NIST WTC7 Report

[furrod]

I was my understanding that it was suppose to be out by the end of the year.
It's getting close.
Will there be another delay?

[Norseman]

NCST Advisory Committee Meeting, December 18, 2007 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACmeetingDec18_2007.htm)

Agenda:
SUMMARY: The National Construction
Safety Team (NCST) Advisory
Committee (Committee), National
Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), will meet via teleconference
Tuesday, December 18, 2007, from 1
p.m. to 3 p.m. The meeting will be
audio webcast so that the public may
listen to the meeting as it takes place.
The primary purpose of this meeting is
for the NCST Advisory Committee todiscuss its annual report to the Congress
and for NIST to update the Committee
on the status of the investigation of
World Trade Center 7. The agenda may
change to accommodate Committee
business. The final agenda will be
posted on the NIST Web site at http://
www.nist.gov/ncst.

[furrod]

thanks!

[Kent1]

I was my understanding that it was suppose to be out by the end of the year.
It's getting close.
Will there be another delay?

The report is not finished. Id expect it sometime early next year.

[Miragememories]

The report is not finished. Id expect it sometime early next year.

Now why am I not surprised?

MM

[Arus808]

well, of course mirage would rather them rush through a study with a lot of holes, so he has something to pick on, and take out of context; whereas we, would rather have a well resarched, well written, and well supported by evidence report.

see where truther's stand

see where rational people stand.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

*sigh*

I suppose until the NIST gets around to telling us what happened to WTC7, we'll just have to settle on what the firefighters claim happened (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires) as our explanation for the collapse.

[Oliver]

Now why am I not surprised?

MM


I actually AM surprised. Took them quite some time to
get the final report done. But let's see what's in it once
it's published - until then, any opinion is wasted...

[Miragememories]

The report is not finished. Id expect it sometime early next year.

Too funny.

Like maybe after the 2008 Fall elections?

NIST appears to have a rather unique sense of time.

If their estimates on report completion dates keep failing like this, one has to wonder about all their other estimates as well!

MM

[PhantomWolf]

Bazant gets a paper out on WTC 1 & 2 within days and that proves he was part of the inside job. NIST takes years to get their paper on WTC 7 done right and that proves they are part of the inside job. You can't win either way.

[beachnut]

9/11 truth is too stupid; Six years and not a single fact to support their ideas, which are lies, on 9/11. What is the estimate for 9/11 truth finding a fact? let me guess, it includes division by zero

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Too funny.

Like maybe after the 2008 Fall elections?

NIST appears to have a rather unique sense of time.

Not for a government operation.

Welcome to the real world bucko. Please take a number and wait for it to be called... the bureaucracy will be right with you. :p

[R.Mackey]

Bazant gets a paper out on WTC 1 & 2 within days and that proves he was part of the inside job. NIST takes years to get their paper on WTC 7 done right and that proves they are part of the inside job. You can't win either way.


Bingo.

The middle position isn't safe, either. The NIST report on WTC 1 and 2 came out after a few years but on schedule, and about them, Dr. Griffin writes: "...both NIST and the government know that the official story is false. They know that the buildings were brought down by explosives in the procedure known as 'controlled demolition.' But NIST, of course, publicly had to deny that this is what happened." (Source: Debunking 9/11 Debunking, page 173.)

If we never get a WTC 7 report, that's a good reason to hassle NIST. If we get the report and it's full of errors (real ones, not imaginary Truth Movement ones), that's a good reason. If we get the report and it doesn't adequately address things like the expected magnitude of debris impact, possible causes and likely extent of steel sulfidation, and the status of the emergency fuel system, then that's a good reason.

Complaining about the release date is not. If you really care, write your congressman and urge him to increase funding into the investigation, and other construction safety studies as well. Otherwise, be patient.

[T.A.M.]

Catch 22. Out early, truthers claim it will be fabricated to meet the NWO's storyline. Out too late, and truthers claim it is do to inability to explain "away" the "obvious" CD.

