The usual bunch is not happy with WTC 7 report, suggest revision

[Mince]

Its called research, you should try it sometime.

Kinda what I thought.

[Mince]

Hey guys! How about addressing the very important point here:

The NIST fire simulation for floor 12 does not match the photographs.

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9051/wtcfiresimcomparison080en8.jpg



Hey guy, why don't you ask the people who would actually answer your question...you know, like the people who did the analysis...NIST. You're seriously asking random people on a message board to attest to the research and analysis of NIST? Why are truthers so utterly afraid to seek answers from the people making the claims?

[DC]

Hey guy, why don't you ask the people who would actually answer your question...you know, like the people who did the analysis...NIST. You're seriously asking random people on a message board to attest to the research and analysis of NIST? Why are truthers so utterly afraid to seek answers from the people making the claims?

I would never dear to contact NIST.......

[ULTIMA1]

Hey guys! How about addressing the very important point here:


Yes, i know the NIST report is wrong. they failed to recover steel from building 7 for testing.

Also,
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf

1) No WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.

2) No unprocessed, intact floor trusses were recovered or analyzed.

3) No testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed.

4) Only 12 total core columns were recovered from WTC-1 & WTC-2 combined.

5) Of the recovered core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.

7) No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.

[ULTIMA1]

Kinda what I thought.

Just what i would expect from a believer.

[Christopher7]

Hey guy, why don't you ask the people who would actually answer your question...you know, like the people who did the analysis...NIST. You're seriously asking random people on a message board to attest to the research and analysis of NIST? Why are truthers so utterly afraid to seek answers from the people making the claims?They did. Why are you [all] unwilling to face the fact that

The NIST fire simulation for floor 12 does NOT match the photographs


via Electronic Mail: wtc@nist.gov
WTC Technical Information Repository
Attention: Mr. Stephen Cauffman
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Stop 8610
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610
September 15, 2008
Re: Public Comments on WTC 7 Draft Reports

Dear Mr. Cauffman,

I am writing on behalf of a group of scientists, scholars, engineers and building professionals who are dedicated to scientific research regarding the destruction of all three high-rise buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11, 2001. We have examined the draft reports recently released by NIST purporting to explain the demise of WTC Building 7 (collectively referred to herein as the “Report”). We have found many areas that need to be revised and re-examined by NIST personnel before they release a final report on this matter. We have provided our names and affiliations at the end of this document, in accordance with the guidelines for submittal of comments promulgated by NIST at (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/comments2008.html).

<snip>


Based on our comments below, it is readily apparent that the NIST collapse explanation relies solely on extremely suspect computer models. Furthermore, at each juncture where NIST was given the opportunity to input data into each subsequent model, NIST has chosen to use those inputs which would cause the highest temperatures and the most amount of structural damage. Therefore, the submitters of these comments hereby call on NIST to publicly release its models and modeling data so that members of the scientific community can test whether other, more reasonable, assumptions will also result in global collapse of the structure. After all, a scientific hypothesis cannot be
widely accepted unless it is repeatable by others.

Chapter 9: Fire Simulations

Contradictions between Floor 12 Fire Simulations and Other Evidence
Figure 9-11 from NCSTAR 1-9 (page 383) depicts the upper layer air
temperatures on the 12th floor fire simulation. As can be seen therein, significant fires are present across at least half of the north face of the building at 5:00pm. This part of the fire simulation presents two problems. First, it contradicts an earlier report issued by NIST regarding the fires on floor 12. Second, it contradicts NIST’s own photographic evidence of the fire activity on floor 12.

COMMENT: Appendix L to NIST’s June 2004 “Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center” contains NIST’s “Interim Report on WTC 7”. (See http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) On page L-26 of this interim report, NIST states that “Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.”

REASON FOR COMMENT: The contrast between NIST’s prior assertion that floor 12 was “burned out” by 4:45pm, and NIST’s current computer model, that shows a raging inferno at 5:00pm, could not be more apparent. This discrepancy calls into question the veracity of the Report.

SUGGESTED REVISION: This discrepancy must be acknowledged and explained in the Report. Furthermore, the photographic or other visual evidence NIST relied upon for its statement in Appendix L that floor 12 was burned out by 4:45pm must be included in the final version of its report.


You can read the entire text here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794

This thread started with a childish trashing of the "usual bunch" and their specific comments and suggestions.
There was no discussion of the facts and evidence, just a bunch of insults and stupid comments.

Ref will not directly address the discrepancy between the NIST simulation and the photographs, choosing instead to make personal comments about the authors, trying to change the subject and then just going away when cornered.

He has been replaced, as is the custom here, by a tag team ULTIMA1 and Mince who banter back and forth in an attempt to bore the reader and bury the disturbing facts that clearly show the NIST Final Draft is just "Half Baked Farce III - The Final Fantasy".

You will not address the point because you cannot deny that

The NIST fire simulation for floor 12 does NOT match the photographs

without looking like a total idiot.

[Mince]

They did. Why are you [all] unwilling to face the fact that

The NIST fire simulation for floor 12 does NOT match the photographs



via Electronic Mail: wtc@nist.gov

WTC Technical Information Repository
Attention: Mr. Stephen Cauffman
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Stop 8610
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610
September 15, 2008
Re: Public Comments on WTC 7 Draft Reports

Dear Mr. Cauffman

**edited for brevity**






Well, if NIST is unwilling/unable to answer your question, how the hell do you think random posters on a message board can answer your question?

[Christopher7]

Well, if NIST is unwilling/unable to answer your question, how the hell do you think random posters on a message board can answer your question?Truthfully

Is that asking too much?

The NIST fire simulation for floor 12 does NOT match the photographs

Can you acknowledge this?

[Grizzly Bear]

Well, if NIST is unwilling/unable to answer your question, how the hell do you think random posters on a message board can answer your question?

Of course Christopher7 will always ignore:


"Even though available images showing the fires in WTC 7 do not allow the detailed description of fire spread that was possible for WTC towers (NCSTAR 1-5A), there is sufficient information to derive general descriptions of fire ignition and spread on various floors of the building. Here, the observations of the previous two subsections are summarized. At the end of the subsection, a number of fire maps derived from specific images are provided. These maps are then utilized to derive summary maps for the east and north faces showing where fires were observed. It must be kept in mind that the fire observations are based on images of the exterior faces. These images provide little indication about the behavior of fires well removed from the exterior walls."


He doesn't grasp that photographs can't provide an accurate measure of the behavior of the fire where it was well removed from the exterior. Chris assumes that the photographs of the visible fires show the full extent, and hence the turn out of the AE911 truth model. Unfortunately, people, as well as cameras aren't born or made with x-ray vision as Chris implies to have.

Perhaps he should ask NIST why they included the caution in the first place?

[funk de fino]

Yes they were examined by FEMA (BUT NOT NIST as stated in the NIST report posted). And they found thermite like material and signs of intense heat.

You just ignore the rest of the post eh?

Very telling.

[ULTIMA1]

Very telling.


Very telling how you fail to post any facts or evidence like i can.

[Grizzly Bear]

Very telling how you fail to post any facts or evidence like i can.

Not to mention the WTC derail with some of those points of yours... if you really want to get into the twin towers we have threads for those already, this is the only time I'll respond to your claims. Any in the future realting to WTC 1 or 2 will be ignored in the confines of this thread...


Yes, i know the NIST report is wrong. they failed to recover steel from building 7 for testing.

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


1) No WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.



As I'm sure you are aware from reading this portion of the NIST documentation construction related documents do exist which provided valuable information concerning the properties of the structural steel. As mentioned in the NIST report these documents describe conventional 36, 42, and 50 KSI steel classifications. The building plans as noted in this section, called for tolled column shapes conforming to to ASTM grades: A36 and A572 Grade 50. Cover plates were specified for the heaviest plates as A 588 ggrades 42 and 50. as well as A 572 Grade 42. Having studied this subject before I can confirm NIST's noting of there being extensive literature base on the properties of these steels.

I believe goes on to explain how this information was used in the investigation. The performance can be very well approximated if they know the specifications for what steel was used.


2) No unprocessed, intact floor trusses were recovered or analyzed.
With respect to WTC 7 I believe that the above response will suffice

3) No testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed.

On the contrary, they did consider the possible use of explosives on the summary page: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

"The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1.

The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a “sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,” yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos.

As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced “large amounts of visible smoke” from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed."


Future attempts to discuss WTC 1&2 shall be addresses in an apporopriate thread...

4) Only 12 total core columns were recovered from WTC-1 & WTC-2 combined.

5) Of the recovered core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.

7) No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.

First of all, the section you took this information from talks about perimeter columns (16 recovered, Of them, 9 located in the fire/impact floors of WTC 2 were determined not to have been directly exposed. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels; however as NIST notes these only represent 3 percent of the perimeter columns of the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on those floors. It states that of the locations examined only three had evidence that the steel reached 250 oC

NIST then specifies these locations, you should be aware of these having read the report

They report similarly for two recovered core columns.

The temperature which the steel reached would have been greatly influenced by location with reference to the impact and fire regions. Why am I not surprised you take these as representative of the whole, that you do, is a rather important issue that you yourself need to resolve. :rolleyes:

If you'd like to continue the WTC 1 & 2 related discussion might I suggest you either find one of those threads or make a new one... I would like to avoid derailing this one, Chris, and others would appreciate it if these derails were avoided.

[ULTIMA1]

As I'm sure you are aware from reading this portion of the NIST documentation construction related documents do exist which provided valuable information concerning the properties of the structural steel. .

Did NIST recover any steel for testing, YES or NO?

Simple question.

[funk de fino]

Very telling how you fail to post any facts or evidence like i can.

I did, you cut them out because you could not reply to them

Very telling, as I said

[funk de fino]

Did NIST recover any steel for testing, YES or NO?

Simple question.

For WTC7 they had no steel to test. So NO

Was the steel from WTC7 inspected at the sorting stations by demo teams, forensic investigators and public officials prior to being shipped or melted down?

YES or NO?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

More than anything, this shows the worthlessness of the twoof movement. "The usual suspects" list, if there was ANYTHING to their retarded claims, would have grown by leaps and bounds over the years.

Yet it doesn't. Just the same names promoting the same garbage with a few new bells and whistles to an ever-dwindling pack of lapdogs. If I didn't get such a sick pleasure out of laughing at idiocy I'd really feel sorry for the whole lot of them. :p

I'd rather look for the truth and be laughed at than suffer from superiority complex which requires me to hide amongst the safety of others like me.

