

[greyl]

138. That's honest science at work , for ya. Provisional findings until

further evidence is accumulated which provides a high degree of certainty.

Tell me, what do you suppose are the chances that the final report will say that steel buildings aren't in danger of collapse due to structural damage and/or fire?

[MervinFerd]

140. You still haven't read the (interim) report, have you?

YES! This is a progress report; the conclusions might change. That's because the people doing this work are honest professionals and they will change their conclusions if the evidence warrants.

However, if you will actually read the damn thing, you will see that it is a report of substantial progress and that the details remaining to be addressed are of no consequence to the current discussion. There -is- a plausible collapse sequence and that sequence doesn not involve bombs, thermite, or dustification beams from space.

[BuyingThyme]

149. What conclusions are those, MervinFerd?

The ones you keep making up out of thin air?

[MervinFerd]

151. The ones you would know if you would just READ THE FUCKING REPORT.

[BuyingThyme]

152. No more pretending, MervinFerd.

Just let us know what WTC7 conclusions you are referring to.

Or PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE stop making things up.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

156. The "interim report" from 2005 that is done in comic book fashion, that so oddly

states on the summary page and in RED LETTERS

NIST HAS SEEN NO EVIDENCE THAT THE COLLAPSE WAS CAUSED BY BOMBS, MISSILES OR DEMOLITION.

THIS "INTERIM" report was written almost 2 years ago. I will repeat, almost 2 years ago. Why are they taking so long to finalize it. Probably lack of EVIDENCE as EVIDENCE was carted away in almost a heartbeat, and much sold for scrap.

As to it being plausible... Honestly speaking..it looks like someone created this theory out of thin air, and they are furiously trying to fit the facts around this. Once again, this was presented ALMOST 2 YEARS AGO! Did you ever hear of the Downing Street Memos?

I will comment when they come out with the Finalized Report. Thank you very much.....

For those who haven't seen this "report" that is being used as a holy tome,
here is a link.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/archives.htm

I have a MAC and can't copy the PDF link but you can scroll down to this part of the page and click on Collapse of WTC 7
# Comprehensive presentation on NIST's World Trade Center investigation (April 5, 2005)

* Introduction to NIST's World Trade Center Investigation (.pdf)
* Analysis of Collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 (WTC Towers) (.pdf)
* Collapse Sequence of WTC 1 and WTC 2 (WTC Towers) (.pdf)
* Collapse of WTC 7 (.pdf)
* Analysis of WTC Towers' Baseline Performance (.pdf)
* Life Safety (Evacuation, Emergency Response, Active Systems) (.pdf)
* Building and Fire Safety Procedures and Practices (.pdf)
* Approach to Recommendations (.pdf)

[BuyingThyme]

191. As far as I know, that report does not include any conclusions about WTC7.

It only lists facts and hypotheses. (That's the starting point.)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

158. The biggest pile of fictitious BS ever manufactured to support a conspiracy!

[BuyingThyme]

150. MervinFerd, don't be offended, but it's clear that you don't even understand

what a hypothesis is.

So don't go around trying to belittle the honest people, particularly in regards to matters of science -- matters which you are completely incapable of understanding.

[MervinFerd]

154. My God! What a pompous buffoon you are! Or is this an act?

You belittle yourself by refusing to hear and consider expert opinion. You make ridiculous claims based only on your own perception. You claim the I have not given you references, that I have posted repeatedly.

Is it really possible that any human could be this obtuse and absurd?

[BuyingThyme]

155. MervinFerd, you have been exposed.

You have provided absolutely no links to back up your claims, and now you've been reduced to pretending otherwise.

Do you really think people will not be able to see what you've done here?

[sweetheart]

125. A typical person falling down

Gotta get me a superheavy pancake,
then i'll fall over in symmetrical takes,
And as the top of my head collapses down on to
my neck, as the sides of my skull blow apart sideways,
and my neck collapses on to my hips as my guts blow
out in a mushroom cloud;
whilst my hips crash down on to my knees along with
bits of my hair and my hat,
and finally, with bits of flesh and blood spattered
over everything, with a bit of my tibia and fibia
from each foot sticking up a few inches, on an otherwise
perfect human pancake.

[jschurchin]

126. Hey BuyingThyme

here is one that is almost a exact replica of WTC 7, well except for the collapsing into it's own footprint part: http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/880504_1stInterstateFire/050488_InterstateFire.htm

[jschurchin]

127. And here's another

notice how high the rubble pile is in the photograph: http://www.zetatalk.com/index/oct17g.htm

It's amazing that they were able to determine the cause of the collapse.

[jschurchin]

128. And last but not least

http://www.zetatalk.com/index/oct17g.htm

As we can all see, the 32 stories have been reduced to a 2 story smoking heep. But to ensure that no theory's about any type of "demolition" would be put forth, a crane was brought in immediately to begin the debris removal.

[greyl]

130. "It's amazing that they were able to determine the cause of the collapse."?

When was the cause-and-origin report issued?

Looks like you're quoting BS from Loose Change, balance it with this.
You might as well compare the rear-end collision performance of a Ford Pinto and a Volvo wagon.
WTC7 was a unique structure that was subjected to unique events.

[Contrite]

171. I love the way they just leave the Parque Central report off at "might collapse"

The fact is, it didn't.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-sa/2004/oct/17/101708935.html

Venezuela High-Rise Fire Under Control By ALICE M. CHACON ASSOCIATED PRESS

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -

Military helicopters doused one of Venezuela's tallest buildings with water Sunday, bringing under control a blaze that many feared would cause the tower to collapse, officials said.

Earlier, nearby residences and businesses were evacuated. Two floors and some staircases in the building collapsed. But by Sunday afternoon, the temperature inside the burning building had dropped, lessening the danger of a collapse, Caracas fire chief Rodolfo Briceno said.

"Engineers have gone up there and inspected" the building, Briceno said, adding that "it is very solid."

Neighbors of the 56-story, 730-foot office tower were allowed to return to their residential buildings in downtown Caracas' Parque Central complex Sunday afternoon, but firefighters were expected to continue working through the night to extinguish the last flames and keep them from spreading.

The blaze began before midnight Saturday on the 34th floor of the East Tower in the complex, Briceno said. By Sunday afternoon, it had burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors, reaching the roof. The complex was built in 1976 and is considered a Caracas landmark.

[The Lone Groover]

185. Patient: Doctor doctor, I keep thinking the OCT is truth...

Doctor: You're Caracas.

[BuyingThyme]

157. What's it gonna take, a video clip of somebody

explaining how and why it was done?

Somehow I feel even that wouldn't do it.