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

[ref]

Guess who might be the ones? These guys:

James R. Gourley
Tony Szamboti
Richard Gage
Graeme MacQueen, Ph.D.
Dr. Steven Jones
Kevin Ryan
Chris Sarns
Kamal Obeid, SE PE
Scott Grainger, PE
Frank Legge
Bob Fischer
Justin Keogh
David Chandler
Gregg Roberts

(gregg@wtc7.net)
Yawn. They are not happy with the WTC 7 report, which they said was false even before it was released.

Here are their complaints and suggested revisions: http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794

And you guessed it, they want therm(i/a)te.

as documented by Kevin Ryan at the Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf) many scientists working for and associated with NIST have experience with nanoenergetic compounds, or nanothermites, that have the potential to be used for building demolitions. And because nanothermites are primarily high-temperature incendiaries rather than explosives, they could cause damage to steel structures without producing the sound and destruction levels associated with RDX. Because NIST personnel have intimate experience with these materials, NIST should revise its report to specifically analyze whether such nanoenergetic materials could have been used as a component in a “hypothetical blast scenario” at WTC 7.


And let's not forget the usual nuttiness:

In other words, foreknowledge of WTC 7’s collapse greatly strengthens our suspicions that the building was subjected to controlled demolition and that the knowledge of its demise derived ultimately from those who intended to bring it down.

CNN and the BBC did not merely report that the building was damaged or that it might collapse; they prematurely announced its actual collapse.

CNN’s Aaron Brown, one hour and ten minutes in advance of the collapse: “We are getting information now that one of the other buildings, Building 7, in the World Trade Center complex, is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing...”

BBC anchor, 23 minutes before the collapse: “the Salomon Brothers Building in New York, right in the heart of Manhattan, has also collapsed.”
No satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming about these premature announcements, which were obviously based on data fed to these announcers.


The BBC continued to announce that WTC 7 had collapsed, even when the building could be seen standing directly behind reporter Jane Standley, for about 17 minutes until the story was pulled abruptly.


They rant for ages about the FDNY foreknowledge and describe with 7 points how this foreknowledge is so suspicious. Of course, not a word is mentioned about Daniel Nigro.

They also have one little and amusing contradiction.

Specifically in NFPA 921 18.3.2 “High Order Damage” – “High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise.” WTC 7 clearly met this definition.


--- SNIP ---


The photos in the figures below show the collapsed WTC 7 to have its debris field confined to within a short distance of its footprint ... In addition to showing the relatively tight confinement of the debris field of WTC 7, the photo in Figure 2 also shows that debris from WTC 6 and WTC 5 was contained within their footprints or very nearby.

There is not a single letter by the truthers that does not contradict itself.


The entire letter is pretty long. Read it if you can.

[Horatius]

CNN’s Aaron Brown, one hour and ten minutes in advance of the collapse: “We are getting information now that one of the other buildings, Building 7, in the World Trade Center complex, is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing...”

BBC anchor, 23 minutes before the collapse: “the Salomon Brothers Building in New York, right in the heart of Manhattan, has also collapsed.”
No satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming about these premature announcements, which were obviously based on data fed to these announcers.



Is it me, or did they just answer the question of where the BBC got the notion that WTC had already collapsed?

Did none of these people play the "telephone game" as a kid?

[T.A.M.]

So where do we pick up our million dollars for predicting this one months ago?

TAM:)

[Drudgewire]

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

[CHF]

And because nanothermites are primarily high-temperature incendiaries rather than explosives, they could cause damage to steel structures without producing the sound and destruction levels associated with RDX.

But remember...."PEOPLE HEARD EXPLOSIONS!!! OMG INSIDE JOB!"

In other words, foreknowledge of WTC 7’s collapse greatly strengthens our suspicions that the building was subjected to controlled demolition and that the knowledge of its demise derived ultimately from those who intended to bring it down.


"...but, unfortunately, we're a band of complete cowards so we won't do the next logical thing and accuse the FDNY of blowing up WTC7."

I swear, the way twoofers block out the FDNY's forknowledge of WTC7's collapse really is a thing to behold.

[ref]

I swear, the way twoofers block out the FDNY's forknowledge of WTC7's collapse really is a thing to behold.


This part of the paper deals with FDNY:


NIST has tried to evade the issue of foreknowledge of WTC’s collapse by implying:

(a) that the FDNY, on the scene, saw the damage to the building caused by the collapse of WTC 1 and rationally concluded that WTC 7 might collapse.

From NIST NCSTAR 1A, p.16:
“The emergency responders quickly recognized that WTC 7 had been damaged by the collapse of WTC 1...

As early as 11:30 a.m., FDNY recognized that there was no water coming out of the hydrant system to fight the fires that were visible. With the collapses of the towers fresh in their minds, there was concern that WTC 7 too might collapse...”

(b) that an engineer, early in the day, saw the damage to the building and concluded it might collapse, passing on this assessment to others (Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder, in a discussion with Graeme MacQueen on CKNX Radio, Wingham, Ontario, Aug. 25, 2008)

It is true that damage to WTC 7 was directly witnessed by some firefighters and led a few of them (about seven) to worry that the building might collapse, but the great majority (approximately 50) who were worried about collapse did not base this worry on what they perceived but on what they were told. (See Graeme MacQueen, “Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, June 11, 2008) Moreover, while it is apparently also true that an engineer communicated his opinion, early in the day, that the building might collapse, neither this communication nor communications from the FDNY is sufficient to explain the evidence of foreknowledge that we possess.

Below are seven reasons why the above NIST explanations of foreknowledge are inadequate. One example is given to illustrate each of the seven reasons. More details can be found in the paper by Graeme MacQueen titled “Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories” published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven... (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf)).

1. Certainty
To worry that a damaged building might collapse in some fashion is one thing; but to be certain that it will collapse is another. Detailed study of the accounts of the FDNY shows that over half of those who received warnings of WTC 7’s collapse (where degree of certainty can be determined from the reports) were certain or were told with certainty that it was coming down. (The figures are: 31 out of 58. See “Waiting for Seven”.)

2. Early announcement
If someone was observing the fires in WTC 7 and was able to determine, in the last few moments of the building’s existence, that a peculiar set of circumstances was beginning to threaten the building, that would be one thing; but to receive warnings of the building’s collapse well before this set of circumstances was in place raises far more suspicions. Yet a detailed study of the FDNY reports show that of the 33 cases where the time of warning can be determined, in ten cases warnings were received two or more hours in advance and in six cases warnings were apparently received four of more hours in advance. (See “Waiting for Seven.”) In other words, long, long before the unique set of circumstances had come together to cause the building’s collapse, the collapse was being spoken of widely.

3. Precision
If the collapse warnings derived from vague worries and concerns they would not have been precise. No building had come down from these causes before, and, in fact, complete collapse such as happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 was very rare, apart from cases of controlled demolition. That is why FDNY member James McGlynn could say on 9/11, speaking of one of the Towers, "Any time I've heard of a collapse, it was never an entire building like this turned out to be." (See “Waiting for Seven.”) Yet, despite the rareness of complete collapse, many people apparently knew in advance that WTC 7 would be undergoing such a collapse. Consider the following from the FDNY oral histories:

Q. "Were you there when building 7 came down in the afternoon?"
A. "Yes."
Q. "You were still there?"
A. "Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand."
Q. "So they just put you in a safe area, safe enough for when that building came down?"
A. "5 blocks. 5 blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on point, the cloud stopped right there." (See “Waiting for Seven.”)

See how they make absolutely no sense.

[KDLarsen]

Is it me, or did they just answer the question of where the BBC got the notion that WTC had already collapsed?

Did none of these people play the "telephone game" as a kid?
I'm fairly sure they got that information off Reuters (as per the Conspiracy Files on WTC7) who had picked it up from a local news source. Now what the news source was, is pretty much anyone's guess these days :confused:

[CHF]

It is true that damage to WTC 7 was directly witnessed by some firefighters and led a few of them (about seven) to worry that the building might collapse, but the great majority (approximately 50) who were worried about collapse did not base this worry on what they perceived but on what they were told.....

Right - told by other FDNY. So the problem facing the twoofers is still the same: the FDNY would have to be in on any CD plot.

To worry that a damaged building might collapse in some fashion is one thing; but to be certain that it will collapse is another.

If the FDNY thought it "might" collapse then would it not make sense for them to proceed on the assumption that it WILL and pull back from the area as a precaution? Makes sense to me.

Detailed study of the accounts of the FDNY shows that over half of those who received warnings of WTC 7’s collapse (where degree of certainty can be determined from the reports) were certain or were told with certainty that it was coming down.

Which I suppose means that the FDNY officials who told then must have known about the demolition, huh?

Yet, despite the rareness of complete collapse, many people apparently knew in advance that WTC 7 would be undergoing such a collapse.

Notice also that the FDNY didn't express shock at this collapse either - even though it was such a rare event.

I suppose they were smart enough to realize that rare circumstances can produce rare events.

[Horatius]

I'm fairly sure they got that information off Reuters (as per the Conspiracy Files on WTC7) who had picked it up from a local news source. Now what the news source was, is pretty much anyone's guess these days :confused:



Perhaps, but even if we didn't know that, wouldn't reading those two paragraphs at least make you wonder if the BBC was just misquoting the earlier CNN report? Why would they include this as evidence of something?


And they just keep getting worse:


3. Precision
If the collapse warnings derived from vague worries and concerns they would not have been precise. No building had come down from these causes before, and, in fact, complete collapse such as happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 was very rare, apart from cases of controlled demolition. That is why FDNY member James McGlynn could say on 9/11, speaking of one of the Towers, "Any time I've heard of a collapse, it was never an entire building like this turned out to be." (See “Waiting for Seven.”) Yet, despite the rareness of complete collapse, many people apparently knew in advance that WTC 7 would be undergoing such a collapse. Consider the following from the FDNY oral histories:

Q. "Were you there when building 7 came down in the afternoon?"
A. "Yes."
Q. "You were still there?"
A. "Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand."
Q. "So they just put you in a safe area, safe enough for when that building came down?"
A. "5 blocks. 5 blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on point, the cloud stopped right there." (See “Waiting for Seven.”)


Have the never heard of a "worst-case scenario"?

[dudalb]

I think the famous Mad Magazine credit each issue for it's contributing writers and artists is so apporpriate here:

The Usual Bunch Of Idiots.

[Drudgewire]

I think the famous Mad Magazine credit each issue for it's contributing writers and artists is so apporpriate here:

The Usual Bunch Of Idiots.

"Gang of Idiots." http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/eng101.gif

[Grizzly Bear]

This part of the paper deals with FDNY:
See how they make absolutely no sense.

And they never will :)

Just because I love to nit pick at them and you've brought it up:


NIST has tried to evade the issue of foreknowledge of WTC’s collapse by implying:
<snip>
...neither this communication nor communications from the FDNY is sufficient to explain the evidence of foreknowledge that we possess.


As Horatious elegantly put it, I suppose worst case scenario never enters their mind. I fail to see how the engineer and firefighter concerns over the worst case scenario bears foreknowledge of anything criminal. Firefighters clearly have enough foreknowledge to understand when a building is in danger of collapse or instability, and engineers know all too well how materials react to high temperature conditions... This isn't rocket science yet telling this crap to them is like trying to ram a train through the earth.



3. Precision
If the collapse warnings derived from vague worries and concerns they would not have been precise. No building had come down from these causes before, and, in fact, complete collapse such as happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 was very rare, apart from cases of controlled demolition.
Non-sequitor to me... The only commonalities that the WTC collapses and CD's share is that the failure of structural members causes the building in question to collapse. They really love to generalize their BS as much as possible. Apart from structural failure the collapse mechanisms were entirely different and to assert the consequence due solely to appearance is absolute rubbish.

Perhaps, but even if we didn't know that, wouldn't reading those two paragraphs at least make you wonder if the BBC was just misquoting the earlier CNN report? Why would they include this as evidence of something?
Liez! Considering possibilities other than foreknowledge is considered blasphemy! Shame on yoooooo!!! Damn critical thinkers ruin the twoofer fun! :mad:



And they just keep getting worse:


Have the never heard of a "worst-case scenario"?
Is it even possible to get any worse off than their arguments already are and have been for the last 7 years? :eye-poppi

[dudalb]

"Gang of Idiots." http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/eng101.gif

Ouch, your're right. I will have to kneel in apology before my poster of Alfred E. Neuman for an hour tonight.

[twinstead]

I will have to kneel in apology before my poster of Alfred E. Neuman for an hour tonight.

Dude. That's just wrong on so many levels

[MaGZ]

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.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If the FDNY thought it "might" collapse then would it not make sense for them to proceed on the assumption that it WILL and pull back from the area as a precaution? Makes sense to me.


I'd love to see the conversation these idiots would have over a recall notice for their vehicle, especially if they ignored it and the problem described manifested itself.

"But, but... they only said that the steering column MIGHT detach from the interior mounting bracket, not that it WOULD detach! The fact that they sent me a recall notice means that they must have known that I would crash!"

[1337m4n]

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.

I recommend that you read the report.

[Horatius]

Liez! Considering possibilities other than foreknowledge is considered blasphemy! Shame on yoooooo!!! Damn critical thinkers ruin the twoofer fun! :mad:



You're right, you're right! How could I have suggested otherwise? I shall prostrate myself before my poster of Alfred E. Newman Dylan Avery for two hours before I go to bed, but after I've drunk a few six-packs.



Is it even possible to get any worse off than their arguments already are and have been for the last 7 years? :eye-poppi



It doesn't seem possible, but they keep defying expectations!

[Golden Bear]

There is not a single letter by the truthers that does not contradict itself.


Actually, if you give these passages a fair reading, they are not contradictory. The first mention of debris refers to very small, pulverized debris, that would result from explosives. That kind of debris, the dust cloud, did indeed get blown hundreds of feet away from the building. The second mention of debris is referring to a photograph of the larger pieces left over. These larger pieces were, in fact, confined to a very small space above the building's original footprint. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to give the document a fair reading. After all:


The entire letter is pretty long. Read it if you can.

You chose to highlight one of the two issues that were raised about information that the authors contended was omitted from the NIST report. The vast majority of the criticisms raised in the document identified contradictions and outright falsehoods contained within the actual substance of the document. I guess it is easier to bring out your standard issue B.S. responses to issues that have already been covered here before, like foreknowledge. Whatever you do, don't contribute any original thinking here. It would probably take too much effort.

If you want to have a real discussion about this set of public comments, let's start with Chapter 9, and work our way down. Since it's apparent no one here has actually gone and read the entire document (again, why be bothered with original thinking when Ref has posted something everyone has already thought about), I'll copy the portion about Chapter 9. Rebuttals to the points raised are most welcome.


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.

COMMENT: To support NIST’s assertion that there was indeed fire present on floor 12 at 5:00pm, NIST has provided a single photograph from an “unknown source” (Figure 5-152, NCSTAR 1-9, p. 237), that was purportedly taken at around 5:00pm, and shows fire in the two windows that comprise the northwest corner. NIST contends that it has determined that this photograph was taken at approximately 5:00pm, with a margin of error of “at least 10 minutes,” using shadow analysis.

REASON FOR COMMENT: We find it unlikely that NIST could estimate the time the “unknown source” photograph in Figure 5-152 was taken with such accuracy.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must explain how it was able to estimate the photograph’s time using shadow analysis to a margin of error even close to 10 minutes.

COMMENT: The following graphic is excerpted from Figure 9-11, and purports to describe the state of the fires on the 12th floor of WTC 7 at 5:00pm:


As can be seen, this graphic depicts raging fires across at least half of the north face of the building. However, when compared with Figure 5-152, which only shows a small fire in the extreme northwest corner, clearly the computer model is not representative of reality.

REASON FOR COMMENT: It appears that NIST’s computer fire simulations are not representative at all of the fires actually occurring in WTC 7.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST needs to describe why (assuming Figure 5-152 accurately describes the floor 12 fires at about 5:00pm) the computer models show significant fires across at least half of the north side of the building at 5:00pm. NIST should clearly explain why its fire simulation models of the 12th floor should be accepted by the public as an accurate representation of the fires actually occurring in WTC 7.

Separately submitted by Chris Sarns and Richard Gage is a graphic that compares NIST’s computer model fire data for floor 12 with actual pictures of the fires in WTC 7. It is attached hereto as Exhibit A. They present a more realistic depiction of what a computer model for the floor 12 fires should look like if it were to agree with the available visual evidence. NIST should take this into consideration when they are re-running their computer models based on these public comments, and revise their Report to use computer models that are more representative of reality, which would look more like the depictions contained therein.

Combustible Fuel Loading on Floors 11 and 12

COMMENT: This comment relates to NIST’s assumptions regarding combustible fuel loading for the 11th and 12th floors. In NCSTAR 1-9, at p. 375 (para. 1, sent. 7-9) NIST states:

NIST assumed that the combustible mass of furniture was about the same in an office as in a cubicle. Since the loading of other combustibles was reported to have been high on the 11th and 12th floors (Chapter 3), NIST assumed that the total combustible mass in an office was double that of a cubicle. Thus, the average combustible fuel load on the 11th and 12th floors was estimated as 32kg/m2.

However, Chapter 3 tells us that, contrary to NIST’s assertions in Chapter 9, the loading of other combustibles was not reported to have been high on the 11th and 12th floors. On page 55 (para. 6, sent. 1) of NCSTAR 1-9, NIST reports that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission occupied the 11th and 12th floors and the north side of the 13th floor. On page 56 (para. 1, sent. 1) NIST further reports that American Express occupied the southwest sector of the 13th floor. On the same page, NIST reports that the “combustible load in the offices was described as high by interviewed American Express managers.” (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 56, para. 4, sent. 3)

REASON FOR COMMENT: Recall that American Express occupied only the southwest sector of the 13th floor. How, then can NIST credibly claim that the combustible load on the entirety of the 11th and 12 floors, both occupied solely by the SEC, was reported to have been high? Were American Express managers given regular access to the SEC offices, such that they would be qualified to comment on the combustible fuel load there? Moreover, are American Express managers qualified to give an opinion on the quantity of combustible fuel load as compared to offices in the Twin Towers?