[beachnut]

I'd rather look for the truth and be laughed at than suffer from superiority complex which requires me to hide amongst the safety of others like me.


7 years and you have uncovered zero evidence zero truth. Good for you. No one is laughing at you.

How long does it take to get PhD? You wasted 7 years looking for the truth you wanted, not the truth that is there. You have a big zero for evidence. What is that called? Looking for truth? Failure is a better term

[UNLoVedRebel]

Did NIST recover any steel for testing, YES or NO?

Simple question.

Did NIST recover any steel for testing for the Seattle Kingdome? How can we confirm that was a controlled demolition? How do you know explosives weren't used to bring down the Oakland Freeway Overpass? No testing was ever done.

[ULTIMA1]

7 years and you have uncovered zero evidence zero truth.


7 years and youy still believe the official story with no real evidence to support it and more and more evidence that questions it.

When are you ever going to face reallity and stop living in a media fed fantasy world?

[ULTIMA1]

Did NIST recover any steel for testing for the Seattle Kingdome? How can we confirm that was a controlled demolition? How do you know explosives weren't used to bring down the Oakland Freeway Overpass? No testing was ever done.

Thanks for showing again my point about believers.

Makes you look real childish not being able to answer a smple question.

[Grizzly Bear]

7 years and you still believe the official story with no real evidence to support it and more and more evidence that questions it.
Given the posts I've seen from you in other threads, I don't consider you credible... 7 Years and you're still bringing up material that was discussed in 2002... There's no evidence of your precious explosives, no loud bangs were observed during the collapse:

SIbqaybkbWI

LD06SAf0p9A

so what did you want residue testing for? What information due you demand which you believe will not be revealed by understanding the material properties of the type of steel used in the construction?


Makes you look real childish not being able to answer a simple question.

I believe your question to me has been answered already... will you answer this question?

Was the steel from WTC7 inspected at the sorting stations by demo teams, forensic investigators and public officials prior to being shipped or melted down?

YES or NO?

[Christopher7]

Of course Christopher7 will always ignore:



NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 242

"Even though available images showing the fires in WTC 7 do not allow the detailed description of fire spread that was possible for WTC towers (NCSTAR 1-5A), there is sufficient information to derive general descriptions of fire ignition and spread on various floors of the building. It is not necessary to have x-ray vision to derive a general description of fire spread. It just takes common sense and a little patience to see all that the available data tells us.

NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 242

Here, the observations of the previous two subsections are summarized. At the end of the subsection, a number of fire maps derived from specific images are provided.


These maps are then utilized to derive summary maps for the east and north faces showing where fires were observed. It must be kept in mind that the fire observations are based on images of the exterior faces. These images provide little indication about the behavior of fires well removed from the exterior walls."

This is double talk. By including the words "well removed" they suggest the photos of the fire on the perimeter give little indication of the progression of the internal movement. Such is not the case.



NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg Pg 245

[emphasis mine]

12th Floor
The first observation of a fire on the 12th floor was on the east face around 2:08 p.m.
<snip>
By around 2:30 p.m., the intense flames originally seen on the east face were dying down, while the fire had spread south into the southeast corner and as far north as window 12-38, two-thirds of the way to the northeast corner.
The next time an image showed fire on the 12th floor was just before 3:00 p.m., when flames were observed between windows 12-44C and 12-45C, east of center on the north face. The fire had apparently bypassed the northeast corner of the floor and spread internally to the north face. In less than 15 min, the fire on the north face spread rapidly to the east to fully engulf the northeast corner of the floor and more slowly to the west, reaching as far as column 47.NCSTAR 1A pg 17

"After about 15 min, the ceiling tile system would have failed from the heat, and the hot air would have flowed over the office wall. Soon the hot air would fail the ceiling of an adjacent office, and eventually the thermal radiation would ignite the contents in this office. Fire spread would have been similar for offices separated by a corridor, although this would have taken longer,"

The NIST fire simulation for 2:00 p.m. shows fire in the central offices around column 81. This is actually where the fire was at about 1:30 p.m.

[overlay by Ref]



http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/871/fireoverlay2nd0.jpg (http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/871/fireoverlay2nd0.jpg)



The fire in the central offices around column 81 would spread to the north a little faster than it did to the east because it had to cross a corridor in to reach the east side.

The fire would have burned north beyond column 80 by 2:08 p.m. when it was first seen on the east side.
By 2:11 p.m. there was fire across 64* feet of the east face. [* 140/13=10.77x6=64]

Therefore: The fire approached from the west on a broad front. [60 feet or more]

The fire would also be burning on a broad front toward the north wall.

All the offices in the section around column 80 would be involved by this time.

By 2:11 p.m., the broken windows gave the perimeter fire better air flow and allowed it to burn faster than the internal fire, which had to cross a corridor to reach the offices around column 79.



By 2:30 p.m., the fire had progressed 2 more columns or about 21 feet along the east face.

The internal fire would have crossed the corridor to the offices surrounding column 79.



At about 3:00 p.m., fire first appeared on the north face between columns 44 and 45.

Within 15 minutes it had spread to the north east corner and west to beyond column 47. [over 100 feet]

Therefore, the fire approached from the south on a broad curved front of up to 100 feet as would be expected.



Since the fires burned for about 20 to 30 minutes in any location, the area around columns 79 and 44 had burned out by about 3:30 or 3:45 at the latest.



You don't need an electronic computer to figure this out, you can use the one between your ears, but of course, you have to turn it on first.



The NIST computer fire simulation does NOT match the photographs!

Garbage out means they put garbage in.

[Mince]

You don't need an electronic computer to figure this out Yeah, and you don't need to be a physician to do a coronary artery bypass and graft. It's just common sense dude.


...you can use the one between your ears, but of course, you have to turn it on first.

I suggest you start doing so.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I'd rather look for the truth and be laughed at than suffer from superiority complex which requires me to hide amongst the safety of others like me.
7 years and you have uncovered zero evidence zero truth. Good for you. No one is laughing at you.
How long does it take to get PhD? You wasted 7 years looking for the truth you wanted, not the truth that is there. You have a big zero for evidence. What is that called? Looking for truth? Failure is a better term.

Strange reply.

I don't recall ever claiming to have spent any time looking for any truth.

You say "not the truth that is there"

So what truth is that? Why not reveal it to us all then? After all it would end these endless debates and arguments about who and how the 911 attacks orchestrated, etc.

I don't claim to have any truths. I don't know who orchestrated or carried out the 911 carnage. Only the people who did and t heir close associates know who did it. No one else does. The rest of us can only make up our minds based upon what's being offered, and not being offered. There's too many anomalies to make a firm decision.

For example ..... The collapse of WTC7. Even the latest NIST report doesn't account for how 50 odd outer columns all failed at exactly the same time. it tries to explain it, but fails miserably.

And really... 3 unprecedented collapses of steel framed buildings due to fire in one day when it had never happened before. Are you surprised many people aren't buying the 'official' theories.

But you are right about failure. The time I have spent looking for the truth of 911 I have indeed failed so far. I admit that.

But you have to admit that you have also failed because you don't know the truth anymore than I do

[Tin Foil Timothy]

You don't need an electronic computer to figure this out, you can use the one between your ears, but of course, you have to turn it on first.


It's simply impossible for all 50 odd outer columns to have failed all at the same time ( Which was necessary for the 'straight down' collapse ) due to either the collateral damage from a falling tower or fires.

The completely asymmetrical nature of this damage could not have caused a symmetrical collapse. Anyone who believes otherwise is either in denial or covering something up.

[Mince]

I don't claim to have any truths. I don't know who orchestrated or carried out the 911 carnage. Only the people who did and t heir close associates know who did it. No one else does.

Thank you. Can you tell this to Alex Jones?

And it wasn't "just fires." What a huge omission and oversimplification.

[Mince]

The completely asymmetrical nature of this damage could not have caused a symmetrical collapse.

I have very little education in physics. Could you explain this to me in great detail, since you obviously have such an understanding of the collapse. Please don't spare the heavy calculations, long words or complex priniciples that surely must be involved. I can take it.

[TexasJack]

And really... 3 unprecedented collapses of steel framed buildings due to fire in one day when it had never happened before. Are you surprised many people aren't buying the 'official' theories.



Why do truthers always omit the fact that WTC 1 and 2 were taken down by impact and fires? Why do they always omit the debris damage of WTC 7 from WTC 1? Why is it that the most prominent structural engineers don't have a problem in which the towers fell, but unqualified truthers do?

Yes they were unprecedented collapses, but it was also an unprecedented event.

[Christopher7]

You don't need an electronic computer to figure this out, you can use the one between your ears, but of course, you have to turn it on first.
Yeah, and you don't need to be a physician to do a coronary artery bypass and graft. It's just common sense dude.This is not heart surgery.

...you can use the one between your ears, but of course, you have to turn it on first.
I suggest you start doing so.
You ignored the subject and made a couple stupid comments.

Please take a few minutes, read the following and post an intelligent reply.

The NIST fire simulation for 2:00 p.m. shows fire in the central offices around column 81. This is actually where the fire was at about 1:30 p.m.

[overlay by Ref]

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/871/fireoverlay2nd0.jpg

The fire in the central offices around column 81 would spread to the north a little faster than it did to the east because it had to cross a corridor in to reach the east side.



The fire would have burned north beyond column 80 by 2:08 p.m. by the time it was first seen on the east side.

By 2:11 p.m. there was fire across 64* feet of the east face. [* 140/13=10.77x6=64]

Therefore: The fire approached from the west on a broad front. [60 feet or more]



The fire would also be burning on a broad front toward the north wall.

All the offices in the section around column 80 would be involved by this time.

[Christopher7]

It's simply impossible for all 50 odd outer columns to have failed all at the same time ( Which was necessary for the 'straight down' collapse ) due to either the collateral damage from a falling tower or fires.

The completely asymmetrical nature of this damage could not have caused a symmetrical collapse. Anyone who believes otherwise is either in denial or covering something up.You have ignored the point and tried to change the subject.

Please take a few minutes, read my last post and say whether or not you agree.

[Mince]

This is not heart surgery.


You ignored the subject and made a couple stupid comments.







Yeah, because the chemistry of fires and the physics of building collapses is soooo much less complex than heart surgery.

You were saying something about "stupid comments"?

I'm not going to debate such a complex topic when, like you, I have no understanding of the subject matter. You're just parroting something you read on a website. It fits your beliefs, so you blindly run with it.

[Dave Rogers]

It's simply impossible for all 50 odd outer columns to have failed all at the same time ( Which was necessary for the 'straight down' collapse ) due to either the collateral damage from a falling tower or fires.