I am not surprised by the delay. I am sure they are making double sure all the "i"s are dotted, "t"s crossed.

And when it comes out, and refutes the CD theory, the truthers will cry and whine foul, and will produce a paper about it, claiming it is full of lies...etc....blah blah blah!!!

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Bingo.

The middle position isn't safe, either. The NIST report on WTC 1 and 2 came out after a few years but on schedule, and about them, Dr. Griffin writes: "...both NIST and the government know that the official story is false. They know that the buildings were brought down by explosives in the procedure known as 'controlled demolition.' But NIST, of course, publicly had to deny that this is what happened." (Source: Debunking 9/11 Debunking, page 173.)

If we never get a WTC 7 report, that's a good reason to hassle NIST. If we get the report and it's full of errors (real ones, not imaginary Truth Movement ones), that's a good reason. If we get the report and it doesn't adequately address things like the expected magnitude of debris impact, possible causes and likely extent of steel sulfidation, and the status of the emergency fuel system, then that's a good reason.

Complaining about the release date is not. If you really care, write your congressman and urge him to increase funding into the investigation, and other construction safety studies as well. Otherwise, be patient.

Yes, and we should all remember that NIST does not stand for...

"Nine eleven Is all we STudy here"

TAM:)

[DGM]

Too funny.

Like maybe after the 2008 Fall elections?

NIST appears to have a rather unique sense of time.

If their estimates on report completion dates keep failing like this, one has to wonder about all their other estimates as well!

MM
Why do you care when it comes out? You'll dismiss it without even giving it the courtesy of a read.

[Quad4_72]

Too funny.

Like maybe after the 2008 Fall elections?

NIST appears to have a rather unique sense of time.

If their estimates on report completion dates keep failing like this, one has to wonder about all their other estimates as well!

MM

What amount of time do you propose a report such as the one for WTC7 SHOULD take? Additionally, what do you base that timeline on?

[R.Mackey]

Yes, and we should all remember that NIST does not stand for...

"Nine eleven Is all we STudy here"

TAM:)

Funny. I'd always thought it stood for "Nobody's Interested in the Scholars for Truth."

But what do I know, being a shill and profiting off the war and everything... ;)

[T.A.M.]

What amount of time do you propose a report such as the one for WTC7 SHOULD take? Additionally, what do you base that timeline on?

oooh ooooh!!! I know I know...

the truthers base their timeline for the report on WTC7, on the following:

1. The NIST report on WTC1/2 is already out, and covered a lot more.
2. Bazant had his paper out within a few days of 9/11

What do I win???

TAM:)

[johnny karate]

WTC7 was not directly attacked.

No one lost their lives in WTC7.

No one aside form CTers are all that interested in WTC7.

So my guess as to why it's taking so long for NIST to release this report is that they don't view it as a particular priority. And neither does anyone else, except for a handful of nutjobs that have concocted some zany fantasy based around the WTC7 collapse.

And believe me, when this report does get released, and the CTers begin anew their nonsensical ranting and raving about "conspiracies" and "inside jobs", the world will continue to not care about what happened at WTC7.

[Jonnyclueless]

What? 911truth.org still hasn't presented their scientific analysis which proves why WTC 7 collapsed? It's been 6 uears now and they still haven't written their paper? Sounds like an inside 911truth.org job to me.

[WildCat]

Too funny.

Like maybe after the 2008 Fall elections?
Thanks for the laugh!

The importance you place on your small and getting smaller "movement" is astonishing.

[CptColumbo]

Why do you care when it comes out? You'll dismiss it without even giving it the courtesy of a read.At the last "twoofer" event I was at someone asked me if I would support a new investigation, and I said "the old one isn't over with yet, shouldn't you at least wait until it's done before you dismiss it?"

[WildCat]

Troofer reactions to...

Bazant paper: "Too early!!!1!1Shill!!!11!111SHi11!!!

NIST WTC Report: Fabricated!!1!1!Shillzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!

WTC 7 Report: Shi11zzzzzzenhe1merzzz!!1111Too late!1!!!11!!!!