SUGGESTED REVISION: Clearly American Express personnel are competent to provide information only on the state of the American Express offices, which were confined to the southwest sector of the 13th floor. NIST must provide real support for its assertion that the combustible load on the 11th and 12th floors was high in order to merit any increase in estimated average combustible fuel load on these floors. If it cannot provide such support, it should re-run its computer models with the lower combustible fuel load on these floors and report those results to the scientific community and the American public.

Combustible Fuel Loading on Floor 13

COMMENT: This comment is regarding NIST’s treatment of the combustible fuel load of the 13th floor. On page 375 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1, sent. 8, 9) NIST states as follows: “The density of combustibles on the 13th floor was varied and not well known. The average value [for the 13th floor] was assumed to be the same as the 12th floor.” Here again, the only reported description of the combustible load on the 13th floor was from American Express managers, who were competent to comment only on the southwest sector of the 13th floor. In Chapter 3 of NCSTAR 1-9, page 57 (para. 2, sent. 2, 3) NIST reports that in the SEC occupied sections of northern perimeter of the 13th floor were “a hearing room and multiple testimony rooms facing it. There were additional testimony rooms on the northern portion of the east and west sides of the floor, and a storage room at the northwest corner.”

Importantly, NIST reports that the “testimony rooms were sparsely furnished, with just a table and a few chairs.” (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 57, para. 2, sent. 4) Furthermore, an examination of the schematic diagram of floor 13 (Figure 3-8, p. 57) reveals that the hearing room appears similar to a court room. Court rooms are also sparsely furnished, with a few tables and chairs. Finally, it is doubtful that there was any appreciable level of additional combustibles present in these testimony and hearing rooms.

REASON FOR COMMENT: NIST has apparently greatly overestimated the fuel loading on the 13th floor.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must justify its use of the higher combustible fuel load on the 13th floor in Chapter 9 of the Report with more than just bare assertions. NIST clearly had more information available to it regarding the layout and make up of floor 13, as reported in Chapter 3, than it lets on in Chapter 9. This discrepancy must be reconciled.

Combustible Load Sensitivity Tests

COMMENT: NIST claims that it did sensitivity tests to determine whether these exorbitant combustible fuel loads adversely affected the outcome of its simulations. However, the fact that NIST even performed the sensitivity tests brings up the question of why NIST went to the trouble of increasing the fuel load in the first place if it would have a negligible effect on the simulation. That point aside, Chapter 9 contains statements that directly contradict the results of these alleged sensitivity tests.

On page 381 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 3, sent. 3) NIST flatly states that, in its fire simulations for the 12th floor, “[t]he [fire] spread rate was about one-third to one-half slower than that on the lower floors due to the higher fuel load [on the 12th floor simulation].” NIST goes on to report that the burn time across the north face in the simulation was longer than observed in the visual evidence. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 381, para. 3, sent. 4) NIST then rejects the possibility that this could have resulted from the fuel load being too high, citing the sensitivity analysis in Section 9.3.3. (para. 3, sent. 4-8)

In Section 9.3.3, we find the referenced sensitivity analysis. Here, NIST reports that doubling the fuel load on the 8th floor resulted in the fires moving distinctly more slowly than in the visual evidence. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 5, sent. 1-3) Confusingly, NIST also reports that decreasing the fuel load by more than one-third on floor 12 “showed little effect on the rate of fire progression.” (Id., para. 6, sent. 1-3)

REASON FOR COMMENT: NIST’s contradictory statements raise the question of why reducing the fuel load by more than one-third would show no appreciable effect on the fire rate of progression on the 12th floor, when doubling the fuel load on the 8th floor did result in an appreciable change.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST should explain here exactly what the differences in the fire progression rate were in each case and let the public judge whether the effect was “little”. More important, however, is the direct contradiction between NIST’s statement that the “spread rate was about one-third to one-half slower than that on lower floors due to the higher fuel load” (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 381, para. 3, sent. 3) with its statement that decreasing the fuel load to a value equal to that of the lower floors “showed little effect on the fire rate of progression.” (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 6, sent. 1-3) Surely NIST can see this direct contradiction. On page 381, it is claimed that higher fuel load slows down the fire spread rate. On page 382, it is claimed that a lower fuel load will not speed up the rate of fire progression. This contradiction must be reconciled.

Fire Simulations for Floors 11 and 13

NIST used the data generated by its 12th floor fire simulation for floors 11 and 13. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 1, 3) The 13th floor simulation used the 12th floor data delayed by one-half hour because visual evidence indicated that the 13th floor fire followed the 12th floor fire. (Id., para. 3, sent. 5) The 11th floor simulation used the 12th floor fire data delayed by 1 hour, although the visual evidence indicated that the 11th floor fire was delayed from the 12th floor fire by 1.5 hours. (NCSTAR 1-9, p. 382, para. 1, sent. 5)

COMMENT: Our first comment in this regard simply notes the discrepancy between the visual evidence that the 11th floor fire was delayed from the 12th floor fire by 1.5 hours, yet in its fire simulations for the 11th floor, it was only delayed from the 12th floor fire by 1.0 hour.

REASON FOR COMMENT: This represents yet another discrepancy in the Report that needs to be rectified.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must explain why the visual evidence was not relied upon for inputs on the 11th floor, when it was relied upon for inputs on the 13th floor. The computer models should be re-run with the 11th floor fire delayed by 1.5 hours, not 1.0 hour, and the results reported accordingly.

COMMENT: Our second comment concerns both the 11th and 13th floor fires. As we demonstrated above, the 12th floor fire simulation is not representative of reality, and likely grossly overestimates the fires that were present there. By using its grossly overestimated 12th floor fire data on both the 11th and 13th floors, it has magnified this error three-fold.

REASON FOR COMMENT: By magnifying an obvious error by three times, the results of all of NIST’s subsequent computer models are again called into question.

SUGGESTED REVISION: The computer models should be re-run for the 12th floor using more realistic fire scenarios, and if NIST can still justify using the 12th floor data on the 11th and 13th floors, it should use that more realistic data on both floors. The results should then be reported accordingly.

COMMENT: Our third comment concerns the propagation of error through NIST’s approach to using a purely computer model driven approach. On page 382 of NCSTAR 1-9 (para. 1-3, sent. last) NIST acknowledges that its computer models for the fires on floors 11 and 13 “could have led to a mild overestimate of the heating on the north side of the floor.”

REASON FOR COMMENT AND SUGGESTED REVISION: In order to assure public confidence in the document, NIST must explain how such an error in overestimating the heating would propagate itself throughout all of NIST’s subsequent computer models, and how such propagation of error will affect the reliability of the ultimate results. The Report should be revised to include such a propagation of error analysis.


Be advised, there are references to the actual report, paragraph and sentence. It might take you actually going to the report and reading some surrounding materials for context. This document was written for an audience comprised of people that actually drafted the report, and would know immediately what issues were being raised. So, it might take a little more effort for the readers here to get a good understanding of the issues before commenting.

[Christopher7]

The fire simulation on page 383 is grossly inaccurate.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17781

[DC]

Ref, you are happy with the report? nothing that you think has to be improved?

[ref]

Actually, if you give these passages a fair reading, they are not contradictory. The first mention of debris refers to very small, pulverized debris, that would result from explosives. That kind of debris, the dust cloud, did indeed get blown hundreds of feet away from the building. The second mention of debris is referring to a photograph of the larger pieces left over. These larger pieces were, in fact, confined to a very small space above the building's original footprint. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to give the document a fair reading. After all:

If these larger pieces were in a small space above the original footprint, why has the Fiterman Hall (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=116127) been evacuated since 9/11 and is being demolished floor by floor?


You chose to highlight one of the two issues that were raised about information that the authors contended was omitted from the NIST report. The vast majority of the criticisms raised in the document identified contradictions and outright falsehoods contained within the actual substance of the document. I guess it is easier to bring out your standard issue B.S. responses to issues that have already been covered here before, like foreknowledge. Whatever you do, don't contribute any original thinking here. It would probably take too much effort.

Yes, because you missed the point. The point was, no matter what the topic is, no matter which report, person, media or any other thing they are arguing, they always manage to go back to mentioning 2 things: thermite and foreknowledge. It is their predetermined position. They were already saying the WTC 7 report was going to be wrong because of this evidence of theirs, even before the report came out. But you are right, it's easy to show how they always fall back to their position of thermite and foreknowledge every single time, no matter what. It is them who don't contribute any original thinking. And I told everyone to read the entire letter if they can, but I can understand if they don't. Who takes these people seriously anymore? Apart from themselves that is.


If you want to have a real discussion about this set of public comments, let's start with Chapter 9, and work our way down. Since it's apparent no one here has actually gone and read the entire document (again, why be bothered with original thinking when Ref has posted something everyone has already thought about), I'll copy the portion about Chapter 9. Rebuttals to the points raised are most welcome.

So you think they make any more sense with their flesh around the thermite and foreknowledge bones?

REASON FOR COMMENT: We find it unlikely that NIST could estimate the time the “unknown source” photograph in Figure 5-152 was taken with such accuracy.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must explain how it was able to estimate the photograph’s time using shadow analysis to a margin of error even close to 10 minutes.

They just explained how they estimated the time: using shadow analysis. Why should they explain in extreme detail the methods of the shadow analysis of one single photograph in a report of hundreds of pages? Just because the bunch finds it unlikely that the given results match with their agenda, so they demand new ones?

And since when have Richard Gage and Chris Sarns been experts of computer models and fire simulations? Since Gage doesn't even know the basics of engineering, how can you assume that he now actually has any expertise on this matter? Just because they throw points in the air doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

But this was a draft report and comments are coming in. From this bunch and a lot of actual experts who know what they are talking about. We will see how this develops.

To me, this is just another sad effort to keep their websites, trutherism and support alive. I mean, they had to do this, they had no choice. They have invested so much in this there is no turning back. It's all about thermite and foreknowledge. And it looks exactly like a controlled demolition! Oh wait.. Damn.

[ref]

Ref, you are happy with the report? nothing that you think has to be improved?

I think there actually is some room for improvement (nothing that even remotely would make it an inside job), but I am no expert. I'm waiting for the comments from the actual experts and what NIST does then. So I'll wait and see how this develops.

[Christopher7]

And since when have Richard Gage and Chris Sarns been experts of computer models and fire simulations? Since Gage doesn't even know the basics of engineering, how can you assume that he now actually has any expertise on this matter? You don't have to be any kind of expert to see that the NIST fire simulation is grossly inaccurate.
They have extensive fires going at 5:00 p.m. but the NIST Apx. L report clearly says that the fires on floor 12 had gone out by 4:45 p.m.
Look at the photos, look at what NIST 'simulated'. There's a disconnect.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17781

[ref]

You don't have to be any kind of expert to see that the NIST fire simulation is grossly inaccurate.
They have extensive fires going at 5:00 p.m. but the NIST Apx. L report clearly says that the fires on floor 12 had gone out by 4:45 p.m.
Look at the photos, look at what NIST 'simulated'. There's a disconnect.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17781

I take it you are Chris Sarns, right?

[Golden Bear]

If these larger pieces were in a small space above the original footprint, why has the Fiterman Hall (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=116127) been evacuated since 9/11 and is being demolished floor by floor?

Perhaps I should have described it more precisely as "largely within the original footprint." You know, just like all other controlled demolitions. The buildings in NYC are pretty close together, and it would be unreasonable to expect that a building could be CD'ed without damaging surrounding buildings at all.


It is them who don't contribute any original thinking.

I don't think you actually read the letter if you believe that. Two points out of about 35 cover issues that have been previously discussed here. They are the easiest for you to raise inane arguments against (probably arguments that were originally come up with by others), so those are what you chose to attack. I know what the point was: "Look, they say X, and we've shown time and time again X is not true, so their entire letter is a lie."

They just explained how they estimated the time: using shadow analysis. Why should they explain in extreme detail the methods of the shadow analysis of one single photograph in a report of hundreds of pages? Just because the bunch finds it unlikely that the given results match with their agenda, so they demand new ones?

They need to explain it because in their interim report (Appendix L) in 20004, they stated that the 12th floor was "burned out" by 4:45 pm. In this report, a single photograph has magically appeared on their desk from an "unknown source" that happens to contradict their previous analysis and shows fire at a crucial time when they need it for their theory to have any hope of seeming persuasive. So, yes, I do expect them to at least identify which shadows they were looking at when they determined it was taken at 5:00pm, plus or minus "at least ten minutes." It's a 1000 page report, and they have wasted at least 100 of those on "intentionally left blank" pages, and other irrelevant crap like conversion tables (don't they think scientists reading the report know how to convert units?).

And since when have Richard Gage and Chris Sarns been experts of computer models and fire simulations? Since Gage doesn't even know the basics of engineering, how can you assume that he now actually has any expertise on this matter? Just because they throw points in the air doesn't mean they know what they are talking about.

Actually, if you would go look at the analysis, you would see that the computer simulation clearly shows a raging fire across about half of the north face, yet the "unknown source" 5:00pm photograph only shows a small fire in the extreme northwest corner. You don't have to be an expert to see the disconnect. NIST should simply explain why the one photograph they have of the north face at 5:00pm shows one really small fire, yet their computer model shows a raging fire across half of the north face. It's not that complex.

But this was a draft report and comments are coming in. From this bunch and a lot of actual experts who know what they are talking about. We will see how this develops.

Indeed. And because these issues have been clearly identified to NIST, we will see how they address it. If they persist in using the 12th floor computer model that grossly overestimates the fires at 5:00pm, we will then know that they are not interested in the truth. They would instead be exposed as political hacks that are doing whatever they can to examine this problem in a way that supports a politically expedient, predetermined conclusion.

It's all about thermite and foreknowledge. And it looks exactly like a controlled demolition! Oh wait.. Damn.

No, you seem to think it's all about thermite and foreknowledge. Again, those were TWO out of about 30 or so different points raised. As these public comments clearly show, for NIST it's all about unrealistic, raging fires for which there exists little to no visual or anecdotal evidence.

It is humorous (and telling) how you chose to pick out the shadow analysis comment as the one to criticize. This is another very minor point, where the obvious larger point is the one that, even assuming that 5:00pm "unknown source" photograph was taken at 5:00pm, the photograph completely and obviously contradicts the computer models for the 12th floor fires. If it makes you feel better about yourself to attack the less consequential minor points, though, go ahead.

Oh, and guess what, it does look exactly like a controlled demolition! You're right! Even Dan Rather agrees with me! Even Danny Jowenko agrees with me! And now you agree with me! We're making some progress here.

[1337m4n]

Perhaps I should have described it more precisely as "largely within the original footprint." You know, just like all other controlled demolitions. The buildings in NYC are pretty close together, and it would be unreasonable to expect that a building could be CD'ed without damaging surrounding buildings at all.

So basically you admit that the "footprint" argument doesn't actually promote CD at all. Cool.



Oh, and guess what, it does look exactly like a controlled demolition! You're right! Even Dan Rather agrees with me! Even Danny Jowenko agrees with me! And now you agree with me! We're making some progress here.

Controlled Demolition of WTC7, a dumb idea invented by dumb people out of ignorance. WTC7 did not look like a controlled demolition. Dan Rather is not an expert on controlled demolition. Danny Jowenko was misled by liars who only showed him a 5-second clip before asking him to make a judgement. WTC7 was not a controlled demolition; a controlled demolition leaves a seismic record that has clear explosions. Protec has seismic records; they do not indicate demolition. When you understand the seismic record you will understand WTC7.

Indeed. And because these issues have been clearly identified to NIST, we will see how they address it. If they persist in using the 12th floor computer model that grossly overestimates the fires at 5:00pm, we will then know that they are not interested in the truth. They would instead be exposed as political hacks that are doing whatever they can to examine this problem in a way that supports a politically expedient, predetermined conclusion.

A Truther lecturing about "predetermined conclusions". LMAO. The Bunch had make up their minds; WTC7 was demolished! You lecture about "predetermined conclusions"; The Bunch had decided that the NIST report was flawed before it was even released! Double standards are fun aren't they.

You nitpick a photograph and a computer illustration to remain willfully ignorant on 9/11. You have a predetermined conclusion about controlled demolition; this is proven by the fact that you remain willfully ignorant about the seismic record, which you would study if you cared about the truth. Protec debunks demolition, end of story.

[ref]

Golden Bear does not get it.

It is a complete waste of time arguing "Concrete Core" Sarns and "Box Boy" Gage.

I have stopped arguing these matters months ago. I have reported some news, but that's it. They may come up with new "clever findings", but I won't be tempted back into this BS. I am waiting for the comments from actual experts. Not these salesmen.

And it's all about thermite. Still.

[Grizzly Bear]

Oh, and guess what, it does look exactly like a controlled demolition! You're right!
"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck it must be a duck"
That's the argument in the nut shell eh?

Even Dan Rather agrees with me! Even Danny Jowenko agrees with me! And now you agree with me! We're making some progress here.

A double appeal to authority, the least of which one was only shown limited information upon the event.


eh I could say more but nothing that's not already been said...

[Golden Bear]

So basically you admit that the "footprint" argument doesn't actually promote CD at all. Cool.

So basically, you've just proven you don't know how to read. Cool.

Yes, the building fell largely within its own footprint, just like all other CDs. It would be impossible to make such a tall building fall exactly within its own footprint using CD. It may be less precise, but still accurate, to say it fell into its own footprint.

Controlled Demolition of WTC7, a dumb idea invented by dumb people out of ignorance. WTC7 did not look like a controlled demolition. Dan Rather is not an expert on controlled demolition. Danny Jowenko was misled by liars who only showed him a 5-second clip before asking him to make a judgement. WTC7 was not a controlled demolition; a controlled demolition leaves a seismic record that has clear explosions. Protec has seismic records; they do not indicate demolition. When you understand the seismic record you will understand WTC7.

Go look at CDI's description of the Kingdome demolition and you will see that the seismic record can be controlled to some extent, even using high explosives such as RDX. Go read the published literature about nanoenergetic materials like nanothermite, and you will see descriptions of highly energetic materials that are not necessarily explosive. Incidentally, these nanoenergetic materials can be made in gel form that can be coated, sprayed or otherwise applied to surfaces before being ignited. They can be made explosive by including flourinated hydrocarbons in the mixture, but generally they aren't very explosive. Such a high temperature, highly energetic incediary could be used to attack a steel column (Appendix C to FEMA report, anyone?). Your arguments based on Protec data ignore other possibilities that exist based on published scientific literature.

The Bunch had decided that the NIST report was flawed before it was even released! Double standards are fun aren't they.