If you look at videos of the collapse from the north, it's immediately obvious that the outer columns didn't fail all at the same time. There is a very clear kink in the centre of the north wall, and this makes it clear that the columns in the centre of the wall failed before those at the outside. This caused an overload of the adjacent columns, which then also failed. This is what's known as lateral progressive failure. It's a very fast process, as it progresses at the speed of an elastic wave in steel, but it's not instantaneous. All that the relatively straight collapse required was for the columns to fail at roughly the same time at both sides of the building, and this was a near-certainty given the point of origin of the progressive failure.

Dave

[Christopher7]

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9051/wtcfiresimcomparison080en8.jpg

[Christopher7]

Yeah, because the chemistry of fires and the physics of building collapses is soooo much less complex than heart surgery. We are not talking about the chemistry of fire, we are talking abut the progression of the fire. This can be determined from the photographs as i have done.

The NIST fire simulation for 2:00 p.m. shows fire in the central offices around column 81. This is actually where the fire was at about 1:30 p.m.

[overlay by Ref]

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/871/fireoverlay2nd0.jpg

The fire in the central offices around column 81 would spread to the north a little faster than it did to the east because it had to cross a corridor in to reach the east side.

The fire would have burned north beyond column 80 by 2:08 p.m. when it was first seen on the east side.
By 2:11 p.m. there was fire across 64* feet of the east face. [* 140/13=10.77x6=64]

Therefore: The fire approached from the west on a broad front. [60 feet or more]

The fire would also be burning on a broad front toward the north wall.

All the offices in the section around column 80 would be involved by this time.

By 2:11 p.m., the broken windows gave the perimeter fire better air flow and allowed it to burn faster than the internal fire, which had to cross a corridor to reach the offices around column 79.



By 2:30 p.m., the fire had progressed 2 more columns or about 21 feet along the east face.

The internal fire would have crossed the corridor to the offices surrounding column 79.



At about 3:00 p.m., fire first appeared on the north face between columns 44 and 45.

Within 15 minutes it had spread to the north east corner and west to beyond column 47. [over 100 feet]

Therefore, the fire approached from the south on a broad curved front of up to 100 feet as would be expected.



Since the fires burned for about 20 to 30 minutes in any location, the area around columns 79 and 44 had burned out by about 3:30 or 3:45 at the latest.

Please say where you disagree with this analysis and why.

I'm not going to debate such a complex topic when, like you, I have no understanding of the subject matter. Stop saying that this is complex, it is not. The fuel load was consistent. The restrictions were consistent. It is clear from the photographs that the fires burned from the south side to the north side and then to the west.

[Grizzly Bear]

NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 242
It is not necessary to have x-ray vision to derive a general description of fire spread. It just takes common sense and a little patience to see all that the available data tells us.

Look up the definition of general:

Applying to all or most members of a category or group; "the general public"; "general assistance"; "a general rule"; "in general terms ...
Not specialized or limited to one class of things; "general studies"; "general knowledge"


That aside I'm not claiming that "x-ray vision" is required for the general spread of fire. The photos indeed show a general progression of the fires from one face to the next. The photos can provide a general idea of which way the fires spread, however -- and this is where I was going with "X-ray vision" -- the photos do not provide information which is obstructed from view. If a fire is well removed from the exterior, behind a partition, or behind a wall beyond view of the cameras then no detailed information on the fire's progression. This is an issue which models can approximate, but without visuals models are at best estimations.

As for your common sense nudge.... Unfortunately Chris, there's rarely such a thing as "common sense" in an argument. If the idea is so obvious then why include the second sentence? Why do you have to spell it out? Because "use common sense" actually means "pay attention, I am about to tell you something that inexperienced people often get wrong."



NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 242
<snip>
This is double talk. By including the words "well removed" they suggest the photos of the fire on the perimeter give little indication of the progression of the internal movement. Such is not the case.:
You followed with [content in italics has been added in from the reports'' content]:

12th Floor
The first observation of a fire on the 12th floor was on the east face around 2:08 p.m. A clear view of this face at 2:11 p.m. showed flames coming from windows 12-29 to 12-34 on the south side of the face, with window 12-35 open. Glass was still in place in windows 12-28A and 12-28B at the south edge indicating that the fire had spread south into the southeast corner and as far north as window 12-38, 2/3 of the way to the northeast corner

By around 2:30 p.m., the intense flames originally seen on the east face were dying down, while the fire had spread south into the southeast corner and as far north as window 12-38, two-thirds of the way to the northeast corner.
The next time an image showed fire on the 12th floor was just before 3:00 p.m., when flames were observed between windows 12-44C and 12-45C, east of center on the north face. The fire had apparently bypassed the northeast corner of the floor and spread internally to the north face. In less than 15 min, the fire on the north face spread rapidly to the east to fully engulf the northeast corner of the floor and more slowly to the west, reaching as far as column 47.

I've left your emphasis in. My emphasis is in red.

Apparently: from appearances alone; "irrigation often produces bumper crops from apparently desert land";

Something to take note of here. Nearly all of the observations in this excerpt are based on visible flames near the exterior of the building. As stated prior, a general spread was apparent based on the visible fires from one face of 7 world trade center to the next. The photos do not tell us in detail how the fires spread, inside a footprint the size of a soccer field. If you've got some kind of special vision you're not telling me about, then cough it up...

Contrary to what you claim, this isn't "deliberately unintelligible gibberish". NIST makes a reasonable point in stating that the photographic evidence while sufficient for an overall assessment of the fires, does not provide much in the way of detailed information regarding fires well removed. Your cherry-picking of this content is quite obnoxious...



Here is the other excerpt you posted, I've left the emphasis you added intact and added what you left out for context:

"On those floors that were mostly subdivided into offices (such as floors 11 and 12), the fire would have grown within a single office, reaching flashover in several minutes.After about 15 min, the ceiling tile system would have failed from the heat, and the hot air would have flowed over the office wall. Soon the hot air would fail the ceiling of an adjacent office, and eventually the thermal radiation would ignite the contents in this office. Fire spread would have been similar for offices separated by a corridor, although this would have taken longer,"

Once again, NIST is applying a generalized model for how the fire would have spread inside a builing like WTC 7. If you read the page preceding this one where you retrieved the content you would have also read the following:

"On the floors which were mostly furnished with clusters of cubicles (such as floors 7 & 8), the initial fire spread would have been by flame contact with an adjacent cubicle within the cluster. Once a cluster was burning, a nearby cubicle, across an aisle, could have been ignited by thermal radiation from the flames, the prior cluster would have passed its peak burning rate. The path of the fires would likely have jumped from cluster to cluster, meandering toward the windows, toward the building core, or parallel to the facade. Eventually, the upper air layer over enough of the large open space woould have become hot enough for themal radiation from the hot air to have heated and ignited multiple cubicles simultaneously, leading to faster fire growth."

NIST provided a generalized method of fire spread to floors with similar contents. However, fires on such floors spread differently, and in some cases in different time frames, it's obvious NIST understands in general how the fire could spread, however as they rightfully note the photographic evidence does not provide detailed information to demonstrate fire behavior on the floors in question where visuals are not available.



The NIST fire simulation for 2:00 p.m. shows fire in the central offices around column 81. This is actually where the fire was at about 1:30 p.m. [/LEFT]
[overlay by Ref]

If you don't mind I've completely overlayed the 2 PM fire model over the floor plan

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/6274/wtcpl6.jpg


The fire in the central offices around column 81 would spread to the north a little faster than it did to the east because it had to cross a corridor in to reach the east side.

The fire would have burned north beyond column 80 by 2:08 p.m. when it was first seen on the east side.
With all due respect, your speculating based on a very general model which NIST intended as an aid to understanding how the fire would spread. It was not intended as an absolute model for how the fire actually spread in the true application. Of course I find it rather ironic that, given you consider the NIST model unfitting of credibility to this, that you're using it to corroborate your claim.



By 2:11 p.m. there was fire across 64* feet of the east face. [* 140/13=10.77x6=64]

Therefore: The fire approached from the west on a broad front. [60 feet or more]

The fire would also be burning on a broad front toward the north wall.[/LEFT]

All the offices in the section around column 80 would be involved by this time.

By 2:11 p.m., the broken windows gave the perimeter fire better air flow and allowed it to burn faster than the internal fire, which had to cross a corridor to reach the offices around column 79.

By 2:30 p.m., the fire had progressed 2 more columns or about 21 feet along the east face.

The internal fire would have crossed the corridor to the offices surrounding column 79.

At about 3:00 p.m., fire first appeared on the north face between columns 44 and 45.

Within 15 minutes it had spread to the north east corner and west to beyond column 47. [over 100 feet]

Therefore, the fire approached from the south on a broad curved front of up to 100 feet as would be expected.

To add to my previous response...
A word of caution, particularly in regard to your scaling of the plan. Unless the scale is provided in the plan, I would suggest that you avoid trying to scale the image yourself.

[Norseman]

On this page NIST has provided an animation of their WTC 7 floor 12 fire simulation:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html

The animation shows how the fire in the simulation moves along the offices close to the exterior, where the fire would have easy accesses oxygen. Later on it moves into the interior offices.

[Norseman]

Another factor worth pointing out that would have affected the behavior of the WTC 7 floor fires was the wind that day. The wind blew from the northwest towards the southeast. This caused the fires to mainly ventilate through the east face and south face exterior windows of WTC 7. Something that is very evident in the available photographs.

One effect of this would be that when the fire on floor 12 broke the windows on the north face of WTC 7, the wind would push very hot combustion gases across the floor towards the area of column 79, 80 and 81. So even if this area burned out at an early stage, it is still a possibility that this area continued to be heated by fires to the northwest on floor 12. It does not look like the effect of wind was a part of the simulation. In the simulation it looks like the fires vented evenly along the faces of the building as it progressed.

Another likely effect of the wind, in the case that the fire initially bypassed the interior offices in the area of column 79, 80 and 81, would be that combustion gases from any fires along the north face of floor 12, would limit the oxygen supply to any fires in the area of the mentioned columns.

Another effect of the wind would be to "hide" the presence of fires in the interior of floor 12 along the north face of WTC 7, since any smoke from these fires would be ventilated through the east and south face of the building. As pointed out several times in this thread, floor 12 was heavily compartmentalized with single office compartments, so any fires in the interior would be out of view.

Just some points worth considering.