[dbalsdon]

I wonder if the mods have their holidays booked for that date*. Not gonna envy their job when the draft report comes out, and a whole hoard of the 'die hard' truthers come along to do some nitpicking.

*OK. So they prob don't need to book holiday's, but still.

[mrbaracuda]

Maybe they're making sure not one of the twoofers has anything to complain about. They addressed some claims like CT in the interim report, didn't they?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Maybe they're making sure not one of the twoofers has anything to complain about. They addressed some claims like CT in the interim report, didn't they?

I'm sorry Baracuda, but that's an impossibility.

These are people who, if the NIST agreees to test for explosives, will be enraged that they did not also remodulate the phase compression coils in the main deflector dish to scan the debris for the tetryion emissions left behind by Romulan disruptors.

[mrbaracuda]

Heh, true, tue. But you can always try!
Any idea how big in terms of pages the whole report will be? Oh and while we're at it: I'm interested in reading the NIST report that's out already. The 10.000 pages I read about is kind of daunting but I would still go for it. Problem is, I'd rather read it in book form. Are they giving that thing out for free or can you buy it as a 'mortal'? Another problem for me if they're in fact giving it out for free would be that I'm in Germany. All I could find on amazon.de so far is some other studies by NIST and those weren't exactly cheap.

[pomeroo]

Now why am I not surprised?

MM



Why do you care about a report that you will reject without reading?


UPDATE: DGM beat me to it.

[pomeroo]

Too funny.

Like maybe after the 2008 Fall elections?

NIST appears to have a rather unique sense of time.

If their estimates on report completion dates keep failing like this, one has to wonder about all their other estimates as well!

MM



Priceless self-parody.

[Sabrina]

Heh, true, tue. But you can always try!
Any idea how big in terms of pages the whole report will be? Oh and while we're at it: I'm interested in reading the NIST report that's out already. The 10.000 pages I read about is kind of daunting but I would still go for it. Problem is, I'd rather read it in book form. Are they giving that thing out for free or can you buy it as a 'mortal'? Another problem for me if they're in fact giving it out for free would be that I'm in Germany. All I could find on amazon.de so far is some other studies by NIST and those weren't exactly cheap.

They should be available in their entirety for free on NIST's webpage, IIRC.

[Kryptos]

Started listening to the audiocast linked on the NIST site, but it sounds like last year's meeting and not this one.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACmeetingDec18_2007.htm

Anyone know where we can listen to it?

[T.A.M.]

Heh, true, tue. But you can always try!
Any idea how big in terms of pages the whole report will be? Oh and while we're at it: I'm interested in reading the NIST report that's out already. The 10.000 pages I read about is kind of daunting but I would still go for it. Problem is, I'd rather read it in book form. Are they giving that thing out for free or can you buy it as a 'mortal'? Another problem for me if they're in fact giving it out for free would be that I'm in Germany. All I could find on amazon.de so far is some other studies by NIST and those weren't exactly cheap.

Start with the "executive summaries" for each of the parts of the NIST report (NISTNCSTAR PDFs online). The summaries vary from 50 to 200 pages in length each, which is much less than reading all of the report, plus they summarize things very nicely.:)

TAM:)

[LashL]

NIST appears to have a rather unique sense of time.

If their estimates on report completion dates keep failing like this, one has to wonder about all their other estimates as well!

MM


MM seems to have a rather unique sense of reality and a rather unique manner of describing the building that he works in and those adjacent to it.

His assertions about the buildings' height, structure and provenance have long ago fallen apart (i.e. he claims that a 6 storey building is 18 storeys tall; he claims to have been in the 22nd floor stairwell of the building he works in which is only 18 storeys tall; he claims that a building erected in 1987 was erected in 1972; and he claims that the construction of the 18 storey building and the 6 storey building - both of which he claims are 22 storeys tall - were of similar construction to the WTC towers), so one certainly has to wonder about all of his other assertions as well.

LL.

[Magenta]

Started listening to the audiocast linked on the NIST site, but it sounds like last year's meeting and not this one.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACmeetingDec18_2007.htm

Anyone know where we can listen to it?