Perhaps you have a source for this? Saying something IS flawed is not the same to say something COULD BE flawed based on NIST's previous public statements.

You nitpick a photograph and a computer illustration to remain willfully ignorant on 9/11.

You're right. Don't concern yourself with the details. It's ok for NIST to fudge the numbers just a tiny little bit to make their fire theory work in the computer models, right?

What's really funny (that is, if the subject matter weren't so serious), and we haven't even gotten there yet because no one seems to want to address Chapter 9, is that later, when NIST uses these fire simulations to predict structural response, they increase the temperatures predicted by their previous models by even more in subsequent models! Then they only use the worst case scenario from those increased temperatures for the global structural response! It is completely ridiculous. The entire NIST argument in support of its fire collapse theory can be boiled down to "We kept jacking up the temperatures inside the building until our computer showed a collapse initiating event."

Protec debunks demolition, end of story.

Only if you believe science and technology are stagnant. The CDI website, Kingdome description, clearly shows that CD companies know CD can show up in the seismic records, and that steps can be taken to control the seismic record. All it takes is for the people that planned the CD to put their thinking caps on and say, "Hey guys, how can we control the seismic record in this instance. CDI did it for the Kingdome. Can't we figure out a way to control it here?"

[A W Smith]

Golden Bear does not get it.

It is a complete waste of time arguing "Concrete Core" Sarns and "Box Boy" Gage.



Christopher Sarns is the carpentry remodeling contractor (from Stockton I think) and not of concrete and three inch rebar fame

ChristopherA (Christopher Alfred Brown) of concrete core and rebar
is the excavator / laborer/ equipment operator. Who has a strange collection of HTML files about events in his life here
http://algoxy.com/psych/

[Golden Bear]

"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck it must be a duck"
That's the argument in the nut shell eh?


Yes. You're right. That's what all of the 30 or so points raised in the public comment document boil down to. Just one whiney little "But, but, but it looks like CD, so it must be!"
/sarcasm

A double appeal to authority, the least of which one was only shown limited information upon the event.


I was not appealing to anyone's authority in the way you suggest. I think we can all agree that Dan Rather and Danny Jowenko are relatively sane individuals with a normal worldview. They just happen to be the first two such sane, normal people I could think of who are on tape saying WTC 7 looked exactly like a CD. So, yes, I have appealed to the authority of two people we can all agree are sane and well-adjusted individuals for the proposition that to sane, normal people the WTC 7 collapse looks exactly like a controlled demolition. Maybe some of the logic experts here can let me know if that still qualifies as an "appeal to authority" fallacy.

eh I could say more but nothing that's not already been said...


Yes, contributing original thinking is difficult. Please don't exert yourself too much here.

[A W Smith]

I was not appealing to anyone's authority in the way you suggest. I think we can all agree that Dan Rather and Danny Jowenko are relatively sane individuals with a normal worldview. They just happen to be the first two such sane, normal people I could think of who are on tape saying WTC 7 looked exactly like a CD. So, yes, I have appealed to the authority of two people we can all agree are sane and well-adjusted individuals for the proposition that to sane, normal people the WTC 7 collapse looks exactly like a controlled demolition. Maybe some of the logic experts here can let me know if that still qualifies as an "appeal to authority" fallacy.
.

sorry, regardless if they were of sound mind and/or the first you thought of that appeared on video it is still transparent as an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)

[Grizzly Bear]

I was not appealing to anyone's authority in the way you suggest. I think we can all agree that Dan Rather and Danny Jowenko are relatively sane individuals with a normal worldview. They just happen to be the first two such sane, normal people I could think of who are on tape saying WTC 7 looked exactly like a CD.
Jowenko was shown a five second clip of the WTC 7 collapse in it's final stages and given no background as to what happened to it. He didn't even know it was on 911 until the interviewer told him, and he was very confused regarding what he was seeing. Rather understandable given that he wasn't shown the collapse initiation that began with the collapse of pent house. Regardless, from what I see both accounts rely purely on appearances, of which are alone not enough to conclude that the collapse was a controlled demolition.


So, yes, I have appealed to the authority of two people we can all agree are sane and well-adjusted individuals for the proposition that to sane, normal people the WTC 7 collapse looks exactly like a controlled demolition.
Two people who were provided limited information on an event with multiple factors. But as long as it agrees with you, you have no problem skipping any form of critical analysis of their conclusions and take their conclusions as fact. As I stated before, the only thing a controlled demolition has in common with any other collapse is failure of the structural components, which in the context of what you are arguing is circular. Sorry, come up with something better than appearances.


Yes, contributing original thinking is difficult. Please don't exert yourself too much here.
There there... the nanothermites were exactly the cliche topics I'm used to hearing... I return the advice, don't strain yourself either :)

[Christopher7]

Jowenko was shown a five second clip of the WTC 7 collapse in it's final stages and given no background as to what happened to it. He didn't even know it was on 911 until the interviewer told him, and he was very confused regarding what he was seeing. Rather understandable given that he wasn't shown the collapse initiation that began with the collapse of pent house. Regardless, from what I see both accounts rely purely on appearances, of which are alone not enough to conclude that the collapse was a controlled demolition.Danny Jowenko recognized that WTC 7 was a CD when he saw the 5 second clip, so did I, so have millions of others. It's bloody obvious. Danny was not confused, he was convinced. He is an expert, you are not. You are in denial. WTC 7 fell straight down very fast. To say "it doesn't look like a CD" makes the person saying that look like an idiot.

[Golden Bear]

sorry, regardless if they were of sound mind and/or the first you thought of that appeared on video it is still transparent as an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)

Actually, upon further consideration, I don't think it was a logical fallacy. I wasn't offering their testimony to prove the truth of the assertion that WTC 7 was a CD. I was offering it as proof that normal, sane people can, based on the video evidence, say WTC 7 looked like a CD. And thus, disprove the assertion continuously spouted around here that only mentally ill losers can look at the WTC 7 collapse and think it looks like a CD.

Poor, confused Danny Jowenko. Never seen a building collapse in his life. Taken completely aback at the thought that buildings fall down for any reason. I can't believe they would pull such an awful trick as to show video of a collapsing building to a CD expert. He must have just been flabbergasted at what he saw.

Dan Rather had never seen one either. Oh wait, maybe he did. Actually, yes, he said we'd all seen it, probably too much, on television many times before.

Yep, these guys were just so confused and disoriented by what they saw.

[Grizzly Bear]

Danny Jowenko recognized that WTC 7 was a CD when he saw the 5 second clip, so did I, so have millions of others.

He classified it as such without being provided any more information than a 5 second video clip. The video shown to him does not show the collapse of the penthouse that precedes the collapse progression, nor does it provide any background information on what happened to the structure before the collapse. It's apparent near the end of that interview he had no idea that was on the same day that the twin towers collapsed,

It's bloody obvious.
Get back on your medication... :)
It's a disgrace to make a conclusion from nothing more than the appearance with no formal background knowledge of what happened to it.

Danny was not confused, he was convinced.

I suggest you rewatch that video, particularly toward the end when the interviewer tells him when the video was shot. He was certain judging solely by appearance but he was flabbergasted as to how such a demolition could be prepared in a single day. I think his reaction to being told more information than he had before viewing the footage is self-evident.


He is an expert, you are not.
Appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) rejected.

You are in denial.
That's your confirmation bias speaking, not you. I won't consider you credible until you demonstrate critical thinking skills in scrutinizing the claims you parrot. You have not only demonstrated your confirmation bias, but as well your inability to consider more than just face value in the people you quote

WTC 7 fell straight down very fast. To say "it doesn't look like a CD" makes the person saying that look like an idiot.
Ah but here's your problem Chris, you watch a video, say:
"OH *rule10*!!!!! IT LOOKS LIKE A CD!!!! THEREFORE IT IS!!!!!!!!!"

That's it... nada... you stop right there! Confirmation bias at is finest, to consider any collapse mechanism seems to be a massive taboo for you....

[Golden Bear]

There there... the nanothermites were exactly the cliche topics I'm used to hearing... I return the advice, don't strain yourself either :)

Maybe you missed it, but I'm the one that tried to steer this discussion away from the 3% of the document that talks about thermite, and try to focus on the 97% that does not. No one seems to want to address any of the points made in my first post in this thread, save and except the one person that weakly criticized the shadow analysis comment.

I guess you guys have more fun repeating cliches, so we can repeat the response cliches, and go round and round without actually thinking.

I'm ready to defend my first post with some original thought and original argument. Unfortunately, that would take some original thought and argument on the part of the JREFCJers here first. As I'm beginning to notice, that is becoming less and less likely.

[Grizzly Bear]

And thus, disprove the assertion continuously spouted around here that only mentally ill losers can look at the WTC 7 collapse and think it looks like a CD.

I don't doubt that it superficially looks like one given the video angle the footage was taken at. What I have a problem with, and as I have demonstrated is with those who look at the video and immediately conclude a controlled demolition with no added background information.

What should any building collapse look like when it's critical structural members fail? The location of the failure, the progression of the collapse, among many other factors is determined by where the failure takes place. This is regardless of whether that failure is intentionally induced or not. Seems like circular reasoning to assume that a collapse is a controlled demolition on appearance alone.


As for the rest of your post... I don't care much for sarcasm... Jowenko clearly was not provided any background information concerning what happened to that particular building, and contrary to what you seem to think,,, that actually matters.

When I do a case study on a building precedent and I don't get any background information on it's construction, then obviously my case study isn't going to get far. It's disingenuous to not provide such information beforehand

[Christopher7]

He classified it as such without being provided any more information than a 5 second video clip.That's all that is needed.

The video shown to him does not show the collapse of the penthouse that precedes the collapse progression, nor does it provide any background information on what happened to the structure before the collapse.That is not needed.

It's apparent near the end of that interview he had no idea that was on the same day that the twin towers collapsed,He had been told it was imploded days later. He never varied from his professional opinion that it was a CD.


Ah but here's your problem Chris, you watch a video, say:
"OH *rule10*!!!!! IT LOOKS LIKE A CD!!!! THEREFORE IT IS!!!!!!!!!"No problem.
It looks like a professional building implosion.
FEMA acknowledges that WTC 7 imploded.
Implosions World has many videos of buildings being imploded.
No two implosions look exactly the same but they all fall mostly straight down, very fast, and land mostly in their own footprint.
Fires are random and move from place to place. They cannot cannot cause the uniform, straight down collapse we see in the videos.

WTC 7 looks like a CD.
There is no other explanation.
Therefore it is a CD.

[Golden Bear]

What should any building collapse look like when it's critical structural members fail?



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1588848d19d080bc8e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13814)

Maybe?

[X]

That's all that is needed.


Out of curiosity, what is the opinion of experts in the field of controlled demolition when exposed to mre than 5 seconds of the video?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1588848d19d080bc8e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13814)

Maybe?


Lol... No. Completely different types of construction and completely different modes of failure. The building in your image wasn't even burning, let alone for nearly 7 hours.

[Golden Bear]

Lol... No. Completely different types of construction and completely different modes of failure. The building in your image wasn't even burning, let alone for nearly 7 hours.

Oh, I guess Grizzly's question wasn't quite precise enough then. He just asked what should happen when any building's critical support member fails. I'm pretty sure I answered the question asked.

[Christopher7]

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

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Oh, I guess Grizzly's question wasn't quite precise enough then. He just asked what should happen when any building's critical support member fails. I'm pretty sure I answered the question asked.


That's a fair point, but only if you ignore the context that the question was asked in. You truthers have an awful habit of doing that in an attempt to score imaginary points...

[Grizzly Bear]

That's all that is needed.
To echo [X]:
Out of curiosity, what is the opinion of experts in the field of controlled demolition when exposed to more than 5 seconds of the video?


That is not needed.
Of course because it ruins your fantasy :)


He had been told it was imploded days later. He never varied from his professional opinion that it was a CD.
Why is it important to me whether or not he changes his personal opinion? Is his authority more important than scrutinizing all of the evidence?


It looks like a professional building implosion
&
Implosions World has many videos of buildings being imploded.

Get off the argument. You're not worth the time if you don't bother to look at other influencing factors ranging from construction material, to structural systems, size, location of failure, et al.

You clearly don't care about anything more than appearance, your research capabilities are mediocre at best in this area.


FEMA acknowledges that WTC 7 imploded.
Citation or reference page + paragraph please?

No two implosions look exactly the same but they all fall mostly straight down, very fast, and land mostly in their own footprint.
More of your confirmation bias based solely on the appearance and nothing else. I don't take people's arguments seriously if they are this one-dimensional.


Fires are random and move from place to place. They cannot cannot cause the uniform, straight down collapse we see in the videos.
Collapse progression is determined by where the structure integrity fails. This is why your faith on appearance is null.



WTC 7 looks like a CD.
There is no other explanation.
Therefore it is a CD.


Rinse and repeat until true.

[Golden Bear]

I don't doubt that it superficially looks like one given the video angle the footage was taken at.

I think what you meant to say here is that it looked exactly like a controlled demolition at all 4 or 5 different camera angles the footage was taken at.


That's a fair point, but only if you ignore the context that the question was asked in.

Nice try, but it wasn't taken out of context. Go look.

You truthers have an awful habit of doing that in an attempt to score imaginary points...

I'm pretty sure who's scored the most real points in this thread.
Me: 50
JREFCJ: 0

[Grizzly Bear]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1588848d19d080bc8e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13814)

Maybe?

Preferrably something less monolithic and non-earthquake related? LOL?

Oh, I guess Grizzly's question wasn't quite precise enough then. He just asked what should happen when any building's critical support member fails. I'm pretty sure I answered the question asked.

My question was too broad in wording, but I'd have thought given the context of what we are discussing you'd have responded with something other than your own sarcasm...

[Tbone]

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

You believe that the flames visible from the outside of the buildings must be the hottest part of the fire?

[Christopher7]

To echo [X]:
Out of curiosity, what is the opinion of experts in the field of controlled demolition when exposed to more than 5 seconds of the video?The only one i know of is Danny and he still said WTC 7 was a CD after seeing several videos of the implosion.

Do you agree that WTC 7 looks like a CD?

Would you care to address the fire simulation above?

[Golden Bear]

You believe that the flames visible from the outside of the buildings must be the hottest part of the fire?

Well, the outside layer of offices was where most of the fresh oxygen was. And that's where most of the "high combustible load" (NIST's assessment, not mine) offices were located. So, yeah, the hottest part of the fire probably was near the outer edges of the building.

[Christopher7]

You believe that the flames visible from the outside of the buildings must be the hottest part of the fire?Yes. [see above] The visible fires show us the progression of the fire. To get from the south side of the building to the north side, the fire must consume everything in between.

Are you with me so far?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Nice try, but it wasn't taken out of context. Go look.


* Cl1mh4224rd sighs.
It was taken out of the context of the thread. You took his post in a very literal sense that required ignoring the entire discussion up to that point. I'm not sure why I even need to point this out to you.

[Golden Bear]

* Cl1mh4224rd;4047732 sighs.
It was taken out of the context of the thread. You took his post in a very literal sense that required ignoring the entire discussion up to that point. I'm not sure why I even need to point this out to you.

Actually, the context of this thread is the "usual bunch" that's not happy with the WTC 7 report, and their suggested revisions. For example, do the fire simulations match the visual evidence at all? Look at the graphic Christopher provided. The picture shows one small fire in the northwest corner at 5pm. The NIST computer model has raging fires across half of the north face. Can you not acknowledge the complete contradiction there.

Wait, let me guess, the NIST computer model is taken out of context, right?

The lack of context argument is an easy but deceptive way to ignore key points without addressing the substance.

[LashL]

Me: 50
JREFCJ: 0


What on earth is JREFCJ supposed to stand for in your posts? I've noticed that you've used it a couple of times.

[Grizzly Bear]

Actually, the context of this thread is the "usual bunch" that's not happy with the WTC 7 report, and their suggested revisions.
...... no (https://webspace.utexas.edu/warnerwt/picard-facepalm.jpg) you dodged...


The picture shows one small fire in the northwest corner at 5pm. The NIST computer model has raging fires across half of the north face. Can you not acknowledge the complete contradiction there.
What factors were considered in the AE911truth model in the process of modeling the fires? Was their model based solely upon pictures and other visual media? Or did they consider a combination of the visual and fuel loads as well as other contributing factors? I'd like to compare them with the considerations taken into account by NIST's models.

[Grizzly Bear]

Citation or reference page + paragraph please?


Just curious if Christopher's going to address this regarding the FEMA implosion remark....

[Golden Bear]

What factors were considered in the AE911truth model in the process of modeling the fires? Was their model based solely upon pictures and other visual media? Or did they consider a combination of the visual and fuel loads as well as other contributing factors? I'd like to compare them with the considerations taken into account by NIST's models.

I can't speak for AE911truth, but I know NIST assumed an average combustible fuel load across the entire floor. That's why you don't see cool zones in the NIST model where you should, like in hallways between the exterior and interior offices, where there is only carpet to burn, or in the big testimony and hearing rooms on the 13th floor. NIST doesn't disclose exactly how they assumed the fire would spread, or exactly how they partitioned the floor, in their black box model.

It appears that AE911truth adopted NIST's average fuel loading assumption.

Regardless, if you look at the schematic diagrams of the floors in the NIST Report, you will see that the exterior of the north face was lined with offices, which is where most of the combustibles were located. Thus, the fires on the north face are a good indicator of actual fire progression. If NIST's models match the visual evidence (which they don't), they are basically worthless.

[Grizzly Bear]

I can't speak for AE911truth, but I know NIST assumed an average combustible fuel load across the entire floor. That's why you don't see cool zones in the NIST model where you should, like in hallways between the exterior and interior offices, where there is only carpet to burn, or in the big testimony and hearing rooms on the 13th floor. NIST doesn't disclose exactly how they assumed the fire would spread, or exactly how they partitioned the floor, in their black box model.
I'll speak regarding this once I have reviewed the section and refamiliarized myself with the content...


It appears that AE911truth adopted NIST's average fuel loading assumption.
I went as far to find the original PDF via the prisonplanet article and the PDF contains no information regarding what was factored into to the spread of the fires. My first impression of their graphic is that they relied very heavily on image based corroboration, and factored little else in. It would help greatly if they specified those details for a more accurate comparison, particularly given that a number of their evidence claims on the main page are incorrect... which makes it that much harder for me to play the devil's advocate here...