[Norseman]

Even if the fires in the area of column 79, 80 and 81 burned out at an relatively early stage during the afternoon, that does not mean that building would be out of danger. If this was the case there would still have been a long cooling phase that could have triggered the final initiating event.

In this keynote professor John E. Breen (http://www.utexas.edu/research/fsel/people/bio/breen.html) points to possibility that this happened inside WTC 5:
http://www.iwb.uni-stuttgart.de/symposium/download/keynote1.pdf

It is covered on page 34 - 40. As pointed out:
Largest connection forces may occur
during cooling phase of fire.


Former FDNY Battalion Chief Arthur Scheuerman discusses a possible cooling phase initiating event in WTC 7 in his 2006 paper to NIST:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf

Here from a research grant to the University of Edinburgh (http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/E010083/1):
Understanding structural behaviour of buildings during a fire is accepted as being essential to make full use of the recently introduced performance-based design codes. However, currently the behaviour of buildings during the cooling phase of a fire is poorly understood. Evidence from full-scale tests and real fires has shown that collapse of buildings can occur during the cooling stage of the fire, which can compromise the safety of firefighters and the public in the proximity of the building.


The interested reader will find much more on this by googling for instance the keywords:
"fire structural collapse cooling phase steel" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=nb-no&q=fire+structural+collapse+cooling+phase+steel&start=10&sa=N)

One might possibly criticize NIST for stopping short of the cooling phase.

In my view it is high time for C7 and his likes to quit flogging their long dead horse of controlled demolition. I will leave it to others with more time and patients to continue the discussion if necessary, and to elaborate on this.

[Christopher7]

If you don't mind I've completely overlayed the 2 PM fire model over the floor plan

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/6274/wtcpl6.jpg


With all due respect, your speculating based on a very general model which NIST intended as an aid to understanding how the fire would spread. It was not intended as an absolute model for how the fire actually spread in the true application. Of course I find it rather ironic that, given you consider the NIST model unfitting of credibility to this, that you're using it to corroborate your claim. I used the 2:00 p.m. graphic because it is consistent with the evidence of where the fire was at about 1:30 p.m.

NIST Part IIC – WTC 7 Collapse April 5, 2005:
Observed Fire Locations (11:30-2:30 pm)
Looking from southeast corner to the south face
Fire on floor 12 (1) area above covered with smoke
Fire on floors 11-12 (1) moved to east face and progressed to the north
(1) fires reported on floor 14, but photographs showed east face fires on floor 12

NCSTAR 1-9 vol1 pg 245
The first observation of a fire on the 12th floor was on the east face around 2:08 p.m.




*As the fire seen on the south face burned to the east, it would also be burning to the north.

To add to my previous response...
A word of caution, particularly in regard to your scaling of the plan. Unless the scale is provided in the plan, I would suggest that you avoid trying to scale the image yourself. Thank you for bringing that up. Figure L-5 in the NIST L report has the columns numbered and there are 15, not 14, on the east side as the floor plan graphic shows.

The floor beams and columns on the east side were 10' o.c. [140/14=10x6=60]

*The fire on the east face was burning across a 60' front a few minutes after it was first observed.



*Do you agree or disagree?

[Christopher7]

Another factor worth pointing out that would have affected the behavior of the WTC 7 floor fires was the wind that day. The wind blew from the northwest towards the southeast. This caused the fires to mainly ventilate through the east face and south face exterior windows of WTC 7. Something that is very evident in the available photographs.

One effect of this would be that when the fire on floor 12 broke the windows on the north face of WTC 7, the wind would push very hot combustion gases across the floor towards the area of column 79, 80 and 81.Good point.
As the fire burned along the north face, the air flow would have spread the fire to the area around column 79.

So even if this area burned out at an early stage, it is still a possibility that this area continued to be heated by fires to the northwest on floor 12. It does not look like the effect of wind was a part of the simulation. In the simulation it looks like the fires vented evenly along the faces of the building as it progressed.

Another likely effect of the wind, in the case that the fire initially bypassed the interior offices in the area of column 79, 80 and 81, would be that combustion gases from any fires along the north face of floor 12, would limit the oxygen supply to any fires in the area of the mentioned columns.The breeze had no effect until the fire broke the windows on the east face.
The fire could not have bypassed the interior offices because it had to burn through those offices to get to the east face on a 60' wide front.

[Mince]

Christopher7, your speculation is underwhelming. You don't know what the fires are doing inside the building, which the pictures don't show.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, your speculation is underwhelming. You don't know what the fires are doing inside the building, which the pictures don't show.You are saying that we cannot deduce anything about the fire progression inside the building. Such is not the case.

Please say weather or not you agree with the 2 *statements in post #289.

[Grizzly Bear]

*Do you agree or disagree?


I would highlight my last response (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4107902&postcount=285) to you as it deals with this question already. You glazed right over a good chunk of it which has the answer to your question

[peteweaver]

Has anyone had a stove with a glass window?
When the glass gets sooted up, you can't see the fire behind it. Even when its quite fierce.

Just because fire can't be seen through a window in a burning building, it doesn't mean there's not fire behind that window. Hence NIST's diagrams are accurate and a&e's truth deniers are wrong again.

[Christopher7]

I would highlight my last response (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4107902&postcount=285) to you as it deals with this question already. You glazed right over a good chunk of it which has the answer to your question Your statements were generalized.

Please respond to these simple statements directly.

1) As the fire seen on the south face burned to the east, it would also be burning to the north.

2) The fire on the east face was burning across a 60' front a few minutes after it was first observed.

Do you agree or disagree?

[Grizzly Bear]

Your statements were generalized.
They were quite specific to the nature of what you're asking about. You have argued thus far that the fire's progression can be tracked based on the visual information. This is the answer which I gave you:


Look up the definition of general:

Applying to all or most members of a category or group; "the general public"; "general assistance"; "a general rule"; "in general terms ...
Not specialized or limited to one class of things; "general studies"; "general knowledge"


That aside I'm not claiming that "x-ray vision" is required for the general spread of fire. The photos indeed show a general progression of the fires from one face to the next. The photos can provide a general idea of which way the fires spread. , however -- and this is where I was going with "X-ray vision" -- the photos do not provide information which is obstructed from view. If a fire is well removed from the exterior, behind a partition, or behind a wall beyond view of the cameras then no detailed information on the fire's progression. This is an issue which models can approximate, but without visuals models are at best estimations.

From here we'll lead up to you first question:

1) As the fire seen on the south face burned to the east, it would also be burning to the north.
The fires were observed along the north facing facade of the building later in the day. It would indicate that the fire migrated in that general direction over time, however specific patterns of spread inside the structure cannot be determined based on visual aids alone. Hence:


the photos do not provide information which is obstructed from view. If a fire is well removed from the exterior, behind a partition, or behind a wall beyond view of the cameras then no detailed information on the fire's progression [can be determined].
And rephrasing the models are capable of estimating this behavior, but that's about the best information which can be obtained for something which no additional detailed information can be determined.


2) The fire on the east face was burning across a 60' front a few minutes after it was first observed.

One could surmise that the fire spread in the direction of the east facade (to correlate with the 2:08 visuals) if one assumes that the 2:00 PM model is spot on. Your scaling however in this context would be irrelevant.

This application of surmising the fires spread however is the same method which NIST applied in the excerpt I posted before:

12th Floor


The first observation of a fire on the 12th floor was on the east face around 2:08 p.m. A clear view of this face at 2:11 p.m. showed flames coming from windows 12-29 to 12-34 on the south side of the face, with window 12-35 open. Glass was still in place in windows 12-28A and 12-28B at the south edge indicating that the fire had spread south into the southeast corner and as far north as window 12-38, 2/3 of the way to the northeast corner

By around 2:30 p.m., the intense flames originally seen on the east face were dying down, while the fire had spread south into the southeast corner and as far north as window 12-38, two-thirds of the way to the northeast corner.
The next time an image showed fire on the 12th floor was just before 3:00 p.m., when flames were observed between windows 12-44C and 12-45C, east of center on the north face. The fire had apparently bypassed the northeast corner of the floor and spread internally to the north face. In less than 15 min, the fire on the north face spread rapidly to the east to fully engulf the northeast corner of the floor and more slowly to the west, reaching as far as column 47.

Reposting this leads straight back to this response:


Apparently: from appearances alone; "irrigation often produces bumper crops from apparently desert land";

Something to take note of here. Nearly all of the observations in this excerpt are based on visible flames near the exterior of the building. As stated prior, a general spread was apparent based on the visible fires from one face of 7 world trade center to the next. The photos do not tell us in detail how the fires spread, inside a footprint the size of a soccer field. If you've got some kind of special vision you're not telling me about, then cough it up...

Contrary to what you claim, this isn't "deliberately unintelligible gibberish". NIST makes a reasonable point in stating that the photographic evidence while sufficient for an overall assessment of the fires, does not provide much in the way of detailed information regarding fires well removed. Your cherry-picking of this content is quite obnoxious...

[Christopher7]

They were quite specific to the nature of what you're asking about. You have argued thus far that the fire's progression can be tracked based on the visual information. This is the answer which I gave you:

From here we'll lead up to you first question:

The fires were observed along the north facing facade of the building later in the day. It would indicate that the fire migrated in that general direction over time, however specific patterns of spread inside the structure cannot be determined based on visual aids alone. Hence:

And rephrasing the models are capable of estimating this behavior, but that's about the best information which can be obtained for something which no additional detailed information can be determined.That was a rather lengthy way of getting around to a simple "yes".

I do not claim to know the "specific patterns" of the fire, just the "general direction" which was north and east.

One could surmise that the fire spread in the direction of the east facade (to correlate with the 2:08 visuals) if one assumes that the 2:00 PM model is spot on. I did not assume that the 2:00 p.m. model was "spot on". On the contrary, I have stated that the NIST model is way off.

Your scaling however in this context would be irrelevant. The 2 statements did NOT involve scale.


You did NOT answer the second question:

2) The fire on the east face was burning across a 60' front a few minutes after it was first observed.

Do you agree or disagree?

[Christopher7]

12th Floor
The first observation of a fire on the 12th floor was on the east face around 2:08 p.m.Actually, the first observation of a fire on the 12th floor was on the south face.



WTC IIC 4-5-05
11:30-2:30 p.m.