The meeting's not til next Tuesday, Kryptos. :)

[mrbaracuda]

Start with the "executive summaries" for each of the parts of the NIST report (NISTNCSTAR PDFs online). The summaries vary from 50 to 200 pages in length each, which is much less than reading all of the report, plus they summarize things very nicely.:)

TAM:)

Thanks for the advice! :o

[T.A.M.]

You are welcome. I too prefer reading the written page, but it is much cheaper to read it on the LCD display, and if you stick to the summaries, it will not take too long...you should still have some vision left.

TAM:)

[Hokulele]

Heh, true, tue. But you can always try!
Any idea how big in terms of pages the whole report will be? Oh and while we're at it: I'm interested in reading the NIST report that's out already. The 10.000 pages I read about is kind of daunting but I would still go for it. Problem is, I'd rather read it in book form. Are they giving that thing out for free or can you buy it as a 'mortal'? Another problem for me if they're in fact giving it out for free would be that I'm in Germany. All I could find on amazon.de so far is some other studies by NIST and those weren't exactly cheap.


I found that it wasn't as daunting as the 10,000 number sounds. This is the thread I started when I tackled this back in April. I am pretty sure the advice and answers are still true. :)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79736

[Mobyseven]

Too funny.

Like maybe after the 2008 Fall elections?

NIST appears to have a rather unique sense of time.

If their estimates on report completion dates keep failing like this, one has to wonder about all their other estimates as well!

MM

Yes, damn that NIST being so late with their report! They should learn how to meet deadlines that they've announced, like the good ole boys at Loose Change do!

[I Am He]

I....I....I....Got Robbed!! Mobyseven posted my reply.:D

I Am He

[qarnos]

I....I....I....Got Robbed!! Mobyseven posted my reply.:D

I Am He

So what? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3226433#post3226433)

:D

[Open Blinded]

I bet David Ray Griffin can't wait for it to come out so he can "debunk" it, LOL.

Seriously his next payday is directly linked to the release of the WTC7 NIST report.

[T.A.M.]

No, DRG isn't versed enough in the science of 9/11 to do that. He will likely wait for one of their "scientists" or "engineers" to attempt this, then he will simply quote the **** out of it.

TAM:)

[LashL]

No, DRG isn't versed enough in the science of 9/11 to do that. He will likely wait for one of their "scientists" or "engineers" to attempt this, then he will simply quote the **** out of it.

TAM:)

Or, quite possibly, the water testing guru.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Now why am I not surprised?


If I had to guess, I'd say you're not surprised, because... With all of the various scientists and engineers in the Truth Movement™ having not produced a comprehensive, investigative report in the past 6 years, you realize just how much time and effort goes into being as accurate and truthful as possible.

Or you're just being ignorant.

Once again, I have to go with Occam's Razor.

[~enigma~]

Or, quite possibly, the water testing guru.
Kevin Ryan knows nothing about physics and apparently very little about chemistry.

[eeyore1954]

Now why am I not surprised?

MM

I am surprised. They had their orders from the ???? (replace ???? with NWO , Bush , illuminati , Reptillian overlords , shadow government etc) to get a report out with a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo quickly to dispel the rumours from those pesky truthers and they failed. Now they have only given them more fodder and soon the whole plan will be uncovered because of this delay.

[LashL]

Kevin Ryan knows nothing about physics and apparently very little about chemistry.

Exactly my point. ;)

[Kryptos]

I'm on the NIST website now. Cannot listen to the audio at work, but they posted some new information:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTAC_December18(Sunder).pdf

* they reiterate the collapse hypothesis (failure below 13th floor of column and floor section due to fire, vertical progression up to the east penthouse, and horizontal progression to the entire building)
* the new date for the WTC 7 final report is August 2008, with draft reports released in July

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf

* explains in more detail, the progress of the investigation

[Kryptos]

Anyone able to listen to the webcast?

[Norseman]

Anyone able to listen to the webcast?