Regardless, if you look at the schematic diagrams of the floors in the NIST Report, you will see that the exterior of the north face was lined with offices, which is where most of the combustibles were located. Thus, the fires on the north face are a good indicator of actual fire progression. If NIST's models match the visual evidence (which they don't), they are basically worthless.
AE911truth seems to have greatly simplified the dynamics in their model, and this impression isn't helped by the fact that they do not explain what they factored into it to get the result in their PDF file. As I emphasized with the appearance of the collapse, exterior visuals of fire should be taken as a minimum indicator of the spread and size. The building has an interior to consider in any case...

[Christopher7]

What factors were considered in the AE911truth model in the process of modeling the fires? Was their model based solely upon pictures and other visual media? Or did they consider a combination of the visual and fuel loads as well as other contributing factors? I'd like to compare them with the considerations taken into account by NIST's models.Fuel loads were consistent throughout the east end.

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/5639/floor12layoutcopyax2.jpg

[beachnut]

Danny Jowenko recognized that WTC 7 was a CD when he saw the 5 second clip, so did I, so have millions of others. It's bloody obvious. Danny was not confused, he was convinced. He is an expert, you are not. You are in denial. WTC 7 fell straight down very fast. To say "it doesn't look like a CD" makes the person saying that look like an idiot.
fast? lol, the interior was falling over 8 seconds before the facade fell. 7 years, you would think a few truthers would have a Pulitzer Prize by now with all their knowledge and evidence. Not straight at all, it was chaos. So now you push a lie of fast falling building.

- you were debunked 7 years ago

Debunked 7 years ago.

fast? lol, the interior fell over 8 seconds before the facade fell.
7 years, you should have a Pulitzer Prize; but you have no evidence, just a failed ideas from ignorance on all things related to WTC7.

How can a fall be straight, when it was not? The falling interior debunks that dim idea.

Why do the idiots in 9/11 truth ignore the interior failing over 8 second before the facade falls.

Only you, 9/11 truth and Dan Rather say CD out of ignorance. At least you identify your fantasy right up front.

[beachnut]

I can't speak for AE911truth, ...

It appears that AE911truth ...
You and A&E are armed with the same evidence; Zero.

Good job, so far you have proven A&E have no real conclusion on 9/11. Just like you. This is based solely on your massive evidence.

I would make a comment on your presented material. However, you posted no rational material. There must be something you will get right if you post enough. Good work, great posts so far, at least you are supporting something that other terrorist apologist can appreciate and not understand anyway.

Seriously, do you have some real issues, or are you just using the failed ideas of A&E?

[DC]

;4047363']Out of curiosity, what is the opinion of experts in the field of controlled demolition when exposed to mre than 5 seconds of the video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

here the long version of the interview with a CD expert :)

[beachnut]

;4047363']Out of curiosity, what is the opinion of experts in the field of controlled demolition when exposed to mre than 5 seconds of the video?

CD and WTC7, proof 9/11 has no evidence, no real clue what happen. No understanding of the NIST report, no credible critique based on knowledge related to the report. If 9/11 truth actually spews some engineering terms, it may fool some idiots who are about to join the evidence free hearsay pundits, those apologist for terrorist, 9/11 truth.

How can they still be using the doltish idea of CD after 7 years; debunked on 9/11! Pathetic

[ref]

Christopher Sarns is the carpentry remodeling contractor (from Stockton I think) and not of concrete and three inch rebar fame

ChristopherA (Christopher Alfred Brown) of concrete core and rebar
is the excavator / laborer/ equipment operator. Who has a strange collection of HTML files about events in his life here
http://algoxy.com/psych/

Ok, thanks for the correction!

[ref]

I don't think you actually read the letter if you believe that. Two points out of about 35 cover issues that have been previously discussed here. They are the easiest for you to raise inane arguments against (probably arguments that were originally come up with by others), so those are what you chose to attack.

...

No, you seem to think it's all about thermite and foreknowledge. Again, those were TWO out of about 30 or so different points raised.

I just wanted to come back to this once more. You say thermite and foreknowledge are only 2 points out of 30 or 35. You belittle them and make it seem like these topics are not even the main points of the letter.

But let's see the bigger picture, shall we. These guys knew they had to have something against NIST. They knew the NIST WTC 7 report was going to be wrong, even before it was released. Heck, Gage even announced days earlier that he would conduct a phone conference immediately after the report's release to counter it.

So we agree that they had to get some concrete points in a hurry to counter the actual messages of the report, not just repeat the old messages they had repeated years without taking into account the new NIST findings. If they didn't raise some new points to counter the actual report, they would just look stupid (they still do).

Enter this paper.

We have criticism of fire simulations. About combustible fuel loadings. About structural response. About inconsistencies. I admit, some new points because they had to. Unlike them, I don't claim to be an expert on fire simulations (or claim that you don't even have to be in order to see NIST is wrong) or structural response, so I will wait comments from actual experts (as I have stated numerous times).

But what happens after these new points they have come up with, because they had to? Enter those 2 minor points of thermite and foreknowledge. Why are these important? Because this is what they actually believe happened. This is where they present their scenario and evidence they think supports for their views. And this is where they fail.

If foreknowledge is only 1 minor point out of 30, why did they dedicate one fifth (20%) of the letter's length to foreknowledge alone, with a total of 7 subpoints to prove this foreknowledge? Does not seem like a minor point!

What about thermite? This is what they come up with, when asked what they are suggesting caused the collapse instead of fire. It sure is important. It is the most important. And it is the point they make every time. Thermite is everything to their existence as a group and truthers. They have nothing else left. That's why I said it's still all about thermite.

This bunch may come up with their opinion why some part of the NIST report is wrong. But so may other people well more qualified, not driven by an agenda that has totally taken over their lives. If there are mistakes in the report we will hear sooner or later.

In the words of the Gage man: We're going to Denny's, we're looking for pancakes. We don't find any.

[zorro99]

09/09/08
03:47:41 am, Categories: Voices, 1812 words
Dr. Wyndham’s Reply to NIST About Their WTC 7 Final Report
John D. Wyndham, PhD

WTC Technical Information Repository
Attn: Stephen Cauffman,
NIST, 100 Bureau Dr., Stop 8611,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20899-8610.

Dear Sirs:

I have examined the documents¹ you provided on your theory of the collapse of WTC 7 due to fires by way of thermal expansion. It is apparent that you have spent a great deal of time, effort, money and thought on this project.

However, like Ptolemy’s Theory of Epicycles, you begin with a faulty and unproven assumption. It is also the least likely assumption based on the evidence. Therefore, although your computer modeling may be intricate, your results are completely speculative and have no connection with the reality of what happened to that building. You are simply “adding epicycles” to a theory based on a false premise.

Your theory essentially rests on two physical observations:

1. There were office fires in WTC 7 that burned for some hours.
2. The building completely collapsed.

Observation 1 is not in dispute, except as to the location, extent, and effect of the fires. You never observed these fires from inside the building, and you have no actual measurements of the thermal expansion and deformation of the structural steel beams whatever. You never examined any of the steel.

Observation 2 runs contrary to 100 years of experience with the behavior of steel-framed buildings that have caught on fire. Every one of them was subjected to thermal expansion, but never before has there been such a collapse. To now postulate that a collapse did occur due to office fires is the height of scientific recklessness.

Your consideration of hypothetical blast scenarios (Appendix D) is disingenuous, to say the least. You rule out a possible blast on the basis that it would have been audible, but was not reported. You consider only RDX and C4, which is RDX-based and known to be noisy. RDX has been in use since WWII and C4 reportedly has been used by terrorists. It is simply not believable that foreign terrorists could have gained unobserved access to WTC 7 before 9/11 (scenario 1) or during the 6 hour interval prior to its collapse (scenario 2). Why did you not consider the use of thermite, thermate, nano-thermites, and other state of the art materials? As shown by Kevin Ryan, NIST has extensive knowledge of and experience with the latter materials².

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/09/09/dr_wyndhama_8217_s_reply_to_nist_about_t

Somebody want to take a stab at this?

[ref]

You only need to take a quick look at what zorro99 just posted to see the importance of thermite to their existence.

[Christopher7]

I don't claim to be an expert on fire simulations (or claim that you don't even have to be in order to see NIST is wrong) You don't have to be an expert to see that the NIST simulations do NOT match the photos. This is easy for anyone to see. Look at the NIST simulation for 2:00 p.m. There are fires on the east face in the photo but not in the NIST simulation.

[ref]

You don't have to be an expert to see that the NIST simulations that do NOT match the photos. This is easy for anyone to see. Look at the NIST simulation for 2:00 p.m. There are fires on the east face in the photo but not in the NIST simulation.


But it's also easy for you to see, that the simulation is for 2:00 p.m. with the fires moving towards the east face. The photo is taken at 2:10 p.m. You seem the know perfectly well how fires advance in 10 minutes time?

Btw, sorry for calling you Chris Sarns if you are not. My mix-up.

[Christopher7]

But it's also easy for you to see, that the simulation is for 2:00 p.m. with the fires moving towards the east face. The photo is taken at 2:10 p.m. You seem the know perfectly well how fires advance in 10 minutes time?Not perfectly but the fires moved along the east face about 18 feet in 20 minutes or about 1 foot per minute.

The fire in the NIST 2:00 p.m. simulation is about 40 feet from the east wall.

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/3812/eastfireprogressionqc0.jpg

NIST must have figured it the same way i did because they estimate the fire in the NE corner as being from about 3:20 to 3:40, which is to say, the fire started there about 3:20 and lasted about 20 minutes.

[ref]

Not perfectly but the fires moved along the east face about 18 feet in 20 minutes or about 1 foot per minute.

The fire in the NIST 2:00 p.m. simulation is about 40 feet from the east wall.


Not claiming any expertise, but doesn't the fire have an open corridor to advance the 40 feet in 10 minutes from the simulated position of 2:00 p.m. to the photo of 2:10 p.m.? Whereas along the east face there are office cubicles/rooms (I don't remember which and I can't access the reports now), so the further advance as seen from the windows would be slowed down? Don't you think it's possible for the fire to advance this 40 feet in 10 minutes in this corridor faster than a foot per minute towards the east face?

[ref]

Hm, damn. Are ChristopherA and Christopher7 the same person, or not? If not, is Christopher7 possibly Sarns?

Sorry if I'm totally confused over the Chrises. I have not followed either of them. I would love a clarification if someone can provide one.

[Dave Rogers]

Hm, damn. Are ChristopherA and Christopher7 the same person, or not? If not, is Christopher7 possibly Sarns?

ChristopherA is Chris Brown IIRC. I have a feeling that answering the second question could be a breach of forum rules, although I know the answer, as it's a request to post personal information about a current member.

Dave

ETA: The two are certainly not the same person i.e. Christopher7 is clearly not a sock puppet of banned member ChristopherA.

[ref]

ChristopherA is Chris Brown IIRC. I have a feeling that answering the second question could be a breach of forum rules, although I know the answer, as it's a request to post personal information about a current member.

Dave

ETA: The two are certainly not the same person i.e. Christopher7 is clearly not a sock puppet of banned member ChristopherA.

I thought about the same thing about the rules, no need to answer that. The ETA part of your reply is enough, thanks. End of speculation :)

[Golden Bear]

I just wanted to come back to this once more. You say thermite and foreknowledge are only 2 points out of 30 or 35. You belittle them and make it seem like these topics are not even the main points of the letter.

I am not belittling them. I'm simply saying that the thermite and foreknowledge issues are, in fact, two out of many points raised against the NIST report. These are issues that have been hashed and re-hashed here probably hundreds of times, and it is pointless (but easy for you) to bring them up and attack them again.

But let's see the bigger picture, shall we. These guys knew they had to have something against NIST. They knew the NIST WTC 7 report was going to be wrong, even before it was released. Heck, Gage even announced days earlier that he would conduct a phone conference immediately after the report's release to counter it.

So we agree that they had to get some concrete points in a hurry to counter the actual messages of the report, not just repeat the old messages they had repeated years without taking into account the new NIST findings. If they didn't raise some new points to counter the actual report, they would just look stupid (they still do).

Yes, let's look at the bigger picture. NIST gave the public three (3) weeks to publicly comment on the Report in order to have the comments considered by NIST. If anyone was hurriedly getting together points to counter the NIST Report, it was EVERYONE who planned on commenting on it.

Also, I don't think they ever said they knew the new report was going to be wrong. They more likely suspected it was going to be wrong, and justifiably so based on past information released by NIST on the collapses.

I also get the impression you are somehow trying to criticize them for bringing up new points in an effort to avoid looking stupid. Here, I will merely note the fact that you are the one who raised no new points in your OP telling everyone over here about the usual bunch's comments. Do you now admit to looking stupid yourself?

Enter this paper.

We have criticism of fire simulations. About combustible fuel loadings. About structural response. About inconsistencies.

Yeah, no big deal. They were just criticizing the actual details of the NIST report. Move along. Nothing to see here. Forget the details. NIST's computer says fire caused the collapse. Nothing more is needed.


I admit, some new points because they had to.

Is this another attempt at criticism? You're criticizing them for raising new points? I suppose you would prefer them not raise any new points so you don't have to do any more thinking about the issue.

Unlike them, I don't claim to be an expert on fire simulations (or claim that you don't even have to be in order to see NIST is wrong) or structural response, so I will wait comments from actual experts (as I have stated numerous times).

If you look at the actual document, there are a number of engineers, including structural engineers, and other scientists that contributed. It seems to me that only a non-scientist would believe that only so called "experts" in a given field are able to understand fire (momentum, heat and mass transfer) and structural behavior (materials science, statics, dynamics, deformation). Virtually every engineering curriculum teaches concepts that apply to all other engineering curricula, and certainly all teach problem solving and ways of thinking that allow engineers of all different stripes to analyze engineering problems with which they don't have exactly on point relevant expertise. Electrical engineers take classes in strengths of materials and materials science. Chemical engineers take courses in electrical circuits. As such, pretty much all engineers have a "working knowledge" of most engineering concepts, certainly enough knowledge to converse with engineers of other disciplines. Of course, only an engineer would understand this, having lived through the experience. Most intelligent engineers should be able to pick up an engineering report written by an engineer of a different discipline and understand it, unless it involves special industry standard lingo. Even then, the engineer in question could do a little bit of outside research to see what the lingo is referring to and then easily understand the report. Again, only engineers can recognize this to be the case.

This argument also seems to me to be an ad hominem argument against these public comments, in the sense that it seeks to attack the comments by attacking the characteristics of the people making the comments. To make matters worse, you have indicated your intention to engage in an appeal to authority argument, but only after persons who you believe are authorities offer their comments.

But what happens after these new points they have come up with, because they had to? Enter those 2 minor points of thermite and foreknowledge. Why are these important? Because this is what they actually believe happened. This is where they present their scenario and evidence they think supports for their views. And this is where they fail.

Actually, this is where you fail. You have failed to understand the point of this document. It was intended to show how NIST manipulated its computer models so far beyond reality that they cannot be trusted, a point that was proven several times over. Again, if you actually read through the public comment document, you would realize that. The only section that deals with thermite and foreknowledge are at the very end, in a section about omissions from the report.


What about thermite? This is what they come up with, when asked what they are suggesting caused the collapse instead of fire. It sure is important. It is the most important. And it is the point they make every time. Thermite is everything to their existence as a group and truthers. They have nothing else left. That's why I said it's still all about thermite.


What about it? Even assuming the usual bunch is wrong about thermite, does that automatically mean NIST's black box computer model, which the usual bunch has clearly shown has no bearing on reality, is correct? You are trying to dance around the fact that you want to keep bringing up thermite because it's the easiest for you to comment on because you don't have to think. You offer no substance other than criticisms on thermite and foreknowledge. The usual bunch has offered a ton of substance besides the thermite and foreknowledge arguments. You can't address those, so you keep harping on the thermite. The usual bunch has actually addressed the new information that came out of NIST, and on an extremely short timescale. Doubtless, if given more time, they would have come up with even more points to raise.

This bunch may come up with their opinion why some part of the NIST report is wrong. But so may other people well more qualified, not driven by an agenda that has totally taken over their lives. If there are mistakes in the report we will hear sooner or later.

Hear about it from who? The JREFCJ High Command? Ryan Mackey? Gravy? Pomeroo? Are you just waiting for your marching orders before you become their cheerleaders and go around repeating what they come up?

The NIST Report is full of more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Yes, there exists a body of evidence that NIST did not consider. However, the main point of the usual bunch's public comments is to criticize what was actually written in the new NIST report. And again, had you given it a fair reading, you would understand that.

[Christopher7]

Not claiming any expertise, but doesn't the fire have an open corridor to advance the 40 feet in 10 minutes from the simulated position of 2:00 p.m. to the photo of 2:10 p.m.? Whereas along the east face there are office cubicles/rooms (I don't remember which and I can't access the reports now), so the further advance as seen from the windows would be slowed down? Don't you think it's possible for the fire to advance this 40 feet in 10 minutes in this corridor faster than a foot per minute towards the east face?Good point.
However
The fire was already going at 2:08:28 when this picture was taken which means it was visible on the east face a few minutes before.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/2069/208gv1.jpg

The NIST simulation puts the fire in the offices just to the east of column 81.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6016/firetempfl12200pmpq6.jpg

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/5639/floor12layoutcopyax2.jpg

[beachnut]

I'm simply saying that the thermite and foreknowledge issues are, ...
Total garbage, you entire post. Just talk. Wow

When you mention thermite you are just proving you are too ignorant on this topic and unable to make rational posts.

A&E still think thermite? They are nuts for even mentioning what Jones made up in 2005. 7 years and no clue.

All the holes and you can't present evidence to expose one. Talk and failed opinions are the hallmark of terrorist apologist who can't understand fire, engineering and many other topics needed to understand 9/11. Even the terrorist laugh at you, many have much more education and understanding of the issues involves. How sad beaten by terrorist now, 7 years after 9/11. Poor showing.


Present one hole in NIST that changes fire bringing down the towers and WTC, back it up with evidence and some engineering. You can't..

[Christopher7]

Present one hole in NIST that changes fire bringing down the towers and WTC, back it up with evidence and some engineering. Here's a hole you can drive a truck through. Perhaps you missed it.

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

[ref]

The NIST simulation puts the fire in the offices just to the east of column 81.