Looking from southeast corner to the south face

Fire on floor 12 area above covered with smoke

Fire on floors 11-12 moved to east face and progressed to the north



NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 245 [corrections & comments mine]

The first observation photograph of a fire on the 12th floor was on the east face around 2:08 p.m. A clear view of this face at 2:11 p.m. showed flames coming from windows 12-29 to 12-34 on the south side of the face, with window 12-35 open. Glass was still in place in windows 12-28A and 12-28B at the south edge, indicating that the fire likely had bypassed the southeast corner as it moved from the south face onto the east. By around 2:30 p.m., the intense flames originally seen on the east face were dying down, while the fire had spread south into the southeast corner and as far north as window 12-38, two-thirds of the way to the northeast corner.



Fire on floors 11-12 moved to east face

the fire bypassed the southeast corner as it moved from the south face onto the east

through the interior to an area centered on column 32 - about 40 feet from the south side



By around 2:30 p.m. the fire had spread south into the southeast corner and as far north as window 12-38

Had the fire started in the south side offices, it would have reached the south east corner before the office 40 feet from the south corner.

Therefore the fire started in the interior office section.

A fire originating in or passing through the offices around column 81, would result in the fire progression observed on the south and east faces.



You have not responded to statement 2 yet.

Will anyone here acknowledge thesefacts and statements?

[Christopher7]

By around 2:30 p.m., the intense flames originally seen on the east face were dying down, while the fire had spread south into the southeast corner and as far north as window 12-38, two-thirds of the way to the northeast corner.



http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/3812/eastfireprogressionqc0.jpg
(http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/2643/228pmkx8.jpg)

The photographs show beyond any doubt that the fire approached the east face from the central office section in the area of column 81.



It can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that the fire spread to the north at about the same rate as it spread to the east.



http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3025/firesim210pmld0.png (http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3025/firesim210pmld0.png)


*

[Christopher7]

Mince, Dave, Grizzly, Norseman

Will any of you acknowledge this self evident fact?

The photographs show beyond any doubt that the fire approached the east face from the central office section in the area of column 81.

[Dave Rogers]

Mince, Dave, Grizzly, Norseman

Will any of you acknowledge this self evident fact?

The photographs show beyond any doubt that the fire approached the east face from the central office section in the area of column 81.

In the absence of interior photos showing the fire actually present in the central office section in the area of column 81, then it's clearly not self-evident. Therefore, no, I don't acknowledge that your speculation as to the progress of the fire is necessarily more accurate than NIST's computer modelling.

Dave

[Christopher7]

In the absence of interior photos showing the fire actually present in the central office section in the area of column 81, then it's clearly not self-evident. Therefore, no, I don't acknowledge that your speculation as to the progress of the fire is necessarily more accurate than NIST's computer modelling.

DaveMy graphic in post 299 and the NIST model are the same in that the fire approached the east face from the center section of offices.
The only difference is the NIST computer model is off on the time.

As the fire burned toward the east face, it was also burning through the center section toward column 79.

Do you agree?

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/4117/wtcfiresimcomparison080fm5.jpg

The NIST 3:00 p.m. graphic shows the fire on the south half of the east face.
The photo taken at 2:28 shows that entire area on fire and therefore it would have burned out by 3:00 p.m.

Do you agree?

[funk de fino]

My graphic in post 299 and the NIST model are the same in that the fire approached the east face from the center section of offices.
The only difference is the NIST computer model is off on the time.

As the fire burned toward the east face, it was also burning through the center section toward column 79.

Do you agree?

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/4117/wtcfiresimcomparison080fm5.jpg

The NIST 3:00 p.m. graphic shows the fire on the south half of the east face.
The photo taken at 2:28 shows that entire area on fire and therefore it would have burned out by 3:00 p.m.

Do you agree?

Do you agree that none of the pictures in the WTC reports or appendix have been faked?

[Christopher7]

Do you agree that none of the pictures in the WTC reports or appendix have been faked?Nice try at changing the subject.

Will you answer the questions directly?

[funk de fino]

Nice try at changing the subject.

Will you answer the questions directly?

Its not a change of subject as we are discussing photos C7.

I need to know that if you are going to use photos to support you then you will not cry fake if you are shown to be wrong.

Before I enter into this I need to know if you agree that all photos in the reports are genuine?

[Christopher7]

Its not a change of subject as we are discussing photos C7.

I need to know that if you are going to use photos to support you then you will not cry fake if you are shown to be wrong.

Before I enter into this I need to know if you agree that all photos in the reports are genuine? I will NOT discuss the validity of photographs. Just say what you have to say but before asking any questions, answer these:

1) As the fire burned toward the east face, it was also burning through the center section toward column 79.

2) The NIST 3:00 p.m. graphic shows the fire on the south half of the east face.
The photo taken at 2:28 shows that entire area on fire and therefore it would have burned out by 3:00 p.m.

Do you agree?

[funk de fino]

I will NOT discuss the validity of photographs. Just say what you have to say but before asking any questions, answer these:

1) As the fire burned toward the east face, it was also burning through the center section toward column 79.

2) The NIST 3:00 p.m. graphic shows the fire on the south half of the east face.
The photo taken at 2:28 shows that entire area on fire and therefore it would have burned out by 3:00 p.m.

Do you agree?

You are using the pictures in the reports to verify your claims. What if they are fake?

You have said this in the past.

I will not proceed unless you clarify your position on the photographs in the reports. I might cry fake on the photos then what will you do?

[Christopher7]

You are using the pictures in the reports to verify your claims. What if they are fake?

You have said this in the past.

I will not proceed unless you clarify your position on the photographs in the reports. I might cry fake on the photos then what will you do?OK, I have my doubts about this one:

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4610/figure5141pg227353to402gp9.jpg

The excessive smoke doesn't look real.

Now will you answer the two questions?

1) As the fire burned toward the east face, it was also burning through the center section toward column 79.

2) The NIST 3:00 p.m. graphic shows the fire on the south half of the east face.
The photo taken at 2:28 shows that entire area on fire and therefore it would have burned out by 3:00 p.m.

Do you agree?

[funk de fino]

OK, I have my doubts about this one:

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4610/figure5141pg227353to402gp9.jpg

The excessive smoke doesn't look real.

Now will you answer the two questions?

1) As the fire burned toward the east face, it was also burning through the center section toward column 79.

2) The NIST 3:00 p.m. graphic shows the fire on the south half of the east face.
The photo taken at 2:28 shows that entire area on fire and therefore it would have burned out by 3:00 p.m.

Do you agree?

Sorry cant see it, blocked at work.

If they were going to fake that one then why did they not fake fires around the column area at the times needed?

I am not getting into an argument with you about this if you suspect photos have been faked. Its futile and hypocrisy.

[Christopher7]

Sorry cant see it, blocked at work.

If they were going to fake that one then why did they not fake fires around the column area at the times needed?

I am not getting into an argument with you about this if you suspect photos have been faked. Its futile and hypocrisy.Answer the questions funk.

[Christopher7]

Ref, Grizzley, Poomaroo, Dave, Norseman
Where did you go?

When faced with a truth that you can't deny or deal with you just go away and leave funk to double talk and try to change the subject.

These facts are self evident but JREFers will not even address, much less admit that the following statements are true. Your fanatic loyalty to the official conspiracy theory will not let you give an inch.

1) As the fire burned toward the east face, it was also burning through the center section toward column 79.

2) The NIST 3:00 p.m. graphic shows the fire on the south half of the east face.
The photo taken at 2:28 shows that entire area on fire and therefore it would have burned out by 3:00 p.m.

[Dave Rogers]

Ref, Grizzley, Poomaroo, Dave, Norseman
Where did you go?

To some threads where there's a chance of reading something that hasn't already been posted fifty times. What's your evidence that the NIST fire modelling is inaccurate, other than that it just looks wrong to you? If you've got something to say, advance the entire line of argument, rather than playing childish "I'm not going to say any more until you agree with the first bit" games.

Dave

[Christopher7]

What's your evidence that the NIST fire modelling is inaccurate, other than that it just looks wrong to you?

DaveI have posted the evidence and no one here will address it.

The fire first appeared on the east face around column 32 and spread to the north and to the south.
Therefore, the fire approached the east face from the central office area to the west. This is self evident.

No one can deny this self evident fact so Poomaroo and the rest simply refuse to address it.

Will you address this fact directly?
Can you acknowledge this self evident fact?

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/3025/firesim210pmld0.png

[Christopher7]

The same is true for the north face. The fire started between columns 44 and 45 and burned in both directions.
Therefore, it approached the north face from the south.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9887/firesim210300pp0.png

[Dave Rogers]

The fire first appeared on the east face around column 32 and spread to the north and to the south.
Therefore, the fire approached the east face from the central office area to the west. This is self evident.

No, it isn't self evident. It's a consequence of attempting to model a system with an inadequate physical description of the system you're modelling.

What you are doing, in effect, is making your own attempt at computer modelling the spread of the fires, but without a computer. Since you've chosen to model the spread of the fires by mental visualisation, you've been constrained to use a very simple rule set. Your rule set is something like this:

Fires spread in all directions at constant speed where fuel is available.
Fires burn in one location for 20 minutes, after which all fuel is consumed.
Based on this small and inadequate rule set, you've mentally applied your model to yield the result that the fire spreads in a circular pattern outwards from any starting point, and cannot behave in any other way. As a result, we have your carefully sketched near-perfect circle overlaid on the WTC7 floor plan.

As a starting point for visualisation, what you're doing isn't exactly useless; as a very gross overview of the way fires spread it may give you a sufficiently useful understanding to get a vague picture of real fire behaviour. However, what you're suggesting is that the results of your over-simplified, two-rule model of fire propagation should be considered more reliable than NIST's model, which starts from a far more sophisticated rule set including variations in fuel density, air flow and internal partitioning of the actual building. They shouldn't, because NIST's initial description of the system is more realistic.

Dave

[Christopher7]

No, it isn't self evident. It's a consequence of attempting to model a system with an inadequate physical description of the system you're modelling. Wrong. There is enough data to ascertain the general direction of the fire progression.
The direction of the fire has been established by eyewitness statements and photographs.
The fire was was first seen on the south face burning from west to east.
The fire first appeared on the east face about 40 feet from the corner and burned in both directions.
Therefore, the fire approached the east face from the west.

What you are doing, in effect, is making your own attempt at computer modelling the spread of the fires, but without a computer. You have a computer between your ears that should be able to handle this problem.

Since you've chosen to model the spread of the fires by mental visualisation, you've been constrained to use a very simple rule set. Your rule set is something like this:

Fires spread in all directions at constant speed where fuel is available.
Fires burn in one location for 20 minutes, after which all fuel is consumed.