Yes, it worked fine listening in from Norway. I listened to the last parts of the meeting where they discussed fuel loads and long beam spans vulnerability to fire. The last was something that worried them. The consensus was that WTC 7 probably would have a greater impact on future building codes and industry practice than the WTC towers, since WTC 7 was a more normal type of fire, compared to the towers that was hit by aircrafts. According to the participant that brought up this point this was also the consensus within the industry to. The main points I think are in the pdf-files.

The public part consisted of three 5 minute statements by Richard Gage and two truther lawyers representing various truthers. Nothing new from Richard Gage and the other truhters, just recycling thermate, molten steel, free fall and within footprint nonsense.

Just some quick points straight from my head, there will be record from the meeting.

[ElMondoHummus]

The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.



Is this a mirroring of the jet fuel argument, that the diesel fuel present merely started the fires, and office contents were what was burning for the rest of the time?

That's sort of what it seems like to me.

[Norseman]

Is this a mirroring of the jet fuel argument, that the diesel fuel present merely started the fires, and office contents were what was burning for the rest of the time?

That's sort of what it seems like to me.

No, I do not think so. It only means that NIST at this stage no longer believe that diesel fuel played a significant role in the initiating event. The fuel system in WTC 7 could have pumped fuel to sustain a very localized diesel fuel fire for hours in WTC 7. So in the old working hypothesis there was a 5th floor scenario involving a possible pressurized fuel spray fire or pool fire close to a critical column in the area of the initiating event.

The fires in WTC 7 were in my view started in multiple locations on several floors by burning debris from WTC 1. In addition it is also very likely that fires could have been started by short circuits etc, including damage to the fuel system and the generators in the south west corner, caused by debris damage. Fuel stored in different areas in WTC 7 would certainly have add to the fire, but the effect would be very local.

The main effect of the aircraft fuel in the WTC towers was to create a large fireball, when the fuel tanks ruptured on impact, that initiated large fires on several floors instantly that were beyond FDNY's ability to handle. The aircraft fuel burned up within a few minutes, therefore it did not play a significant role in the heating of the steel, while as you said office content fueled the fire for the remaining time.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

http://www.chiefmontagna.com/Articles/manhole%20fires.htm

I would say something about something I have just done, but then people would just call me Crazy again.

[T.A.M.]

Well you are Crazy Chainsaw, so why would that bother you?

TAM;)

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Well you are Crazy Chainsaw, so why would that bother you?

TAM;)

In the towers the electrical conduits were built into the uninsulated metal floor pans.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc4.htm

The floor structure was then installed between the outer perimeter wall and the inner core. The floors also came in pre-assembled sections, consisting of 32-inch-deep (81-cm) trusses topped with a corrugated metal surface. To finish each floor, the crew would pour concrete over the metal surface and top it off with tile. The floor sections included pre-assembled ducts for phone lines and electrical cable, to make things easier for the electricians who would come in later. After the steel structure was in place, the crew attached the outer "skin" to the perimeter -- anodized aluminum, pre-cut into large panels.

http://www.hhrobertson.com/4-code.cfm

Consideration should be given to the type of wire used. PVC coated wire is known to give off toxic smoke if exposed to fire. For example, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey prohibits the use of PVC in the World Trade Center. If installed, removal by the tenant is required. However, PVC wire can be used in cellular systems in other buildings. Wire in cells is protected against temperatures over 265( F for up to three hours by underside fireproofing.

http://www.chiefmontagna.com/Articles/manhole%20fires.htm
1. The black smoke can at any moment suddenly ignite, exposing people and vehicles nearby. A person inside a car parked over such a manhole would be severely injured or killed should the smoke ignite as he tried to move the parked car away from the manhole.
2. The ignition can be explosive , sending the 300-pound manhole cover flying into the air. Manhole covers have been blown onto the roofs of six-story buildings and have gone up in the air only to come crashing down through the roofs of passing vehicles.

Wonder what might be possible directly over an underground electrical substation.