I scaled the NIST photo and the floor plan and put this image together with MS Paint. I have no access to better programs right now, but this gives a very rough idea of where the fires were according to the NIST simulation at 2:00 p.m. I only inserted the area of worst fire with red markings. Column 81 is the black dot.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1363948d349e11c6d5.jpg

So the worst fire is around column 81, and along the 2 corridors leading to the east face.

[Christopher7]

I scaled the NIST photo and the floor plan and put this image together with MS Paint. I have no access to better programs right now, but this gives a very rough idea of where the fires were according to the NIST simulation at 2:00 p.m. I only inserted the area of worst fire with red markings. Column 81 is the black dot.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1363948d349e11c6d5.jpg

So the worst fire is around column 81, and along the 2 corridors leading to the east face. Thank you for your work, it's quite good enough. I would have put the fire a little to the east but the point is still the same.

The NIST fire simulation for 2:00 p.m. seems to be off by about 1/2 hour and the 3:00 p.m. by an hour. [and the fire has 'jumped' to the north wall]
The 4:00 p.m and 5:00 p.m. bear no resemblance to the photos.

The 5:00 p.m. graphic is absurd. It has fire burning in some of the same areas for an hour and it is nothing like the photo* showing fire at the west end.

*NIST says "5:00 p.m. - time uncertainty is at least ten minutes". In other words, before the photo mentioned in NIST Apx. 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.

NIST did not include this photograph or statement in their final report.

The fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end around 4:00 p.m.

[ref]

Thank you for your work, it's quite good enough. I would have put the fire a little to the east but the point is still the same.

The NIST fire simulation for 2:00 p.m. seems to be off by about 1/2 hour

You have a photo showing flames in east face at 2:08 and change. Do you have any explanation why you assume that there also was a fire present at 2:00, rather than a fire on its way towards the east face at that time along the corridor?

and the 3:00 p.m. by an hour. [and the fire has 'jumped' to the north wall]

Once again, I have no access to the report, but I remember the large photo of the north face showing only yellow glow from the windows, not any actual flames? What makes you think fire was present there at 3:00, rather than the windows showing the glow of the still approaching but not yet present fire?

[Christopher7]

You have a photo showing flames in east face at 2:08 and change. Do you have any explanation why you assume that there also was a fire present at 2:00, rather than a fire on its way towards the east face at that time along the corridor?The fire was present in several windows which means it had been going there for several minutes, possibly more.
The NIST simulation has the fire 40 feet away. That just doesn't match up.

Once again, I have no access to the report,BS
They're at nist.gov as if you didn't know.

Related Documents

Link to WTC 7 Technical Briefing on Tuesday, Aug. 26, 11 a.m. EDT (http://event.on24.com/r.htm?e=118145&s=1&k=408DE83F525045317FAD444E03E1746B)
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html)
Opening Statement Press Briefing, August 21, 2008, Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/opening_remarks_082108.html)
NIST Response to the World Trade Center Investigation Disaster Presentation (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_News_Briefing_082008.pdf), Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, Director and Lead Investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, NIST
NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf)
NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7

Volume 1: Chapters 1 through 8 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment.pdf)
Volume 2: Chapters 9 through 14 and Appendixes A through E (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment.pdf)


NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9A_for_public_comment.pdf)
Video: The Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Building Fell (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html)
Process for Submitting Comments on the WTC 7 Draft Reports (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/comments2008.html)
Download High-Res Graphics: Typical WTC 7 Floor Diagram (2 MB) (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/images/WTC7Columns_Framing_3x4Poster_HR.jpg) and Thermal Expansion Illustration (29 MB) (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/images/WTC7_ThermalExpansionPoster.jpg)
Link to WTC 7 Report Webcast, Thursday, Aug. 21, 11 a.m. EDT (http://event.on24.com/r.htm?e=117359&s=1&k=17480F564B916A0A9CA3CFB3EE5BDDA2)


but I remember the large photo of the north face showing only yellow glow from the windows, not any actual flames? What makes you think fire was present there at 3:00, rather than the windows showing the glow of the still approaching but not yet present fire?These photos:

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1310/2575ot2.png

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9342/3055qg5.jpg

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/492/3135wf2.jpg

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6637/3422md3.jpg

[ref]

BS
They're at nist.gov as if you didn't know.¨

You think I didn't know that? :D:D

I meant I don't have access to them, because I'm at work and my work computer does not open PDF's that big.

[MaGZ]

I scaled the NIST photo and the floor plan and put this image together with MS Paint. I have no access to better programs right now, but this gives a very rough idea of where the fires were according to the NIST simulation at 2:00 p.m. I only inserted the area of worst fire with red markings. Column 81 is the black dot.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1363948d349e11c6d5.jpg

So the worst fire is around column 81, and along the 2 corridors leading to the east face.

Please note this fire started near the stairwell where Jennings and Hess experienced the explosion from the oil-filled transformers.

[ref]

Chris7, there were pressure differences and internal flows. How can you say how the fire behaved under those conditions and say NIST is definitely wrong? The fires could go back and forth, not just linear and exactly timed progress around the building. And there were internal fires not visible from the windows. Even NIST says that it was difficult to develop detailed timelines for burning on the four faces of the building.

Even if they were off a little with their timeline, do you disagree with their overall theory? The column 79 and fire theory?

Or do you have thermite in mind? Or are you pointing how NIST is wrong with photo analysis, but offer nothing else?

[Miragememories]

"The fires could go back and forth, not just linear and exactly timed progress around the building."
Are you really serious?

What mechanism would allow and encourage fires to return without the addition of more office furniture as fuel?

MM

[ref]

Are you really serious?

What mechanism would allow and encourage fires to return without the addition of more office furniture as fuel?

MM

I knew someone would pick on this.

I mean going west/east or north/south in one place, and coming back in the other row of offices/corridors.

But as I have stated, I am no expert in this. But neither is Christopher.

[Miragememories]

I knew someone would pick on this.

I mean going west/east or north/south in one place, and coming back in the other row of offices/corridors.

But as I have stated, I am no expert in this. But neither is Christopher.
Christopher at least presents a rational argument which does not require him to be an expert.

Your explanation appears to be nothing more than a desperate "grasping at straws" in order to defend a NIST hypothesis you appear to be too closed-minded to question rationally.

MM

[Christopher7]

Please note this fire started near the stairwell where Jennings and Hess experienced the explosion from the oil-filled transformers.NIST doesn't make that claim but nice try. The transformers were on floors 5 or 6.
The fire on floor 12 started about where they pictured it, cause unknown.

[Christopher7]

I mean going west/east or north/south in one place, and coming back in the other row of offices/corridors.Please, the fire was in the offices away from the east wall and would burn in all directions including north through adjacent offices. The fire on the north face spread out in both directions much faster than it could by burning from office to office. This clearly indicates a fire approaching from the south in an arc as i depicted. This is not rocket science, just logical deduction from the photographic evidence.

As i said before, the fire would consume everything from the origin of the fire to the north face on it's way to the north face.

[Tbone]

Christopher at least presents a rational argument which does not require him to be an expert.

MM

Interesting. One does not need to be an expert on fire behaviour to understand it properly, apparently.

[Christopher7]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1363948d349e11c6d5.jpg

[Christopher7]

Interesting. One does not need to be an expert on fire behaviour to understand it properly, apparently.Correct.
The frequent assertion made here that only an expert can figure out the obvious is just a denial tactic.
Fires ignite adjacent fuel and spread out in all directions. This may be a concept that is difficult for you to understand but it does not require a college education.

[Tbone]

Correct.
The frequent assertion made here that only an expert can figure out the obvious is just a denial tactic.
Fires ignite adjacent fuel and spread out in all directions. This may be a concept that is difficult for you to understand but it does not require a college education.

Interesting. Wind and pressure gradients do not exist in your mind.

[Golden Bear]

The frequent assertion made here that only an expert can figure out the obvious is just a denial tactic.


What makes it even worse is that if anyone ever does point to an expert's opinion on the matter, the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy comments start flying. Of course, both are just denial tactics. One allows them to avoid the substance of what is said as unworthy of addressing (ie. because it's not from an expert). The other allows them to discount the substance of the statement as a logical fallacy (ie. because it is from an expert), and thereby not address it. How convenient.

[Christopher7]

Interesting. Wind and pressure gradients do not exist in your mind.Wind? Pressure gradients? In an office fire? Please.
I suppose you are going to claim to be a expert and technobabble.

With a consistent fuel supply, a fire will progress in a consistent manner.

You are just trying to avoid the obvious with double talk.

The NIST fire simulations bear NO resemblance to the photographs.

[Tbone]

What makes it even worse is that if anyone ever does point to an expert's opinion on the matter, the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy comments start flying.

Examples, please.

[Tbone]

Wind? Pressure gradients? In an office fire? Please.

You think an office fire resembles a fire in an open space with no air movement? Collapsed floors, collapsing floors, broken windows can all cause interruptions to fire movement or change its direction entirely.

Also, why would I claim to be an expert? You don't think I would need to be one, therefor my considerations are just as valid as yours.

[Christopher7]

You think an office fire resembles a fire in an open space with no air movement? Collapsed floors, collapsing floors, broken windows can all cause interruptions to fire movement or change its direction entirely. The beams and girders had a 2 hr fire rating. The fires burned for about 20 min an any given area. There is no reason to assume that there were collapsed floors.

NIST used case B (+10%) in their models. They did NOT give the results for case A (actual temps from another computer model) nor did they give the input data.
Not including the case A results is a delibrate obsfucation of the data.
This is unacceptable in a scientific report.

Also, why would I claim to be an expert? You don't think I would need to be one, therefor my considerations are just as valid as yours.Good point.
Both points of view should be considered on their merit.

[Golden Bear]

Examples, please.

Examples:
1. This thread. Go read it from the beginning.
2. Virtually every single other thread on this site. Go read them.

Our experts are always wrong. Your experts are always right. That's just how it goes around here (in your mind, at least).

[Tbone]

Examples:
1. This thread. Go read it from the beginning.
2. Virtually every single other thread on this site. Go read them.

Our experts are always wrong. Your experts are always right. That's just how it goes around here (in your mind, at least).

Please give me specific posts.

[Golden Bear]

Please give me specific posts.

This one is only three pages. Go read it for yourself.

For one example, I said Danny Jowenko and Dan Rather both thought WTC 7 looked like a CD when they saw it on video tape. Someone immediately accused me of appeal to authority. Even when I said all I was trying to demonstrate is that people we can all agree are rational and sane have looked at WTC 7 on tape and said it looks like a CD, someone still said it was an appeal to authority.

Then, Chris tries to offer some analysis of the NIST report. He's not qualified because he's not an expert. But if he was an expert, then it would be an appeal to authority. And round and round we go.

In fact, all of the comments on the NIST report from the "usual bunch" are apparently being ignored because of the prevailing opinion here at JREFCJ that the usual bunch are not experts on this matter.

In every case the substance is ignored and stupid formal arguments are used as cover. In reality, you are unable to address the substance, and are trying to hide your inability to substantively respond.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

For one example, I said Danny Jowenko and Dan Rather both thought WTC 7 looked like a CD when they saw it on video tape. Someone immediately accused me of appeal to authority. Even when I said all I was trying to demonstrate is that people we can all agree are rational and sane have looked at WTC 7 on tape and said it looks like a CD, someone still said it was an appeal to authority.


Err... pointing to Dan Rather is indeed an appeal to authority. A very, very strange one at that...

Also, please tell me you understand what a simile is...

[Miragememories]

Interesting. One does not need to be an expert on fire behaviour to understand it properly, apparently.
How expert do you have to be to justify getting concerned, when empiric
evidence is in serious disagreement with the official findings?

A number of prominent individuals, individuals usually respected here, have
publicly stated they have serious problems with the final written argument
made by NIST.

After years of study, NIST makes their final claim, that office furniture fueled fires, alone,
were the cause of the "heat expansion", which NIST determined was the initiating mechanism
for the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

And you have to be an expert to question that?

MM

[stateofgrace]

How expert do you have to be to justify getting concerned, when empiric
evidence is in serious disagreement with the official findings?

A number of prominent individuals, individuals usually respected here, have
publicly stated they have serious problems with the final written argument
made by NIST.

After years of study, NIST makes their final claim, that office furniture fueled fires, alone,
were the cause of the "heat expansion", which NIST determined was the initiating mechanism
for the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

And you have to be an expert to question that?

MM


Which you clearly are not.

MM,do everybody a favour and rather then posting tantalising glimpses of your problem with the NIST report can you please start a new thread and show us all exactly what your problem is?

[beachnut]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg
Can fire do this to steel? Not for truthers, steel is so strong.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg

Short span sagging, what would long span sagging do? Oh, WTC7. Fire ruins the doltish ideas of the best and worse truthers. Not one piece of evidence for CD, and nothing to refute NIST, or that fire did it. After 7 years the truth movement could have all got PhD in structures, but they chose to remain in ignorance and make up false ideas based on no evidence.

No real threat to fire doing in WTC7 with this poorly prepared group of terrorist apologists. When do terrorist apologist become terrorist loyalist? Why are they so bad at this 9/11 truth bit? Not one single valid point. Why does hearsay and lies become evidence to truthers?

I disagree with NIST! Fire did it! Fire was responsible! There, I stood up to NIST, and I a right. I was right on 9/11; right for 7 years. What, NIST said fire did it? nevermind…

9/11 truth wrong for 7 years and counting. The worse movement in history for solving problems. So far pure fantasy is their only product. 7 years

[Tippit]

Total garbage, you entire post. Just talk. Wow

When you mention thermite you are just proving you are too ignorant on this topic and unable to make rational posts.

A&E still think thermite? They are nuts for even mentioning what Jones made up in 2005. 7 years and no clue.

All the holes and you can't present evidence to expose one. Talk and failed opinions are the hallmark of terrorist apologist who can't understand fire, engineering and many other topics needed to understand 9/11. Even the terrorist laugh at you, many have much more education and understanding of the issues involves. How sad beaten by terrorist now, 7 years after 9/11. Poor showing.


Present one hole in NIST that changes fire bringing down the towers and WTC, back it up with evidence and some engineering. You can't..

I've been a member of the JREF forum for quite some time, and I have to say, I haven't seen anything original or thoughtful in any of your posts. They are all filled with bile, insults, and substance-free denial. Most JREFers are abusive, dishonest, and dogmatic, but you take the cake.
Editing to remove the part that addresses the member, not the post. However, there's a fine line being walked here by some, and I'd advise all participants to keep their language civil, and a little less inflammatory, even if addressing the post.

[Christopher7]

Chris7, there were pressure differences and internal flows. How much 'pressure difference' can there be in a building?
Internal flows of what? air? Yes, fire will draw in air and expanding gasses will find a way out as a fire progresses.
How can you say how the fire behaved under those conditions and say NIST is definitely wrong? The fires could go back and forth, not just linear and exactly timed progress around the building.In a pigs eye. Fires don't burn back and forth, forsooth, they burn only forth.

And there were internal fires not visible from the windows. Even NIST says that it was difficult to develop detailed timelines for burning on the four faces of the building.
Even if they were off a little with their timeline, do you disagree with their overall theory? The column 79 and fire theory?They were way off on their time line. The 2:00 p.m. graphic is off by about 1/2 hour, the 3:00 p.m. graphic is off by an hour, the 4:00 p.m. graphic bears NO resemblance to the photo and the 5:00 p.m. graphic has wide spread fires despite the FACT that the NIST Apx. L report states that the fires on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45 p.m.

You can tap dance and spin all you want but you can SEE the fires in the 5:00 p.m. photo. You can READ the NIST Appendix L report.

This is not 'off by a little bit'. This is blatant FALSE information. This is FRAUD!

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

[jhunter1163]

What on earth is JREFCJ supposed to stand for in your posts? I've noticed that you've used it a couple of times.

This means "JREF Circle Jerkers". Another sign of the maturity level of Golden Bear.

[MaGZ]

NIST doesn't make that claim but nice try. The transformers were on floors 5 or 6.
The fire on floor 12 started about where they pictured it, cause unknown.

I still think one of these transformers exploded on 5th or 6th floor which would explain why Jennings thought the explosion came beneath him.

Also, I am convinced this happened a 9:03.

Question for electrical experts here:
Could the crash of the second plane into WTC 2 cause the electric grid to explode a transformer in WTC 7 approximately at the same time?

[Grizzly Bear]

You can tap dance and spin all you want but you can SEE the fires in the 5:00 p.m. photo. You can READ the NIST Appendix L report.

This is not 'off by a little bit'. This is blatant FALSE information. This is FRAUD!

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

Yes, put it in giant bolded letters THAT CAN BE EASILY READ UNTIL TRUE, KEEP REPEATING UNTIL TRUE ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

Interestingly... the AE911 truth model looks like its modeled entirely on exterior observations of fire, it makes no effort to model the spread of fire on the interior of the building. It's disgraceful that you people are only capable of analyzing thing in one dimension, not surprising however given the other errors AE911 truth makes for their controlled demolition evidence

[beachnut]

I've been a member of the JREF forum for quite some time, and I have to say, I haven't seen anything original or thoughtful in any of your posts. They are all filled with bile, insults, and substance-free denial. Most JREFers are abusive, dishonest, and dogmatic, but you take the cake. You also seem to have some sort of mental impairment that prevents you from writing complete sentences. In any case, your mentality pretty much exemplifies most of the so-called skeptics on this forum, albeit extremely, and that's a shame.
The post was garbage. You must not have any knowledge on the subject areas.

Thermite was made up 4 years after 9/11 due to extreme bias. Thermite, one of the dumbest ideas on 9/11. Is your passive support of terrorist apologists intended, or due to lack of knowledge?

Truth movement spews hearsay about holes in the study. They produce zero evidence to support it. You seem to be lacking the same evidence. Why?

Why are you void of engineering skills to attack pure ignorance, lies, false information, and fantasy? Your posts on 9/11 have never risen to the level of knowledge or evidence that require any skill to refute.

I know the terrorist apologist have nothing, you sit on the sidelines and expose my poor writing. Thank you very much…

Your knowledge on 9/11 is nil; your past post prove this point. Thanks for pointing out my known failure; if only you had the same insight into 9/11 issues.

What is your beef with the WTC7 report?

[leftysergeant]

Are you really serious?

What mechanism would allow and encourage fires to return without the addition of more office furniture as fuel?