Based on this small and inadequate rule set, you've mentally applied your model to yield the result that the fire spreads in a circular pattern outwards from any starting point, and cannot behave in any other way. As a result, we have your carefully sketched near-perfect circle overlaid on the WTC7 floor plan.Note that I used the word "General" [roughly]
In is not necessary to be precise when just determining which direction the fire was burning.

As a starting point for visualisation, what you're doing isn't exactly useless; as a very gross overview of the way fires spread it may give you a sufficiently useful understanding to get a vague picture of real fire behaviour.Correct. It's enough to determine the direction of the fire progression.

[Dave Rogers]

You have a computer between your ears that should be able to handle this problem.

My entire point is that the computer between your ears is not able to handle this problem. That's why you've had to oversimplify, and that's why your deductions are worthless.

Your statement that the fire approached the east face from the west is facile; there is by definition no other direction the east face can be approached from. What you have no information on, and what forms the core of your arguments, is how far to the west of the east face the fire was burning at any particular time. Your guesses on this do not constitute evidence.

Dave

[Christopher7]

Your statement that the fire approached the east face from the west is facile; there is by definition no other direction the east face can be approached from. OK We agree that the fire approached the east wall from the west. i.e. the central office section.

What you have no information on, and what forms the core of your arguments, is how far to the west of the east face the fire was burning at any particular time.
DaveNor does it matter.
I am only establishing very basic points that we can agree on.

Once in the central office section, the fire will spread in all directions.

Do you agree?

[Dave Rogers]

OK We agree that the fire approached the east wall from the west. i.e. the central office section.

No, we don't agree on that. As usual, you've taken the point we can agree on - that the fire approached the east wall from the west (which it must have, as the entire building is to the west of the east wall) - and added commentary. The whole point that is not agreed is your claim that the fire approached the east wall from the central office section.

Once in the central office section, the fire will spread in all directions.

Do you agree?

No. The spread of the fire will depend on the partitioning of the building, the density of the available fuel load, and prevailing air movement. To find out which directions it will spread in, and how fast, you'll need to do some very complex modelling, as NIST have done.

Dave

[Christopher7]

No, we don't agree on that. As usual, you've taken the point we can agree on - that the fire approached the east wall from the west (which it must have, as the entire building is to the west of the east wall) - and added commentary. The whole point that is not agreed is your claim that the fire approached the east wall from the central office section.Dude, the central office section is west of column 32. The fire was centered on column 32.

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/8945/fireoverlay2copyzz4.jpg

[Christopher7]

The spread of the fire will depend on the partitioning of the building, the density of the available fuel load, and prevailing air movement. To find out which directions it will spread in, and how fast, you'll need to do some very complex modelling, as NIST have done.

DaveNo.
The partitioning and fuel load are fairly consistent. The fire would spread from office to office in all directions as described on pg 17 of NCSTAR 1A
"On those floors that were mostly subdivided into offices (such as Floors 11 and 12), the fire would have grown within a single office, reaching flashover4 in several minutes. After about 15 min, the ceiling tile system would have failed from the heat, and the hot air would have flowed over the office wall. Soon the hot air would fail the ceiling of an adjacent office, and eventually the thermal radiation would ignite the contents in this office. Fire spread would have been similar for offices separated by a corridor, although this would have taken longer, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way."

[Christopher7]

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/8945/fireoverlay2copyzz4.jpg

[Dave Rogers]

Dude, the central office section is west of column 32.

So is Eugene, Oregon, and the fire probably didn't start there. This whole discussion is about how far west of column 32 the fire spread from.

Dave

[Christopher7]

So is Eugene, Oregon, and the fire probably didn't start there. :D ;)

This whole discussion is about how far west of column 32 the fire spread from.

DaveNo, the point i am making is that the fires had burned out in the east end before 4:00 p.m.

Fires spread in all directions.

The fire was burning in the central office section before it reached the east face.

The fire was burning to the north through the central office section as well as toward the east face.

[jaydeehess]

:D ;)

No, the point i am making is that the fires had burned out in the east end before 4:00 p.m.

Fires spread in all directions.

The fire was burning in the central office section before it reached the east face.

The fire was burning to the north through the central office section as well as toward the east face.

So then you are looking for NIST to study the effect on the heated steel as it went through the cooling phase. you are in good company, the CTBUH would like to see that studied as well. Then again the CBTUB does not disbelieve NIST so they must all be Bush appointees just like S.Sunder.

[Christopher7]

So then you are looking for NIST to study the effect on the heated steel as it went through the cooling phase. you are in good company, the CTBUH would like to see that studied as well.

CTBUH:"It appears that the fire on Level 12 had passed its peak in the area of Column

79. Is it possible that failure occurred as part of the cooling cycle?"


Apparently they have studied the photos and see the same thing I have.

[RedIbis]

So is Eugene, Oregon, and the fire probably didn't start there. This whole discussion is about how far west of column 32 the fire spread from.

Dave

The fire didn't start in Eugene, but there sure is a lot of blazing going on there.

[jaydeehess]

CTBUH:"It appears that the fire on Level 12 had passed its peak in the area of Column

79. Is it possible that failure occurred as part of the cooling cycle?"


Apparently they have studied the photos and see the same thing I have.

I'll take that as a "yes" then, you agree with the CTBUH that it could use more study.

,,, or are you going beyond what the engineers at the CTBUH are saying and into " there is no evidence that the fire was still burning - NIST LIED" territory?

[jaydeehess]

The fire didn't start in Eugene, but there sure is a lot of blazing going on there.

I live 'north of the Citgo" station located near the Pentagon, but I did not see flight 77 on 9/11/01 even though I had a clear line of sight to the south , east and west at the time.

[RedIbis]

I live 'north of the Citgo" station located near the Pentagon, but I did not see flight 77 on 9/11/01 even though I had a clear line of sight to the south , east and west at the time.

Sometimes I like Monterrey Jack, rather than provolone on my smoked chicken breast sandwich.

[beachnut]

Sometimes I like Monterrey Jack, rather than provolone on my smoked chicken breast sandwich.

That is your total evidence on 9/11! Bravo.

[RedIbis]

That is your total evidence on 9/11! Bravo.

Clever.

[Christopher7]

I'll take that as a "yes" then, you agree with the CTBUH that it could use more study.

,,, or are you going beyond what the engineers at the CTBUH are saying and into " there is no evidence that the fire was still burning - NIST LIED" territory?It is clear that the fire had burned out in the east half of the 12th floor by 4:00 p.m. CTBUH can see the obvious. They stated it in very diplomatic terms.
"It appears that the fire on Level 12 had passed its peak in the area of Column 79."

[Christopher7]

Which brings us back to:

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9051/wtcfiresimcomparison080en8.jpg

[Grizzly Bear]

It is clear that the fire had burned out in the east half of the 12th floor by 4:00 p.m. CTBUH can see the obvious. They stated it in very diplomatic terms.
"It appears that the fire on Level 12 had passed its peak in the area of Column 79."
Apparently they say nothing about your hilarious hyperbole of "burned out"...
Cripes the circular nature of this argument is feels like a trip to the land of OZ

[Christopher7]

Apparently they say nothing about your hilarious hyperbole of "burned out"...
They were being diplomatic.

NIST L pg 26
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

Would you care to address the issue directly?

The fire approached the the east face from central office area.
The fire spread in a manner described on pg 17 of NCSTAR 1A.
The fire approached the north face from the central office area.
The area around column 79 was burning before 3:00 p.m. when the fire appeared on the north face to the north of column 79.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9887/firesim210300pp0.png

[Christopher7]

CTBUH

"It appears that the fire on Level 12 had passed its peak in the area of Column 79."


NIST L pg 26
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.



The fire on floor 12 could not have caused floor 13 to collapse at 5:20 p.m. as NIST has proposed.

[Jonnyclueless]

"The fire on floor 12 could not have caused floor 13 to collapse at 5:20 p.m. as NIST has proposed."

Yes it could. You are wrong.

[funk de fino]

When a building has been on fire and is put out there are times when the firemen do not enter the building in case it collapses, and in some cases they do collapse and fire fighters are killed.

In C7 world they are safe because the fire is out. Buildings can only collapse if they are still on fire.

[Dave Rogers]

CTBUH




"It appears that the fire on Level 12 had passed its peak in the area of Column 79."





NIST L pg 26
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.






The fire on floor 12 could not have caused floor 13 to collapse at 5:20 p.m. as NIST has proposed.




What the CBTUH appears to be suggesting is that the fire on floor 12 caused floor 13 to collapse, but not in exactly the same manner that NIST proposed. They appear to be suggesting a three-stage process:

Fire heats floor truss, causing expansion and loss of tensile strength;
Floor truss sags and connection bolt breaks, but truss remains supported by seat;
Fire dies down, causing thermal contraction of floor truss, which pulls away from seat and falls on floor below, initiating progressive collapse.

All that seems perfectly physically reasonable. So, however, does NIST's model, in which (as I understand it) the truss comes off its seat at stage 2, as any lateral force on the truss from unbalanced thermal stress may cause this. In the end, either way, the collapse was caused by thermal stress on the building structure.

The fact that there are not one but two physically reasonable mechanisms for collapse initiation caused by fires (and that there's a third, as seen in WTC1 and WTC2) actually tells against, not in favour of, alternative collapse initiation theories. The general picture that's emerging is that there was more than one way that WTC7 could have failed due to fire, so it's rather less surprising that it did so.

Dave

[Christopher7]

The fire on floor 12 could not have caused floor 13 to collapse at 5:20 p.m. as NIST has proposed.
What the CBTUH appears to be suggesting is that the fire on floor 12 caused floor 13 to collapse, but not in exactly the same manner that NIST proposed.Correct. They think the collapse may been due to thermal contraction because the area around column 79 was cooling.

They appear to be suggesting a three-stage process:
Fire heats floor truss, causing expansion and loss of tensile strength;
Floor truss sags and connection bolt breaks, but truss remains supported by seat;
Fire dies down, causing thermal contraction of floor truss, which pulls away from seat and falls on floor below, initiating progressive collapse.You need to read the report.
WTC 7 had floor beams, not trusses.
NIST says the beams expanded and buckled but did not get hot enough to sag. [see 1-9 vol.1 pg 353]
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

[funk de fino]

C7

Do you agree that many buildings in the past have collapsed even after a fire has been extinguished?

[Christopher7]

C7

Do you agree that many buildings in the past have collapsed even after a fire has been extinguished?
We are talking about the fire on floor 12 and the fact that it had burned out in the area of the initiating event over an hour before the collapse.

Therefore, the collapse could not have occurred the way NIST has proposed.

NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1
Pg 353
The predicted response of the system is summarized in Table 8–2. The first failures observed were of the shear studs, which were produced by axial expansion of the floor beams, and which began to occur at fairly low beam temperature of 103 °C. Axial expansion of the girder then led to shear failure of the bolts at the connection to Column 79; and, at a girder temperature of 164 °C, all four erection bolts had failed, leaving that end of the girder essentially unrestrained against rotation. Continued axial expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder laterally at Column 79, as shown in Figure 8–26, in which failed shear studs and bolts were evident. When the beam temperatures had reached 300 °C, all but three shear studs in the model had failed due to axial expansion of the beams, leaving the top flanges of the beams essentially unrestrained laterally. Continued axial expansion of the girder caused it to bear against the face of column 79, generating large axial forces that led to failure of the bolts connecting the girder to Column 44. When the girder temperature had reached 398 °C, all four erection bolts at column 44 had failed, leaving the girder essentially unrestrained against rotation at both ends. After failure of the erection bolts in the seat at Column 44, continued axial expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder laterally, where it came to bear against the inside of the column flange. Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b). The collapse process took time to occur in the LS-DYNA analysis, during which the temperatures had ramped up to their maximum values in the simulation.

Table 8–2 Progression of observed failures.
Temperature (°C)
Time (s) Beam Girder Event
1.44 - - - - 103 - - 89 - - First shear stud failure
1.54 - - - - 154 - - 131 - - Both seat bolts of girder to column 79 had failed
1.62 - - - - 194 - - 164 - - Both top clip bolts of girder to column 79 had failed
1.83 - - - - 300 - - 252 - - All but three shear studs had failed
2.04 - - - - 406 - - 339 - - Both seat bolts of girder to column 44 had failed
2.10 - - - - 436 - - 364 - - Northmost floor beam began to buckle laterally
2.18 - - - - 476 - - 398 - - Both top plate bolts of girder to column 44 had failed
2.90 - - - - 600 - - 500 - - All floor beams began to buckle

[jaydeehess]

Correct. They think the collapse may been due to thermal contraction because the area around column 79 was cooling.



So you agree with the CBTUH then? They also state unequivocably, that they see no evidence whatsoever of a CD.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by funk de fino
C7

Do you agree that many buildings in the past have collapsed even after a fire has been extinguished? We are talking about the fire on floor 12 and the fact that it had burned out in the area of the initiating event over an hour before the collapse.



You failed to answer the question that funk asked.

Obviously the CBTUH feels that such an event could occur and that NIST relied too heavily on the computer sim showing failure due to expansion and did not consider adjusting the sim modeling to account for beams that do not expand enough to shove the girder off its seat and determine if it could be a contraction of those beams as they cool that snaps the beam-girder connection perhaps with the girder sitting to one edge of the seat.


They also state unequivocably, that they see no evidence whatsoever of a CD while you, on page 1 of this thread(IIRC) state unequivocably that it had to be a CD because it looks like one to you.

[Christopher7]

So you agree with the CBTUH then? They also state unequivocably, that they see no evidence whatsoever of a CD.I agree with them that the fires had passed their peak but i do not agree that there is no evidence of CD.

[Before you say otherwise]
I can agree with some things they say and disagree with others.
That's not the point. The point is:

[B]The fire on floor 12 was past it's peak/burned out in the area around column 79 and therefore the collapse could not have happened the way NIST has proposed.

[Christopher7]

You failed to answer the question that funk asked.Funk's question is an irrelevant diversion.
He demands answers but does not reciprocate.

Edit to change:
No skyscrapers have collapsed.

Obviously the CBTUH feels that such an event could occur and that NIST relied too heavily on the computer sim showing failure due to expansion and did not consider adjusting the sim modeling to account for beams that do not expand enough to shove the girder off its seat and determine if it could be a contraction of those beams as they cool that snaps the beam-girder connection perhaps with the girder sitting to one edge of the seat.
CTBUH found several problems with the final draft.

[Christopher7]

"The fire on floor 12 could not have caused floor 13 to collapse at 5:20 p.m. as NIST has proposed."

Yes it could. How?

The NIST theory says floor 13 collapsed when all the beams reached 600°C and the girder 500°C.



The fires on the 12th floor had past their peak/burned out in the area around column 79 long before 5:20 p.m.


Table 8–2 Progression of observed failures.
Temperature (°C)
Time (s) Beam Girder Event
1.44 - - - - 103 - - - 89 - - First shear stud failure
1.54 - - - - 154 - - 131 - - Both seat bolts of girder to column 79 had failed
1.62 - - - - 194 - - 164 - - Both top clip bolts of girder to column 79 had failed
1.83 - - - - 300 - - 252 - - All but three shear studs had failed
2.04 - - - - 406 - - 339 - - Both seat bolts of girder to column 44 had failed
2.10 - - - - 436 - - 364 - - Northmost floor beam began to buckle laterally
2.18 - - - - 476 - - 398 - - Both top plate bolts of girder to column 44 had failed
2.90 - - - - 600 - - 500 - - All floor beams began to buckle



Note that in the NIST test the beams and girder were brought to 600°C and 500°C along their entire length in less than 3 seconds. This totally unrealistic scenario will produce unrealistic results.

[Jonnyclueless]

No those are absolutely NOT unrealistic results. Can you be just a little more dishonest here?

[funk de fino]

Funk's question is an irrelevant diversion.
He demands answers but does not reciprocate.


Liar. I ask you questions you find incovenient to answer and I often prove you wrong when you do deign to answer them. Thats why you avoid answering them if at all possible.

Is it possible for a building to collapse post fire?

[moon1969]

Only reason they are not happy is because Larry Silverstein seems like a suspicious character to them. Many of the are anti-semites and they can"t accept the fact that Larry Silverstein who is a jew would be an honest businessman. Its the joos like the Rothschild family. If Larry Silverstein was an arab muslim they would say that Larry Silverstein is not apart of some conspiracy. Some anti-semites even gaved Larry Silverstein the nickname Larry "Pull it" Silverstein.

[Christopher7]

Liar. Shove it!

Keep it civil.

[Christopher7]

No those are absolutely NOT unrealistic results.How can an unrealistic test give realistic results?

[Grizzly Bear]

Edit to change:
No skyscrapers have collapsed.

This popular claim is an Appeal to Tradition (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Appeal-to-tradition) or otherwise known as a false induction. That no skyscraper has collapsed before due to fire alone does not make such an event impossible, especially given that there is a known record of steel failing under thermally induced stresses, be it thermal expansion and contraction or plastic creep resulting from loss of strength. You and others who preach your claims ignore all of the contributing factors that existed that day that made such an event possible and you make no effort to address these factors.

CTBUH found several problems with the final draft.
Yes, and at issue was NIST stopping short of examining the effects of the cooling phase in the steel that invokes every bit as much concern for the structural integrity as the thermal expansion in the heating phase of fire. But not being familiar with this you ignore that despite their criticism they agree with the ultimate outcome of complete structural collapse. Apparently the issues they have with the thoroughness of the NIST report are more intended to highlights previously underestimated factors which could be at issue in other fires. Regardless, this appealing to authority and poisoning the well tactic combination is your only strong suit in using their analysis. It would be nice if you argued honestly for once.

Shove it!
Ad hominems are not the best tactics for dispelling accusations, even if you're exhausted of being accused of such...

[jaydeehess]

Is it possible for a building to collapse post fire?

Given that Chris may well not answer you , allow me to describe one senario of how such an event could occur in the construction around column 79 and 44 of WTC 7.

Beams and girder heat up due to the fire, and expand. The girder is pushing against the columns and the beams are pushing the girder laterally to the west. The beams deform laterally. The bolt connections from girder to columns are under a great deal of stress and fail allowing the ends of the girder to move west. The beams stop deforming laterally (that is their deformation does not get worse after this point since they can move the girder)
The girder ends move to the edge of the girder seat on the columns but are held from tipping over the seat by the connection to the beams.

The fire passes its peak heat o/p and the beams stop expanding. As they slowly cool (they will cool slower than they heated up since they heated up from room temp in a room that was on fire, they cool down from a high heat but the room is not at normal room temp, it is simply less hot than it was a short time ago. Please review thermodynamics if unsure about this concept) they will begin contracting. However the beams are also deformed and thus will still be contracting when they pass the point at which they span the same distance they did when the building was in pristine condition. Furthermore the girder had moved past its normal location and so there is now a great deal of stress on the beam to girder connections. Those connections fail and if the center of the girder is past the edge of its column seat then the girder will rotate off the seat -- to the west!

[Panoply_Prefect]

I'll just jump in here, with a youtube video from one of AE911truthercrowd mentioned in the first post, David Chandler:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8

If Im not daft this high-school teacher argues that WTC7 was in freefall the first two seconds of the fall, using some sort of software he's been using in class. The one problem I find with it, is the fact that for the first seconds of the video (0.13/14 to 0.17 approx) the penthouse falls into the building. As far as I understand, this means that either the penthouse is falling faster than freefall. If Chandler is correct that is.

Do I miss something in his argument here?

[Panoply_Prefect]

I'll just jump in here, with a youtube video from one of AE911truthercrowd mentioned in the first post, David Chandler:

gC44L0-2zL8

If Im not daft this high-school teacher argues that WTC7 was in freefall the first two seconds of the fall, using some sort of software he's been using in class. The one problem I find with it, is the fact that for the first seconds of the video (0.13/14 to 0.17 approx) the penthouse falls into the building. As far as I understand, this means that either the penthouse is falling faster than freefall. If Chandler is correct that is.

Do I miss something in his argument here?

EDIT: Apparently as I understand it, he claims that his use of the youtube video and "Physics ToolKit" (http://www.physicstoolkit.com/), shows that part of the fall was in free fall, which means CD. Found more on 911blogger:


Contrary to the August 2008 NIST report on WTC7, the acceleration of Building 7 has been measured and is found to be indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity over a period of about 2.5 seconds during the fall. Freefall indicates zero resistance. It also indicates that the energy of the falling mass is not available to do work on the lower structure (i.e. such things as breaking, bending, crushing, etc.) A video detailing the measurement process and commenting on the results is posted on the AE911Truth YouTube channel, accessible through http://www.ae911truth.org/freefall. The video responds to the recently released NIST WTC7 document.



http://www.911blogger.com/node/17685

[boloboffin]

Chandler actually proves to my satisfaction that for about 2.5 seconds, the top northwest corner accelerated at the same rate as gravity would accelerate it.