OH yes I did model the electrical conduits in the towers and subject them to a fire test, however no one wants to know about that though, now do they?
PS. the electrical conduits can make a large amount of micro spheres along with knocking you on your BUT, when and if they ignite.
Personal observations.

[T.A.M.]

Crazy...we are always interested in what you have to say, and your experiments/tests offer us if nothing more a lesson in courage near the point of...crazy.

Please elaborate on your findings and what direction they point you in.

TAM:)

[MaGZ]

No, I do not think so. It only means that NIST at this stage no longer believe that diesel fuel played a significant role in the initiating event. The fuel system in WTC 7 could have pumped fuel to sustain a very localized diesel fuel fire for hours in WTC 7. So in the old working hypothesis there was a 5th floor scenario involving a possible pressurized fuel spray fire or pool fire close to a critical column in the area of the initiating event.

The fires in WTC 7 were in my view started in multiple locations on several floors by burning debris from WTC 1. In addition it is also very likely that fires could have been started by short circuits etc, including damage to the fuel system and the generators in the south west corner, caused by debris damage. Fuel stored in different areas in WTC 7 would certainly have add to the fire, but the effect would be very local.

The main effect of the aircraft fuel in the WTC towers was to create a large fireball, when the fuel tanks ruptured on impact, that initiated large fires on several floors instantly that were beyond FDNY's ability to handle. The aircraft fuel burned up within a few minutes, therefore it did not play a significant role in the heating of the steel, while as you said office content fueled the fire for the remaining time.

The idea that burning debris from the collapse of WTC 1 started fires in WTC 7 is nonsense: WTC 6 yes, but not WTC 7. The flaming stories in WTC 1 tipped over onto WTC 6 creating the crater and engulfing the building in fire.

I totally reject the notion that steel and dust from WTC 1–which is what hit WTC 7–caused fires in WTC 7.

However, fires were stared in WTC 7 and they started at the same time on different floors at 9:03am.

[beachnut]

The idea that burning debris from the collapse of WTC 1 started fires in WTC 7 is nonsense: WTC 6 yes, but not WTC 7. The flaming stories in WTC 1 tipped over onto WTC 6 creating the crater and engulfing the building in fire.

I totally reject the notion that steel and dust from WTC 1–which is what hit WTC 7–caused fires in WTC 7.

However, fires were stared in WTC 7 and they started at the same time on different floors at 9:03am.
http://www.beachymon.com/photo/WTC7Hit1.jpg
I totally reject the notion that steel and dust from WTC 1–which is what hit WTC 7–caused fires in WTC 7.
Darn, you seem to be wrong on this one too.

[uk_dave]

PS. the electrical conduits can make a large amount of micro spheres along with knocking you on your BUT, when and if they ignite.
Personal observations.

Just out of curiosity........ do you have eyebrows? :D

[Dave Rogers]

I would say something about something I have just done, but then people would just call me Crazy again.

There's bad crazy and there's good crazy. I don't think any of us debunkers disagree about which one you are.

Dave

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Crazy...we are always interested in what you have to say, and your experiments/tests offer us if nothing more a lesson in courage near the point of...crazy.

Please elaborate on your findings and what direction they point you in.

TAM:)

OH just that the uninsulated conduits in the towers floor pans tend to go boom, cause molten pure zinc, molten iron oxide, Fe304, some molten Iron in small amounts, and increase the fire temperatures dramatically.
Carbon just loves hot Zinc oxide, it helps it make friends with hot iron oxide.
YOU not only have metal floor pans in the conduits ignite, but the holes created, act just like fire grates supplying air to logs in a fire place.
Now if you have similar gasses from a big oh say power substation, build up under a floor pan, and they ignite in a crippled structure over, oh say a critically damaged Cantilevered beam, I wonder what would happen?
I need more data on the floor pans and conduits though, all I have are some old photos of them, does anyone else have any information on this?

OH and the ban on PVC only makes it worse because it creates a chemicals witches brew of electrical and information wires from different providers.

Now you guys can all me Nuts, that is ok, and you might be right just had to try it to find out what would have happened.