MM

Flash-over.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

How much 'pressure difference' can there be in a building?
Internal flows of what? air? Yes, fire will draw in air and expanding gasses will find a way out as a fire progresses.
In a pigs eye. Fires don't burn back and forth, forsooth, they burn only forth.

They were way off on their time line. The 2:00 p.m. graphic is off by about 1/2 hour, the 3:00 p.m. graphic is off by an hour, the 4:00 p.m. graphic bears NO resemblance to the photo and the 5:00 p.m. graphic has wide spread fires despite the FACT that the NIST Apx. L report states that the fires on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45 p.m.

You can tap dance and spin all you want but you can SEE the fires in the 5:00 p.m. photo. You can READ the NIST Appendix L report.

This is not 'off by a little bit'. This is blatant FALSE information. This is FRAUD!

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

Hope you do not mind if I laugh at you now, fires burn only where there is fuel and oxygen.

Oxidants and fuels are the key elements in fire behavior, as some one who has been trained in fire behavior I understand that fires sometimes produce random patterns, be causes of random distribution of fuels, and random air currents providing oxidation.

For instance fires burn faster up wards than down wards, and flammable liquids can spread fire faster that flammable solids because they can flow.

Combustion is a chemical process, and Chemical processes can be random, Unless you know the exact specifics of the fire, all you can do is make random guesses on fire spread!

[MaGZ]

I've been a member of the JREF forum for quite some time, and I have to say, I haven't seen anything original or thoughtful in any of your posts. They are all filled with bile, insults, and substance-free denial. Most JREFers are abusive, dishonest, and dogmatic, but you take the cake. You also seem to have some sort of mental impairment that prevents you from writing complete sentences. In any case, your mentality pretty much exemplifies most of the so-called skeptics on this forum, albeit extremely, and that's a shame.

I agree with your comments on Beechnut and most members of this forum.

[SDC]

This from our leading Holocaust denier and Nazi-admiring Pimpf. I think that pretty well establishes the case.

If you have Magz on your side, you know you're wrong. By the way, Tippit, I think you will now find him trying to recruit you. Step carefully through the muck.

[bonkey]

WTC 7 looks like a CD.

If I might ask....exactly what >40-storery buildings which were taken down by CD are you comparing this to, in order to reach the initial conclusion that it looks like CD?

The only buildings of that scale which I'm aware of which were taken down by Controlled Demolition were done so by deconstructing the building from the top down, and I'm pretty certain you're not saying that it looked like that.

If you'd like to compare it to smaller buildings which have been brought down by explosives, then I'm curious as to whether or not you can explain why the demolition industry don't use explosives on those few buildings of this height which need demolition, despite using it on smaller buildings, if - as your claim implicitly suggests - the collapse behaviour would be the same.

Additionally, if you could explain why you can say it looks like CD, but require it to be a form of CD which has never been witnessed (i.e. a non-stripped building, and no blast effects such as seismic footprint), that would be great.

I ask these questions because it seems that you're saying that this looks a like a regular controlled demolition, if we ignore all the aspects which are different. Another way of saying this is that it doesn't look like (regular) controlled demolition, but rather like what we could imagine some sort of unsual, never-before-seen controlled demolition might look like.

[jhunter1163]

Has anyone ever tried to calculate how much explosive would be required to bring down a non-stripped 47-story building?

And how loud would the resulting explosion be? My instinct is that you could probably hear it from Boston, but I'm not a trained demolition guy.

[Christopher7]

Interestingly... the AE911 truth model looks like its modeled entirely on exterior observations of fire, it makes no effort to model the spread of fire on the interior of the building. On the contrary, the floor plan was taken into consideration. The east part of floor 12 was offices with a few cubicles.The fuel load and partitioning was consistent and therefore the spread of the fires would be mostly consistent.

You did not address the critical point!

The NIST Appendix L report states that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45 p.m.

The NIST 5:00 p.m. graphic is incorrect!

[Christopher7]

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

[Homeland Insurgency]

Who exactly is the usual debunker group and what have they debunked exactly?

[Tbone]

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

Could you provide the temperature colour scale for this?



And then explain why the flames visible on the outside of the building must be the hottest area of the fire.

[Christopher7]

Could you provide the temperature colour scale for this?
And then explain why the flames visible on the outside of the building must be the hottest area of the fire.You are evading the point because you cannot deny it or deal with it!

The NIST Appendix L report states that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45 p.m.

The NIST 5:00 p.m. graphic is incorrect!

Without the fire on floor 12 at 5:20 p.m., the collapse initiation does not occur.

[Grizzly Bear]

You are evading the point because you cannot deny it or deal with it!

The NIST Appendix L report states that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45 p.m.


Is there a reason for being unable to provide a temperature scale as requested, aside from your apparent tendency to call anyone who disagrees with you of being mentally incapable of comprehending anything? You provided the graphic, perhaps you could provide the missing information regarding temperature scales, and factors taken into consideration in the making of the fire models made by AE911truth?

Will you handwave yet again? Stay tuned... for the next episode of Chistoper's lecture

[Miragememories]

Is there a reason for being unable to provide a temperature scale as requested, aside from your apparent tendency to call anyone who disagrees with you of being mentally incapable of comprehending anything? You provided the graphic, perhaps you could provide the missing information regarding temperature scales, and factors taken into consideration in the making of the fire models made by AE911truth?

Will you handwave yet again? Stay tuned... for the next episode of Chistoper's lecture
Talk about a disingenuous reply!

Obviously you wish to steer away from the important questions.

How could a non-existent fire fire at the east end of floor 12 of the WTC7 cause the failure of the 13th floor girder connecting columns 79 and 44 at 5:20 pm?

MM

[Tbone]

You are evading the point because you cannot deny it or deal with it!

No, I just haven't addressed it yet. I wish to gain a greater understanding of the two contrasting diagrams first, as it seems to form the base of your arguement.

So can you provide a temperature-colour scale for each or both (if they are the same or not) and provide your (or whomever made the diagram) reasoning for showing that the hottest areas of the fire inside WTC7 must be the visible flames through the windows?

[Grizzly Bear]

Talk about a disingenuous reply!

Obviously you wish to steer away from the important questions.

Well it's not my fault people aren't born with X-ray vision like superman is. I guess your logic is if something blocks the view then the magician playing his cards from behind it must not exist at all.

How could a non-existent fire fire at the east end of floor 12 of the WTC7 cause the failure of the 13th floor girder connecting columns 79 and 44 at 5:20 pm?
Well if I could read minds I'd know what considerations AE911 truth made in the process of their modeling, but nobody is born like superman.

Just out of curiosity, how did you draw upon your conclusion prior to reviewing AE911's diagram? Was it biased to the visual evidence that was available of the exterior of the building. Feel free to explain if your position differs from that I'm asking of in my question.

[bonkey]

You are evading the point because you cannot deny it or deal with it!

I'll have a shot...



The NIST Appendix L report which was prepared in 2004, one year before NIST began the main phase of their imvestigation into WTC7 states that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45p.m.



See what I did there? I added the information that puts that Appendix L into context! Sneaky, eh?

Lets continue.....


The NIST 5:00 p.m. graphic from the report released in 2008, three years after NIST begain the main phase of their investigation into WTC 7 is incorrect! if we assume that Appendix L is a more reliable source, despite being compiled before the full investigation into WTC7 had begun



Not only did I add the missing context (again), but I also added in the required reasoning to make sure that this conclusion is not
a logical non-sequitor.


How'm I doing?

[Christopher7]

I'll have a shot...

The NIST Appendix L report which was prepared in 2004, one year before NIST began the main phase of their imvestigation into WTC7 states that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45p.m.

See what I did there? I added the information that puts that Appendix L into context! Sneaky, eh? Yep, very sneaky. You left out "a photograph showed"


The NIST 5:00 p.m. graphic from the report released in 2008, three years after NIST begain the main phase of their investigation into WTC 7 is incorrect! if we assume that Appendix L is a more reliable source, despite being compiled before the full investigation into WTC7 had begun
In the 2004 report, the fire time line had been established from the photographic evidence. This fire time line did not change in the Final draft. Figure 5-152 shows the fire on floor 12 at the north west corner. The time is approximated at 5:00 p.m. + or - at least 10 minutes. [Now there's sneaky]

In any case, the fire had burned out in the area of the initiating event around 4:00 p.m., over an hour before the initiating event.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher7 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4060129#post4060129)
You are evading the point because you cannot deny it or deal with it!

The NIST Appendix L report states that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45 p.m.
Is there a reason for being unable to provide a temperature scale as requested, You provided the graphic, perhaps you could provide the missing information regarding temperature scales, and factors taken into consideration in the making of the fire models made by AE911truth?
The red areas are the highest upper air temperatures [around 1000 °C] and they denote where the fire is. The fire had a single point of orign and burned through the 12th floor from the south east to the north west.

The AE911Truth graphic depicts the progression of the fire based on the photographs and the floor 12 layout which shows that the fuel supply was consistent.

The rapid spread of the fire acros the north face indicates the fire approached from the south in an arc as depicted.

The fire burned an any given area for about 20 minutes and moved on. The areas behind the fire will cool down as fresh air is drawn in by the fire and the hot gasses behind the fire are mixed with the cooler air. The hottest upper level temperatures are above the fire.

You are still evading the point which is:

The fires in the area of the initiating event burned out more than an hour before the initiating event occurred.

[Grizzly Bear]

You are still evading the point which is:

The fires in the area of the initiating event burned out more than an hour before the initiating event occurred.


Continue reading below...


Yep, very sneaky. You left out "a photograph showed"

http://www.freewebs.com/kyuubianaconda/NIST%20in%20context.png
http://www.freewebs.com/kyuubianaconda/9-23-2008%209-39-42%20AM.png

You also forgot the photograph that was used in the final draft report which shows an ongoing fire in the west side of the north face. The extent of which cannot be accurately determined solely based on visual observation of the exterior facade and the obstruction of view by the building in the foreground.

NIST further explains this matter here:
http://www.freewebs.com/kyuubianaconda/Nist%20floor%2012.gif
From page 245 of NCSTAR 1-9

You should also take note of what NIST took into account regarding the spread of the fire, as you only imply ventilation as a cooling factor for the flames rather than a factor affecting how the fires propagated

I would also suggest that you review their comments on page 236 regarding figure 5-152



The time is approximated at 5:00 p.m. + or - at least 10 minutes. [Now there's sneaky]
Learn about margin for error, you don't seem to have any concept for it.

[bonkey]

Yep, very sneaky. You left out "a photograph showed"
No, sir, I did no such thing.

I quoted your enlarged, capitalised comment from post 125 in its entirety.

Perhaps you left it out, but I took your comment as presented.


In any case, the fire had burned out in the area of the initiating event around 4:00 p.m., over an hour before the initiating event.


Amazing then, that the photograph included by AE911 for 17:00 shows this non-existent fire.

[Christopher7]

Continue reading below...

http://www.freewebs.com/kyuubianaconda/NIST%20in%20context.png
http://www.freewebs.com/kyuubianaconda/9-23-2008%209-39-42%20AM.png
That is NOT the photo described in NIST Apx. L. It does NOT show floors 7, 8 and 9.
NIST Apx. 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."

I would also suggest that you review their comments on page 236 regarding figure 5-152
Here it is:
"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. Over the following 40 min, the fire spread to the west in starts and stops, sometimes bypassing groups of windows before later opening them. By around 3:45 p.m., flames had appeared between column 55 and 56, toward the west end of the north face. After
this time, views of windows further to the west were limited. An image taken around 5:00 p.m. showed that the fire had continued spreading west, and intense flames were coming from windows on the north face at the northwest corner."

The fire time line is the same as in the NIST Apx. L report except the reference to the photo of fires on floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 taken around 4:45 p.m. In it's place they have figure 5-152
The time is approximated at 5:00 p.m. + or - at least 10 minutes.
i.e. They don't know when this picture was taken.

You are still evading the point which is:

By 4:00 p.m., the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end of the building.

The fire had burned through the east end and was burning between columns 55 and 56 near the west end by 3:45 p.m.

[Grizzly Bear]

That is NOT the photo described in NIST Apx. L. It does NOT show floors 7, 8 and 9.
NIST Apx. 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."
Appendix L is a four year old document assembled prior to the commence of the main investigation. Are you suggesting that it's impossible for them to obtain new information that would aid in their more in-depth research? Of course we must assume that appendix L is more reliable than the information gathered later in a 3-year incestigation


Here it is:
"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. Over the following 40 min, the fire spread to the west in starts and stops, sometimes bypassing groups of windows before later opening them. By around 3:45 p.m., flames had appeared between column 55 and 56, toward the west end of the north face. After
this time, views of windows further to the west were limited. An image taken around 5:00 p.m. showed that the fire had continued spreading west, and intense flames were coming from windows on the north face at the northwest corner."

The fire time line is the same as in the NIST Apx. L report except the reference to the photo of fires on floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 taken around 4:45 p.m. In it's place they have figure 5-152
The time is approximated at 5:00 p.m. + or - at least 10 minutes.
i.e. They don't know when this picture was taken.
My bolding: That statement shows that your earlier claim was wrong, and that at the very least, AE911's conclusion that the entire 12th floor was burned out by 4 PM is incorrect.

As for the remainder, you are assuming that they are unable to determine an approximate time via analyzing the cast shadows to determine the sun angle? The uncertainty places a time range between 4:50 PM and 5:10 PM. Are you saying it would be unreasonable to assume that the fire continued to progress and was ongoing in areas of the 12th floor by 5PM?


You are still evading the point which is:

By 4:00 p.m., the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end of the building.

This is a change from your earlier claim (I've bolded in red the part you added):
You are evading the point because you cannot deny it or deal with it!

The NIST Appendix L report states that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45 p.m.

The NIST 5:00 p.m. graphic is incorrect!

Without the fire on floor 12 at 5:20 p.m., the collapse initiation does not occur.


Has anyone seen where the goal posts went? I could swear they were right here....

The NIST graphic appears to be consistent with the visible fire near the exterior windows, the area in question on the east side is not only obstructed by buildings in the foreground but also by the WTC 7 facade. It doesn't look like photos of the exterior would help here. The modeling would be able to give a rough estimate of the fire's progression but it demonstrates that the Ae911 model is based on nothing more the visual bias.

[funk de fino]

Oh dear, C7 gets caught out in yet another thread.

[rwguinn]

Oh dear, C7 gets caught out in yet another thread.
Reminds me of another place and time:
"...what Mr. Agnew intended to say was..."

Ah, nostalgia... sigh...

[Christopher7]

Appendix L is a four year old document assembled prior to the commence of the main investigation. Are you suggesting that it's impossible for them to obtain new information that would aid in their more in-depth research? Of course we must assume that appendix L is more reliable than the information gathered later in a 3-year incestigationThe statement in Apx. L was very clear.
There is a photograph showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45.
This photo was NOT included in the final draft.
Why, because it conflicts with their fantasy.
NIST estimated the time of the photograph in 5-152 using shadows.
They admit that there is an error factor of AT LEAST 10 minutes.
Even if the fire was burning in the west end at 5:00 p.m., it would NOT cause the girder between columns 79 and 44 to fail at 5:20 p.m.

My bolding: That statement shows that your earlier claim was wrong, and that at the very least, AE911's conclusion that the entire 12th floor was burned out by 4 PM is incorrect.Please
Look at the AE911Truth graphic. It shows fire near the west end at 4:00 p.m.

As for the remainder, you are assuming that they are unable to determine an approximate time via analyzing the cast shadows to determine the sun angle? The uncertainty places a time range between 4:50 PM and 5:10 PM. Are you saying it would be unreasonable to assume that the fire continued to progress and was ongoing in areas of the 12th floor by 5PM?
The uncertainty was AT LEAST 10 minutes.
NIST is once again obfuscating the facts and ignoring the photograph that showed the fire on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45 p.m.

This is a change from your earlier claim (I've bolded in red the part you added):The statements are not in conflict.
The fire had burned out on floor 12 by 4:45 p.m. [NIST Apx. L]
The fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end by 4:00 p.m. [fig 5-128, 5-134, 5-136, 5-140, 5-141, and 5-144]

The fire was burning in the area of columns 79 and 44 around 3:05 p.m.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9342/3055qg5.jpg

Fires burn for about 20 minutes in any location.
Therefore, the fire had burned out in the area of the initiating event by about 3:30 p.m.

The NIST graphic appears to be consistent with the visible fire near the exterior windows, the area in question on the east side is not only obstructed by buildings in the foreground but also by the WTC 7 facade. It doesn't look like photos of the exterior would help here. The modeling would be able to give a rough estimate of the fire's progression but it demonstrates that the Ae911 model is based on nothing more the visual bias.To get from the south side to the north side, the fires had to burn everything in between. The fuel load was consistent. The progression of the fire was consistent.

The NIST 4:00 p.m. graphic shows fires in from column 43 to about column 48 on the north face but the photographs show that the fire had burned out in that area.

[funk de fino]

When we had appendix L, C7 always reverted back to the FEMA report. Now we have the WTC7 report he reverts back to the Appendix L.

There is a pattern here.

They have destroyed your CD claims from other threads, there is zero evidence for thermmite. You are left with nothing. You have wasted vast amounts of your life on nothing because you cannot think logically and rationally.

Fires burn for about 20 minutes in any location

Not always though C7? Only when it suits you.

[Grizzly Bear]

The statement in Apx. L was very clear.
There is a photograph showing that the fire on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45.
In other words your post translates to: "I don't care what new information may have been obtained in the 3-years spent in a much more comprehensive investigation."

This photo was NOT included in the final draft. Why, because it conflicts with their fantasy.

Bolded: It's your job to substantiate this claim. You demand visual evidence when it supports your claim yet when new information becomes available from visuals taken of other camera angles showing different areas of the same floor you reject it. I don't know what your standard of evidence is, but it doesn't appear that assessing all available photographic evidence counts as part of your standard.

NIST estimated the time of the photograph in 5-152 using shadows. They admit that there is an error factor of AT LEAST 10 minutes.
My bolding again:
The image you have provided has a stated margin for error of + or - 5 minutes. Weren't you earlier calling a error of + or - 10 minutes suspicious or "sneaky." If you're not familiar with how this works, the smaller the error margin, the higher the confidence level they have in the accuracy of the analysis. Is AE911's model run more precise in this area?