The problem is how Chandler then interprets this. He believes this can only be due to controlled demolition. He thinks that NIST covered up this period of freefall with deceptive language.

Nothing of the sort. NIST measured from the very beginning of the descent of the top northwest corner to where they both stop, at the height of the 29th floor. The time it took the building to fall is 40% slower than it would be if the building had accelerated at the rate of gravity for the entire time. There's no deception here. Math is math.

The building encountered significant resistance during this time, so much so that it could offset a period of 2.5 seconds where the corner was essentially in freefall.

And NIST's explanation does allow for this period of freefall. The western core (remaining after the eastern interior has collapsed) is yanking the perimeter down behind it, and since it begins to pull apart at the seventh floor, the core has to fall about that far before it encounters significant resistance from below. As soon as it does, the building slows again and begins to crush up.

At least, that's how this layman understands it. I'd post this at 911blogger, but reprehensor and I have history, and I was banned on sight last year.

[Christopher7]

No one here will admit that the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the area of the initiating event over an hour before the collapse.

Instead, there are numerous attempts to subject shift.

Will anyone address the issue directly?

The fire approached the east face from central office area.
The fire spread in a manner described on pg 17 of NCSTAR 1A.
The fire approached the north face from the central office area.
The area around column 79 was burning before 3:00 p.m. when the fire appeared on the north face to the north of column 79.


http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9887/firesim210300pp0.png

[Panoply_Prefect]

No one here will admit that the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the area of the initiating event over an hour before the collapse.

Instead, there are numerous attempts to subject shift.

Will anyone address the issue directly?

The fire approached the east face from central office area.
The fire spread in a manner described on pg 17 of NCSTAR 1A.
The fire approached the north face from the central office area.
The area around column 79 was burning before 3:00 p.m. when the fire appeared on the north face to the north of column 79.


http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9887/firesim210300pp0.png




Allright, Ill make a separate post about the Chandler video.

[jaydeehess]

Chris, several members here have expressed support for the CTBUH call for a sim investigation that would take into account the contraction phase. What part of that do you not understand?

As for Chandler, he is calculating the velocity of building parts at fixed intervals to then determine acelleration. But does he calculate the error margin of his measurements?
Let's take an example
item drops at free fall and after 1 second it is moving 32 f/s, 2 seconds 64 f/s, 3 seconds 96 f/s

If I am measuring the distance that the item has dropped and I can do so with 4 feet of accuracy over each 30 frames of video (one second)and I measure the first second's worth of travel as 16 feet it may actually be only 12 feet. At 16 feet it would have had an acelleration of 32 f/s/s but at 12 feet its acelleration would only be 24 f/s/s (a 25% error)

However if I measure between the 2nd and 3rd second that it has moved 64 feet that would corresspond to an acelleration of 32 f/s/s but if it was actually only 60 feet then that corressponds to an acelleration of 30 f/s/s (now only a 6% error)

In other words his error margin is greater during the beginning of the collapse.

[Christopher7]

No one here will admit that the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the area of the initiating event over an hour before the collapse.

Instead, there are numerous attempts to subject shift.

Will anyone address the issue directly?

The fire approached the east face from central office area.
The fire spread in a manner described on pg 17 of NCSTAR 1A.
The fire approached the north face from the central office area.
The area around column 79 was burning before 3:00 p.m. when the fire appeared on the north face to the north of column 79.


http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9887/firesim210300pp0.png (http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9887/firesim210300pp0.png)

[Christopher7]

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9051/wtcfiresimcomparison080en8.jpg

[Grizzly Bear]

Will anyone address the issue directly?

The fire approached the east face from central office area.
The fire spread in a manner described on pg 17 of NCSTAR 1A.
The fire approached the north face from the central office area.
The area around column 79 was burning before 3:00 p.m. when the fire appeared on the north face to the north of column 79.


http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9887/firesim210300pp0.png (http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9887/firesim210300pp0.png)



Nobody acknowledges your claims because the models which you have been drawing as well as AE911truth are invalid. You treat fire behavior as a static variable when in fact it's dynamic and reliant on many variables (http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~complex/research/hfire/fbehave/fbehave_predict.html). This is called a reductive fallacy (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html). You only account for the fuel conditions. You ignore thermal expansion (http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/22000/22000/22026/PB99155392.pdf) (secondary link) (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V37-4J6WP5N-1&_user=2139759&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2139759&md5=74664403797a6c483aa1d21c57908556), and just about everything else that affects dynamic fire spread as well as ultimately the secondary effects which affect the structure.




No one here will admit that the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the area of the initiating event over an hour before the collapse.
[/QUOTE]

But let's take your bait, and assume that the fire is out by this time. Let us assume that the fire has moved to another part of the structure. Under that condition the girder connecting to the column is now experiencing thermal contraction during the cooling phase, after first undergoing thermal expansion while also sustaining dead loads which are already inside the structure. The girder is also a long spanning structural component. Have you accounted for thee effects of thermal expansion/contraction as well as any associated plastic creep of the girders christopher, or do you perhaps believe that thermal expansion/contraction, & plastic creep are theories which are the sole invention of NIST with no scientific basis? Further more, do you believe that the span of the structural member has no bearing on the effects the fire has?

[Tbone]

It is not good form to bump a thread with no new content to discuss, Christopher.

[Bluesky]

SO what your suggesting is that if I build a nice big bonfire and light it on the right handside, that the fire will not reach the left handside until all the fuel in the middle is consumed? Is this correct?

Of course it wont. Flame spread will depend on wind flows and the location of combustible materials. A strong wind can easily cause fire to jump from one point to another, all you need are oxygen, embers and combustible material. This would be very difficult to model and it does not surprise me at all that there would be some inconsistencies between any simulation and reality. Indeed they should be expected.

A local collapse in the floor, or damage to a fire wall around an elevator shafts could easily create a chimney effect, with air being sucked in at the level on fire and being expelled at an upper level. In such conditions there may be no visible fire, at the level on fire.

This effect is similar to what happened in the North Tower when people were seen around the plane impact zone. If you just looked at that side of the building you would say that level was not on fire.

[boloboffin]

NIST spent 200 pages explaining how they collected visual information from the various videos and how they developed their fire model. Post 363's attempt to refute that with a single page is simply a measure of the contempt this organization holds for both the government and their own audience.

[Ivan The Song Boy]

I didn’t read the report, but I watched the press conference on CSPAN.
It seems to me the way they investigated the collapse of WTC 7 was using computer simulation. They kept feeding various scenarios into their computer model until they got something similar to the filmed collapse.

In all seriousness. The more I look around at the so called "truth" movement, and the insanity that is apparent there, I can only conclude that I wouldn't want be in close proximity to any of these people for any reason! The idea of having to ride in a car with one of these people, for instance, would scrae me half to death..

It just can't be true. These people can NOT be writing this crap, or believing this stuff. Right?.. RIGHT??

I've had enough. It's to disgusting, and frankly, I'm beginning to find it to be rather offensive. It's incredibly sad and signals a HUGE failure in our society.

I take it, Magz, that you suppose Jews blew these buildings up? Am I right?

This is all much to sickening for my taste..

Good day..

Oh, Magz.. Some advise. You mentioned above that "It seems" to you.. You might do better to not allow things to "SEEM" to you.. Do the world a favor and discontinue this line of thinking. Please.

Ivan..............................

[dtugg]

MaGZ believes that there was an F-15 chasing UA175. It fired a missile which missed and hit WTC7 starting all the fires. The "evidence" that he has is something flying across a shot which is actually a bird. Then, hours later they blew up WTC7 because it was unstable. I am not joking, he really believes this.

MaGZ=Missiles at Ground Zero.

[ref]

I take it, Magz, that you suppose Jews blew these buildings up? Am I right?


He thinks WTC 7 was shot with a missile. ;)

[Slayhamlet]

In all seriousness. The more I look around at the so called "truth" movement, and the insanity that is apparent there, I can only conclude that I wouldn't want be in close proximity to any of these people for any reason! The idea of having to ride in a car with one of these people, for instance, would scrae me half to death..

It just can't be true. These people can NOT be writing this crap, or believing this stuff. Right?.. RIGHT??

I've had enough. It's to disgusting, and frankly, I'm beginning to find it to be rather offensive. It's incredibly sad and signals a HUGE failure in our society.

I take it, Magz, that you suppose Jews blew these buildings up? Am I right?

This is all much to sickening for my taste..

Good day..

Oh, Magz.. Some advise. You mentioned above that "It seems" to you.. You might do better to not allow things to "SEEM" to you.. Do the world a favor and discontinue this line of thinking. Please.

Ivan..............................

We have a couple of "Mossaddidit" morons here, but MaGZ isn't one of them. He's a "Mossad/Jews knew but LIHOP".

[Ivan The Song Boy]

MaGZ believes that there was an F-15 chasing UA175. It fired a missile which missed and hit WTC7 starting all the fires. The "evidence" that he has is something flying across a shot which is actually a bird. Then, hours later they blew up WTC7 because it was unstable. I am not joking, he really believes this.

MaGZ=Missiles at Ground Zero.


OH!! Thank the Baby Jesus! He's figured it all out! Clearly, good on that MAN! {as my British friends would say}.

Um, an F-15? Wouldn't the stealth fighter have been a better choice? Ya know,

"ya cant not see at it where it goes at,, and stuff.. The,, um, the jet fighter thingy shoted the round thingy over at the "knew yorck" place and stuff, and um that cauwt it on fiyer and EVERYTHING."

Sorry, just making every effort to communicate on his level..:confused:

[Heiwa]

It is quite easy to debunk the NIST WTC7 report! Just do proper structural damage analysis of the tower. An example is at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm using simple beam analysis.

Remove any subpart of WTC7 ... and nothing serious happens except increased stresses in adjacent parts that remain intact.

So how does NIST fake its FEA analysis? Easy - just add extra loads/forces (stored energy) and modify connections between parts and you can obtain spectacular collapses.

The NIST software seems to be borrowed from Hollywood used when they simulate disasters in such movies.

[DGM]

It is quite easy to debunk the NIST WTC7 report! Just do proper structural damage analysis of the tower. An example is at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm using simple beam analysis.

Remove any subpart of WTC7 ... and nothing serious happens except increased stresses in adjacent parts that remain intact.

So how does NIST fake its FEA analysis? Easy - just add extra loads/forces (stored energy) and modify connections between parts and you can obtain spectacular collapses.

The NIST software seems to be borrowed from Hollywood used when they simulate disasters in such movies.
Wrong! You know nothing about structural engineering (or your a fraud). Thanks for proving this time and time again.