Even if the fire was burning in the west end at 5:00 p.m., it would NOT cause the girder between columns 79 and 44 to fail at 5:20 p.m.
Shifting goal posts again? Your visual bias is quite astounding. The visual evidence does not answer all of the questions to be raised in the main investigation. Do all fires in your world only burn where you can see them? I suppose if you can't see past the wall, then there must be nothing there right? :rolleyes:


Please
Look at the AE911Truth graphic. It shows fire near the west end at 4:00 p.m.
It seems in my rush I confused the context of part of your claim. I apologize for the inconvenience. I should have spoken of the 4:45 time frame.


The uncertainty was AT LEAST 10 minutes.
NIST is once again obfuscating the facts and ignoring the photograph that showed the fire on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45 p.m.
This is where the post I made that you responded to (above) should have been clarified. The very photograph that AE911 uses to substantiate their model for the 5 PM time frame in fact shows fire on the northwest corner of the building.

I am still having some trouble understanding what's got you by the teeth about the error margin that they provided for the estimated time (+/- 10 minutes). Is there some complex reasoning that establishes anything over a 5 minute uncertaintly as being grounds to suspect questionable investigative efforts?

As for the photograph you continue claiming they left out... they left out whatever photograph they had in the apppendix L publication apparently. Apart from their statement: "A photograph showed..."
I am unable to locate the photo in question. The photo posted in the latest report however indicates that fire was still ongoing between 4:50PM and 5:10PM when the + or - 10 minute error is included


The statements are not in conflict.
In light of my misinterpretation of your response I'll retract the "goalpost shift" assertion I made earlier for that statement as it was somewhat unjustified.

The fire had burned out on floor 12 by 4:45 p.m. [NIST Apx. L]
Again, the Appendix L report was released in 2004 prior to a much more thorough investigation. Is there any reason for assuming that their ability to obtain new information during the following 3-years is somehow crippled which makes the less comprehensive analysis more viable than the updated version?


The fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end by 4:00 p.m. [fig 5-128, 5-134, 5-136, 5-140, 5-141, and 5-144]
The visual evidence does show that the fire at least is burning near the windows, but unfortunately the determination of it's extent against the columns in question cannot be precisely determined this way. Hence the caution I continue to provide you, not to rely solely on exterior visuals. You still are unable to understand that.

The NIST report also cautions making claims of the internal spread of the fires:

"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."

This is the crux of the problem your argument has, and something which AE911truth ignores in their models.


To get from the south side to the north side, the fires had to burn everything in between. The fuel load was consistent.
And it had a soccer field sized space to traverse, on each floor.

[Christopher7]

In other words your post translates to: "I don't care what new information may have been obtained in the 3-years spent in a much more comprehensive investigation." Wrong

Nothing about the fire progression has changed except the omission of the statement on pg 26 of NIST Apx. L;
"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."

and it's replacement with figure 5-152 showing the fire at the north west corner at about 5:00 p.m. [+ or - at least 10 min.]

Either NIST was lying then or they are misrepresenting the time of 5-152 now.

You can't have it both ways.

[Grizzly Bear]

Wrong

Nothing about the fire progression has changed except the omission of the statement on pg 26 of NIST Apx. L;
"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."

and it's replacement with figure 5-152 showing the fire at the north west corner at about 5:00 p.m. [+ or - at least 10 min.]

Either NIST was lying then or they are misrepresenting the time of 5-152 now.

You can't have it both ways.
False Dilemma. Once again, I don't know what gripes you have with margin of error but you keep bringing it up like it breaks your spine, care to tell me what exactly I'm supposed to be suspicious about here?

As for the photographs, the photograph you continue pointing out on L-26 is a photo of floors 7 & 12 on fire "between 3PM and 5PM" as indicated on page L-24... They didn't replace anything.... the photo that is referenced by the text isn't even shown... so I can't make any assessment to the initial viability of what they used to substantiate a statement they made prior to a fuller investigation. But then again, you reject the idea of them obtaining new information in a more thorough analysis regardless. Not too surprising....

[Christopher7]

False Dilemma. Once again, I don't know what gripes you have with margin of error but you keep bringing it up like it breaks your spine, care to tell me what exactly I'm supposed to be suspicious about here? Why didn't they include the photo they spoke of in the Apx. L report?
"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."

As for the photographs, the photograph you continue pointing out on L-26 is a photo of floors 7 & 12 on fire "between 3PM and 5PM" as indicated on page L-24... No. I am referring to the photo referred to in the statement:
"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."


They didn't replace anything.... the photo that is referenced by the text isn't even shown... If you don't like the word 'replaced' OK.

"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."

They did not include this statement or the photograph.
They included figure 5-152 that seems to contradict the statement in the Apx. L report.

so I can't make any assessment to the initial viability of what they used to substantiate a statement they made prior to a fuller investigation.Are you saying you doubt the validity of the statement in the Apx. L report?

[PhantomWolf]

Why exactly do you believe that photos of the outside of the buildings show what is happening in the middle of the building?

[Christopher7]

Why exactly do you believe that photos of the outside of the buildings show what is happening in the middle of the building?In order for a fire to burn from one place to another, it has to burn the fuel in between.

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7590/floor12layoutwfiresim2sj4.jpg

[PhantomWolf]

In order for a fire to burn from one place to another, it has to burn the fuel in between.

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3789/floor12layoutwfiresim2ii1.jpg

So you believe that all the fuel in the middle has to be burnt before the fire can move on?

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Danny Jowenko recognized that WTC 7 was a CD when he saw the 5 second clip,
Got proof of this?

To say "it doesn't look like a CD" makes the person saying that look like an idiot.
To say something and not back it up with proof MAKES you an idiot!

[Christopher7]

So you believe that all the fuel in the middle has to be burnt before the fire can move on?To get from the south side of the building to the north side of the building, a fire must burn the stuff in between. This is not so difficult.

[Dave Rogers]

To get from the south side of the building to the north side of the building, a fire must burn the stuff in between.

Evading the question. Is it necessary to burn all the fuel in between, or can it progress by only burning some of the fuel in between?

Dave

[Christopher7]

Is it necessary to burn all the fuel in between, or can it progress by only burning some of the fuel in between?

DaveA fire will burn all the fuel in between.
A fire will ignite whatever is next to it, in all directions.
Note that the fuel supply and partitioning were consistent.

The rapid spread along the north face means the fire approached from the south in an arc as i depicted.

[Dave Rogers]

A fire will burn all the fuel in between.

What's your evidence for this claim, from a reputable source please, and under what conditions do you claim it to be the case? Have you studied the internal partitioning of the building to determine whether there were separate paths close together but isolated from each other, or areas where there was sufficient separation between areas of furnishings that not all were necessarily ignited? Were there areas where the oxygen supply could be sufficiently restricted to prevent complete combustion of the fuel available?

A fire will ignite whatever is next to it, in all directions.

This is clearly an oversimplification; if there is significant air movement predominantly in one direction, the fire will tend to spread preferentially in that direction. You appear to be working from the most simplistic understanding possible of fire progress.

The rapid spread along the north face means the fire approached from the south in an arc as i depicted.

Please explain how you are more qualified than NIST to determine this.

Dave

[Christopher7]

A fire will burn all the fuel in between.
What's your evidence for this claim, from a reputable source please, and under what conditions do you claim it to be the case?This is not rocket science. The fuel load was consistent.
To get from the south side to the north side, the fire will burn through everything in between.

Have you studied the internal partitioning of the building to determine whether there were separate paths close together but isolated from each other, or areas where there was sufficient separation between areas of furnishings that not all were necessarily ignited?Hallways are NOT firebreaks.

It is not necessary to 'study' the floor layout. It's very simple really.
However, I understand that it is very difficult for someone of your intelligence to comprehend a drawing of this complexity.

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/5639/floor12layoutcopyax2.jpg


The rapid spread of the fire across the north face could not be fire advancing around the perimeter. It can only be explained by fire approaching in an arc from the south side. This is not difficult to figure out. It does not require any expertise or a computer model.
You refusal to accept the obvious is just pure denial.
Fires do NOT burn in circles.

NIST states that fires last about 20 minutes in any given location yet the computer model has extensive fires in the east end at 4:00 p.m.
The photographs show that the fires had burned out the east end by about 3:30 p.m.
The NIST simulation does NOT match the photographs.

You can get a computer model to produce anything you want.
They did not release the data used in the computer model.
This in NOT science until it has been verified by qualified independent persons repeating the simulation using verifiable data and getting the same result.

[roundhead]

Got proof of this?

To say something and not back it up with proof MAKES you an idiot!


So, when Val Romero stated very clearly after 9/11 that the towers were demo'ed, and he is after all an expert, does that make him an idiot?

Or was he in fact only an idiot later, when he recanted his strory. His "tune change" couldnt have been from any new information, the videos looked no different while he watched them at either time.

[Dave Rogers]

This is not rocket science. The fuel load was consistent.
To get from the south side to the north side, the fire will burn through everything in between.

Repetition of a claim is not evidence. Why is your speculation on the course of the fire to be considered more reliable than NIST's modelling?

Dave

[Christopher7]

Why is your speculation on the course of the fire to be considered more reliable than NIST's modelling?

DaveBecause the NIST simulation shows a lot fire along the the east half of the north face at 4:00 p.m. and the photographs from 3:40 to 3:50 p.m. show that the fire had already burned out in the east half.

[Miragememories]

"What's your evidence for this claim, from a reputable source please, and under what conditions do you claim it to be the case? Have you studied the internal partitioning of the building to determine whether there were separate paths close together but isolated from each other, or areas where there was sufficient separation between areas of furnishings that not all were necessarily ignited?
Dave"

Is the NIST WTC7 Final Report a good enough source for you Dave?

"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, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way."
NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation pg.17

Bolding is mine.

MM

[PhantomWolf]

A fire will burn all the fuel in between.
A fire will ignite whatever is next to it, in all directions.
Note that the fuel supply and partitioning were consistent.

The rapid spread along the north face means the fire approached from the south in an arc as i depicted.

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?

[PhantomWolf]

Is the NIST WTC7 Final Report a good enough source for you Dave?

"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, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way."
NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation pg.17

Bolding is mine.

MM

This is discussing how the fire spreads, not whether the fuel load was completely burned prior to the fire spreading further on.

[Christopher7]

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?If you build a bonfire 80' by 140' you will get arrested.

Kids, don't try this at home!

[PhantomWolf]

If you build a bonfire 80' by 140' you will get arrested.

Kids, don't try this at home!

Way to avoid answering the question, please do so.

edit to add: I don't believe that there is any law in either the US or NZ that precludes the building of a 80' by 140' bonfire or setting it alit assuming the correct fire permits were obtained.

[Christopher7]

Way to avoid answering the question, please do so.Get serious.
Don't try to compare a bonfire to an office fire.

NIST knows that the fire would spread from office to office and across corridors.
Give it up! The fire spread in a predicable manner. It did not bypass column 79 and come back to it 2 hours later.

Did you read this?
[Thank you MM]

"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, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way."
NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation pg.17

[Christopher7]

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

[Christopher7]

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7590/floor12layoutwfiresim2sj4.jpg

[PhantomWolf]

Get serious.
Don't try to compare a bonfire to an office fire.

NIST knows that the fire would spread from office to office and across corridors.
Give it up! The fire spread in a predicable manner. It did not bypass column 79 and come back to it 2 hours later.

Fire is fire is fire, and yes it will spread in a predictable manner, the question is if you understand it, so far that answer is no. It seems from your refusal to answer my question that you realise that fire will continue to spread once it has a path to do so, but that it doesn't have to consume all the fuel, or even nessecarily actually set all of the fuel on fire as it passes, but you're not willing to come out and actually say it because you know that this very simple fact about fire disagrees with everything you are claiming.

Can't you just be honest with yourself and everyone else here for once and admit you blundered here and that it is indeed possible that there was unburnt fuel (and this include partially consumed and/or currently burning fuels) between the site of ignition on the south face and the fires on the north face as long as a fire path existed between the two.

No one, not even NIST, is saying that the fire went around it and then come back, this is a total strawman.

Did you read this?
[Thank you MM]

"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, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way."
NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation pg.17

Yes I have, the question is did you? It mentions several things you need to take notice of, the first being that the fire can spread without flames physically igniting new areas, just the heat of the air will do it. This means that the fire can still be burning happily in one office when the one next to it or even across the hallway catches alight. No where in the paragraph you quote does it say that all the fuel has to be exhuasted before the fire moves on, in fact it implies the exact opposite.

If you are willing to try taking the foot out of your mouth on this one and be honest about it, we can move on, or do you plan to defend to the death the corner you have painted yourself into?

[A W Smith]

To get from the south side of the building to the north side of the building, a fire must burn the stuff in between. This is not so difficult.

A fire will burn all the fuel in between.
A fire will ignite whatever is next to it, in all directions.
Note that the fuel supply and partitioning were consistent.

The rapid spread along the north face means the fire approached from the south in an arc as i depicted.

This is not rocket science. The fuel load was consistent.
To get from the south side to the north side, the fire will burn through everything in between.

Hallways are NOT firebreaks.

It is not necessary to 'study' the floor layout. It's very simple really.
However, I understand that it is very difficult for someone of your intelligence to comprehend a drawing of this complexity.

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/5639/floor12layoutcopyax2.jpg


The rapid spread of the fire across the north face could not be fire advancing around the perimeter. It can only be explained by fire approaching in an arc from the south side. This is not difficult to figure out. It does not require any expertise or a computer model.
You refusal to accept the obvious is just pure denial.
Fires do NOT burn in circles.

NIST states that fires last about 20 minutes in any given location yet the computer model has extensive fires in the east end at 4:00 p.m.
The photographs show that the fires had burned out the east end by about 3:30 p.m.
The NIST simulation does NOT match the photographs.

You can get a computer model to produce anything you want.
They did not release the data used in the computer model.
This in NOT science until it has been verified by qualified independent persons repeating the simulation using verifiable data and getting the same result.


FtkRhfXiVzs

and at the 1:51 mark

8dgfJQ7ZwoY


http://www.metacafe.com/watch/682670/from_living_room_to_inferno_in_under_2_minutes/

[Christopher7]

It seems from your refusal to answer my question that you realise that fire will continue to spread once it has a path to do so, but that it doesn't have to consume all the fuel, or even nessecarily actually set all of the fuel on fire as it passesFire burns in any give location for about 20 min. By then most of the fuel has been consumed and the fire dies down. There will be some residual fire and unburned fuel but not enough to be a factor in a collapse.

When NIST said: About 4:45 p.m., . . . . "Floor 12 had burned out by this time." they knew that there may have been some pockets of fire but for all intents and purposes, the fire had burned out.


No one, not even NIST, is saying that the fire went around it and then come back, this is a total strawman.
They show the fire burning around column 79 and along the north wall in their 4:00 p.m. graphic. The photos show this area had already burned out.

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh look. Another truther taking the 20 minute fire claim out of context to mislead people into thinking that fires die out in 20 minutes. How can people be so dishonest? And then to lie and say it will not be a factor in the collapse? So not only using misleading statements, but then outright lying. Shame.

I'd like to see the photo of Column 79, thanks Chris.

[Christopher7]

By then most of the fuel has been consumed and the fire dies down. There will be some residual fire and unburned fuel but not enough to be a factor in a collapse.

Oh look. Another truther taking the 20 minute fire claim out of context to mislead people into thinking that fires die out in 20 minutes.? ? ?

[Grizzly Bear]

When NIST said: About 4:45 p.m., . . . . "Floor 12 had burned out by this time." they knew that there may have been some pockets of fire but for all intents and purposes, the fire had burned out.
Hot skippy batman! Where have the goal posts moved this time!?


They show the fire burning around column 79 and along the north wall in their 4:00 p.m. graphic. The photos show this area had already burned out.
You do realize that column #79 was located in an interior section of the building and was obstructed from view by the gigantic WTC 7 exterior facade right? I think NIST cautions readers regarding this:

"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."


ETA: Ah... if I may ask.... would it be possible for you to tell me where this graphic you posted came from: http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7590/floor12layoutwfiresim2sj4.jpg
??

[Christopher7]

You do realize that column #79 was located in an interior section of the building and was obstructed from view by the gigantic WTC 7 exterior facade right? I think NIST cautions readers regarding this:

"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."The images provide proof of where and when the fires were on the north face.

The first sign of fire on the north face was at 2:57 p.m. [+ or - 5 min.]
The fire was between columns 45 and 46.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1310/2575ot2.png

8 min. later the fire had spread from 1 window to 10 or 12 windows between columns 43 and 46

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9342/3055qg5.jpg

About 8 min. after that, the fire had spread to the west past column 48.



http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/492/3135wf2.jpg



This is much faster than fire could spread from office to office and clearly indicates a fire burning from the south to the north in an arc.

By 3:40 to 3:45 p.m., the fire had spread to column 52. The fire had burned out between columns 45 an 50 by this time.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6637/3422md3.jpg

A frame from a video taken about 3:50 p.m. shows the fire had burned out from the east end to well past the center of the north face.

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3245/350aw1.jpg

Yet the NIST fire simulation for 4:00 p.m. shows fire between columns 44 and 49 where the photos show the fire had burned out.

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5880/floor124pmjy2.jpg



ETA: Ah... if I may ask.... would it be possible for you to tell me where this graphic you posted came from: http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7590/floor12layoutwfiresim2sj4.jpg
??I made that. It is an approximation of where the fires were based on the photographic evidence.
Do not use this as an excuse to avoid addressing the FACT that the NIST simulation for 4:00 p.m. is FRAUDULENT.

[Mince]

I made that. It is an approximation of where the fires were based on the photographic evidence.


This isn't realistice.

[Christopher7]

This isn't realistice.You are entitled to your opinion but:

Do not use this as an excuse to avoid addressing the FACT that the NIST simulation for 4:00 p.m. is FRAUDULENT.

[Mince]

You are entitled to your opinion but:

Do not use this as an excuse to avoid addressing the FACT that the NIST simulation for 4:00 p.m. is FRAUDULENT.


Why does it have to be "fraudulent"? Assuming it is inaccurate, how do you know their mindset? Again, if it is incorrect, how do you know they just didn't make a mistake? Maybe they really thought it was 4pm. Why must everything be "fraudulent" with you guys? It may be inaccurate, but that does not necessarily make it fraudulent.

[Christopher7]

Why does it have to be "fraudulent"? Assuming it is inaccurate, how do you know their mindset? Again, if it is incorrect, how do you know they just didn't make a mistake? Maybe they really thought it was 4pm. Why must everything be "fraudulent" with you guys? It may be inaccurate, but that does not necessarily make it fraudulent.It is FRADULENT because they are supposedly experts who spent 3 years and millions of dollars on this Final Draft.

This fire simulation FRAUD cannot be excused as a "mistake".

[beachnut]

It is FRADULENT because they are supposedly experts who spent 3 years and millions of dollars on this Final Draft.

This fire simulation FRAUD cannot be excused as a "mistake".
how can you make such a baseless post?

7 years, no evidence,

Good luck ( in 7 years you could have had a PhD in material science and fire safety and then you would not be a truther or act like you are apologizing for terrorist)

[Christopher7]

It is FRADULENT because they are supposedly experts who spent 3 years and millions of dollars on this Final Draft.

This fire simulation FRAUD cannot be excused as a "mistake".

Zero evidence. ? ? ?

The evidence is:

The fire simulation for floor 12 in the Final Draft does not match photographs in the Final Draft.

This is a official document purporting to explain the implosion of WTC 7.

There is no excuse for the gross inaccuracy of this critical information.

This is FRAUD!

[beachnut]

This fire simulation FRAUD cannot be excused as a "mistake".

? ? ?

The evidence is:

The fire simulation for floor 12 in the Final Draft does not match photographs in the Final Draft.

This is a official document purporting to explain the implosion of WTC 7.

There is no excuse for the gross inaccuracy of this critical information.

This is FRAUD!
Good luck ( in 7 years you could have had a PhD in material science and fire safety and then you would not be a truther or act like you are apologizing for terrorist)


Wow, you better take this now and go to CBS. NBC; ABC. Keith Oberman. No one like bush, it should be easy to take your half-baked claims and get other biased people to back your stand. What engineering school did you attend?

Clearly a Pulitzer Prize is coming your way; did you apply?

It is funny, the A&E stuff is made up from junk. But go ahead take your stuff, the fake A&E stuff, and go for it.

I can't wait until you try to explain what WTC7 has to do with the terrorist activities on 9/11. This is great, you spew WTC7 stuff that has nothing to do with 9/11 but it was on fire without fire fighting and the building was totaled. Just like some highrise buildings that were totaled by fire, but the fires were fought. I see you only have problem with reality.

You can't even tie WTC7 with a viable story to tie it to 9/11 or an inside job.

Fire destroyed WTC7, just like fire has destroyed other high-rises. Damage to steel. Failure to understand is your problem, and you can fix that with education.

[Christopher7]

. . . the A&E stuff is made up from junk. But go ahead take your stuff, the fake A&E stuff, and go for it. Fake?

Dude, the and the photographs and the fire simulation are from the Final Draft.

[Jonnyclueless]

? ? ?

Nice attempt at quote editing. No wonder you are puzzled. Your dishonesty is not surprising.

[jhunter1163]

Notice how Chris never posts any pics of the south side of WTC7?

Well, I suppose you couldn't see anything in those pics anyway, with all the smoke and fire and all.

[Christopher7]

Notice how Chris never posts any pics of the south side of WTC7? Subject shift.

When faced with the FACT that Shyam Sunder and/or PM magazine LIED about the 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor, some try to double talk around it, some just deny it and others try to change the subject.

It is clear that Shyam Sunder and/or PM magazine LIED but fanatic loyalty to the Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory just wont let anyone here acknowledge anything that discredits it.

[PhantomWolf]

Fire burns in any give location for about 20 min. By then most of the fuel has been consumed and the fire dies down. There will be some residual fire and unburned fuel but not enough to be a factor in a collapse.

I'm assuming that by moving on that you have acknowledged your mistake that all the fuel would have to be consumed before the fire continues to spread, at least as far as most Truthers would, still we do seem to be getting somewhere. Interestingly what you have above ties in nicely to my second question about fires to see how much you really understand them. You say "Fire burns in any give location for about 20 min.". Do you believe that given equal fuel loads that two fires will burn at exactly, or nearly exactly, the same rate as each other? Please don't avoid this question like last time, it's reather important to get right.

When NIST said: About 4:45 p.m., . . . . "Floor 12 had burned out by this time." they knew that there may have been some pockets of fire but for all intents and purposes, the fire had burned out.

Actually no, when they said About 4:45 p.m., . . . . "Floor 12 had burned out by this time" in 2004, they were only using the Photos as a referance guide to where the fire was, since then they themselves have pointed out that this is an incorrect assumption as it only shows that the fires near the windows had burned out, it tells us nothing about the fires in other parts of the building.

From 2008: "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."

They show the fire burning around column 79 and along the north wall in their 4:00 p.m. graphic. The photos show this area had already burned out.

How exactly can you see the area around column 79 in a photo of the exterior?

[Christopher7]

I'm assuming that by moving on that you have acknowledged your mistake that all the fuel would have to be consumed before the fire continues to spread,Typical truth fogger misquote. I have not said that so stop making that claim.

You say "Fire burns in any give location for about 20 min.". Do you believe that given equal fuel loads that two fires will burn at exactly, or nearly exactly, the same rate as each other? Please don't avoid this question like last time, it's reather important to get right. NCSTAR 1-A pg 43
"Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 (4.0 lb/ft2 on Floors 7 to 9 and 6.4 lb/ft2 on Floors 11 to 13) persisted in any given location for approximately 20 minutes to 30 minutes."

NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 230
"Since fully developed fires typically burn intensely for about 20 min, . . ."
pg 233
"Since the typical intense burning cycle for most of the fires observed in WTC 7 lasted about 20 min,. . . "
pg 330
"Prediction of growth and spread of building contents fires (Chapter 9) indicated that such fires did not persist at any one location for more than about 20 min to 30 min, which is consistent with observations of fires in windows (Chapter 5). Therefore, it would not have been possible for a building contents fire to have heated a massive, insulated column such as Column 79 to the point of failure."

NCSTAR 1-9 vol.2 pg 337
"The simulations indicated that the clusters of workstations burned out in about 20 min to 30 min."
pg 609
"Fires for the range of combustible contents in WTC 7 (4.0 lb/ft2 on Floors 7 to 9 and 6.4 lb/ft2 on Floors 11 to 13) persisted in any given location for approximately 20 minutes to 30 minutes."

Actually no, when they said About 4:45 p.m., . . . . "Floor 12 had burned out by this time" in 2004, they were only using the Photos as a referance guide to where the fire was, since then they themselves have pointed out that this is an incorrect assumption as it only shows that the fires near the windows had burned out, it tells us nothing about the fires in other parts of the building.
From 2008: "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."They are refuting themselves in an attempt to claim that there was a fire in the area of column 79 nearly two hours after that area had burned out.

How exactly can you see the area around column 79 in a photo of the exterior?It is not necessary to 'see' inside the building to determine that the fire burned through the central offices and appeared on the north face about one half hour before the fire on the east face reached the north east corner. [see Figure 5-135]

NIST acknowledges that the fire was in the central offices by 2:00 p.m. This part of the fire would have progressed to the north at roughly the same rate as the fire seen on the east face. Since the fire was in the center offices before it appeared on the east face, it's arrival on the north face about a half hour before the fire on the east face reached the north east corner, is clear evidence that the offices around columns 79 and 80 were burning before 3:00 p.m.

The fire first appeared on the north face at about 2:57 p.m. in one office between columns 45 and 46. [see post 171]
About 16 minutes later, the fire had spread to 9 offices between columns 43 and 49.
This is much faster than fire could spread burning from office to office along the north face.
The only explanation for this rapid spread along the north face is a fire approaching from the south in an arc.

[Norseman]

I made that. It is an approximation of where the fires were based on the photographic evidence.
Do not use this as an excuse to avoid addressing the FACT that the NIST simulation for 4:00 p.m. is FRAUDULENT.


It is a simulation, you can not expect it to match reality perfectly. Something NIST points out in their report regarding the floor 12 fire simulation:

The burning time near the north face was longer in the simulation than in the visual evidence,............

Source: NIST NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 (http://wtc.nist.gov/) page 381 (PDF page 43)

So where exactly is the fraud here C7?

[MaGZ]

Christopher 7,
You seem to have a lot of photos of WTC 7 from the northern face but not the southern face. Why do you think this is? Many of these photos were taken by helicopters and they would have been over Ground Zero taking photos and film and yet we barely have any photos of the southern face of WTC 7.

Your thoughts please.

[beachnut]

... fanatic loyalty to the Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory just wont let anyone here acknowledge anything that discredits it.Your posts look good if the person reading them has no clue on 9/11, no clue in engineering, fire and other areas.

You don't like bush so you make up junk. Good for you. But then you are just like bush. Good for you. Your failure is due to pure junk ideas you like cause bush is not your guy. So sad you can't use figure out 9/11 due to pure political bias.

You are not interested in science, you want to bash bush. No wonder you fall for A&E lies and forget to use knowledge and sound judgment.

Your bias is showing, and your lack of knowledge permeates all your posts.

If only you were a professional engineer with real evidence, you could earn a prize. But you are not, have not, will not.

[Christopher7]

It is a simulation, you can not expect it to match reality perfectly. Something NIST points out in their report regarding the floor 12 fire simulation:It does not match at all.

The NIST fire simulation bears NO resemblance to the photographs.

The 2:00 p.m. graphic has the fire well inside the building where it was about 1:00 p.m.
The 3:00 p.m. graphic has the fire where it was at 2:10 p.m.
The 4:00 p.m. graphic has the fire where it was at 3:00 p.m. and where it was at 4:00 p.m.
The 5:p.m. graphic has fire around column 79 an hour and a half after everything around it had burned out. There is just no way the north face could burn out from the east corner to well past center and leave the area around column 79 unburned.

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3245/350aw1.jpg

[Christopher7]

Christopher 7,
You seem to have a lot of photos of WTC 7 from the northern face but not the southern face. Why do you think this is? Many of these photos were taken by helicopters and they would have been over Ground Zero taking photos and film and yet we barely have any photos of the southern face of WTC 7.

Your thoughts please.I have the photos that NIST has released.
Good point about the helicopters.

Someday we will have a real investigation and all the evidence will be released to the public.

Shyam Sunder was appointed by George[you're doin' a great job] Bush to investigate the implosion of WTC 7.

Given that the Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents to suit their political agenda, the results of the NIST report are as predictable as they are impossible.

February 19, 2004
More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9A00E2DD133DF93AA25751C0A9629C8B63

[Norseman]

Christopher 7,
You seem to have a lot of photos of WTC 7 from the northern face but not the southern face. Why do you think this is? Many of these photos were taken by helicopters and they would have been over Ground Zero taking photos and film and yet we barely have any photos of the southern face of WTC 7.

Your thoughts please.

Like this one showing all the smoke covering up most of the south side of WTC 7:

wxGRUjnDwLo&feature

[MaGZ]

I have the photos that NIST has released.
Good point about the helicopters.


Do any of the newly released photos show the south side of WTC 7?

[Christopher7]

Like this one showing all the smoke covering up most of the south side of WTC 7:

wxGRUjnDwLo&featureThat shows the upper floors.
Shyam Sunder and/or the editors of PM said there was a fire on the fifth floor that may have lasted up to 7 hours.

NIST Apx. L pg 22
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas


A room containing diesel engines or transformers must have some ventilation all the time to prevent the buildup of toxic and/or explosive vapors.
A fire must draw in air and exhaust the expanding gasses it creates to continue.
Smoke would be visible as it escaped through the vents.
Without any ventilation, a fire would burn out.


There were NO reports of fire on the fifth floor at any time and no reason to think there was a fire.

[Christopher7]

My bad. That post was meant for the 10 story hole thread.

Norseman:
That video shows the upper floors from the south west.
The collapse began with the collapse of the girder between columns 79 and 44 on floor 13 at the other end of the building.

MaGZ:
There's one photo of the south side in the Final draft but it was taken before the 2:00 p.m. [NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 163]

The only report of fire on the east half of the south face was:
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: [NIST L pg 24]
Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
• Fire seen on Floor 14 (corrected to 12 in 4-5-05 report) on south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke
• Fire on Floor 14 moved towards the east face

[ref]

Chris, are you implying NIST is trying to cover up the intentional demolition of WTC 7?

If so, why would they want to do that?

Just to get the basics clear once again.

[Christopher7]

Chris, are you implying NIST is trying to cover up the intentional demolition of WTC 7?No, I'm saying the NIST fire simulation for floor 12 does not match the photographs.

If so, why would they want to do that?Subject shift.
Just to get the basics clear once again.Right :cool:

[ref]

No, I'm saying the NIST fire simulation for floor 12 does not match the photographs.


But just a few posts ago you said this: "This fire simulation FRAUD cannot be excused as a "mistake"."

So if the simulation fraud is not a mistake, you are saying it is intentional. Isn't that covering up something? What could they be covering up?

[Christopher7]

But just a few posts ago you said this: "This fire simulation FRAUD cannot be excused as a "mistake"."

So if the simulation fraud is not a mistake, you are saying it is intentional. Isn't that covering up something? What could they be covering up?The fact that fire did not cause the implosion of WTC 7.

[ref]

The fact that fire did not cause the implosion of WTC 7.

Ok. What did cause the implosion then?

[funk de fino]

The fact that fire did not cause the implosion of WTC 7.

The words you are looking for are "progressive collapse" not implosion.

[DC]

The words you are looking for are "progressive collapse" not implosion.

a progressive collapse is nothing uncommon in a Controlled Demolition.

[funk de fino]

a progressive collapse is nothing uncommon in a Controlled Demolition.

Oh really? I guess you can give me the definition of progressive collapse.

Then tell me exactly how a CD brings down a building? Where they put the charges, how many they use and what the charges actually do to the building.

[Christopher7]

The words you are looking for are "progressive collapse" not implosion.FEMA Chapter 5 page 30 and 31:
"the building imploded"

The videos clearly show that WTC 7 imploded.

But no worries mate.

You can call it a progressive collapse if you like.

[Christopher7]

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

[Christopher7]

Ok. What did cause the implosion then?Can you accept that it wasn't fire?

[funk de fino]

FEMA Chapter 5 page 30 and 31:
"the building imploded"

The videos clearly show that WTC 7 imploded.

But no worries mate.

You can call it a progressive collapse if you like.

Oh, look everyone. C7 is flip flopping between reports again.

NIST do not call it an implosion. WTC7 was a classic progressive collapse.

[DC]

Oh really? I guess you can give me the definition of progressive collapse.

Then tell me exactly how a CD brings down a building? Where they put the charges, how many they use and what the charges actually do to the building.

Progressive Collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings subjected to fire, internal explosions, external blast, impact, earthquake and foundation movements, and is also typical of building demolitions.

http://www.debunking911.com/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

[funk de fino]

http://www.debunking911.com/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf

Is that a definition?

How about "localised damage which leads to failure of all or large amount of the structure" care to disagree with that?

When they set a CD they set it so that nearly all the structural elements or support are removed by means of explosives. Then gravity does the rest.

It is a collapse but not a progressive collapse in my opinion. WTC7 was not an implosion, it was a collapse.

[Christopher7]

Oh, look everyone. C7 is flip flopping between reports again.
NIST do not call it an implosion. Quoting from the many different reports is research, not flip flopping.

WTC7 was a classic progressive collapse.Very true

Classic: outstanding or typical example


Progressive collapses only occur in controlled demolitions and WTC 7 was a typical example of a CD.

However

The point here is: The fire simulation does not match the photos.

[funk de fino]

Quoting from the many different reports is research, not flip flopping.

NIST call it a collapse not an implosion. Thye have done the final report so i go with there take on it.

Very true

Classic: outstanding or typical example


Progressive collapses only occur in controlled demolitions and WTC 7 was a typical example of a CD.



This is a lie.

[Christopher7]

NIST call it a collapse not an implosion. Thye have done the final report so i go with there take on it.
This is a lie.This is a subject shift.

The NIST fire simulation does not match the photos. You can see that but you cannot admit it so you try to change the subject.

[ref]

Can you accept that it wasn't fire?

I believe it was fire that caused the collapse. Can't you give anything more specific than "it wasn't fire" about your views?

[Christopher7]

I believe it was fire that caused the collapse. Can't you give anything more specific than "it wasn't fire" about your views?Yes, look at the side by side graphic in post #203.

The fire had burned out in the area of the initiating event over a hour before the collapse.
Therefore, fire could not have caused the girder between columns 70 and 44 to collapse.

[funk de fino]

This is a subject shift.

The NIST fire simulation does not match the photos. You can see that but you cannot admit it so you try to change the subject.

You are the one who brought up the word implosion, I am only correcting you because it is not used in the final report. That is the subject is it not?

If it does not match the photos doies that now mean you are saying the photos are genuine?

[ref]

Yes, look at the side by side graphic in post #203.

The fire had burned out in the area of the initiating event over a hour before the collapse.
Therefore, fire could not have caused the girder between columns 70 and 44 to collapse.

I did not mean that. I meant, if it wasn't fire, what was it?

[Grizzly Bear]

Progressive collapses only occur in controlled demolitions and WTC 7 was a typical example of a CD.
Utterly false. The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, suffered a progressive collapse when a truck bomb destroyed key structural members. The Ronin Point apartments are another example. You have no idea what a progressive collapse is:

Source (http://www.cement.org/buildings/security_progressive.asp)

DoD 2002
A progressive collapse is a chain reaction of failure of building members to an extent disproportionate to the original localized damage. Such damage may result in upper floors of a building collapsing onto lower floors.


GSA 2003
Progressive collapse is a situation where local failure of a primary structural component leads to the collapse of adjoining members which, in turn, leads to additional collapse. Hence the total damage is disproportionate to the original cause.


ASCE 7-02
Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of an initial local failure from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or disproportionately large part of it.


So no, progressive collapse does not require controlled demolition, much as your lie posits.

Regardless of whether this is part of this topic or not, if you intend to make such claims present them accurately, otherwise it is fair game.



However
The point here is: The fire simulation does not match the photos.
[/LEFT]
[/LEFT]

Since when do photos indicate anything more than the fires nearest to the exterior? Are you saying that there is no possibility of fires burning well removed from the exterior walls burning inside the building? How do you determine this based on photos which only give definitive views of the buildings' peripheral fires?

[Christopher7]

You are the one who brought up the word implosion, I am only correcting you because it is not used in the final report. That is the subject is it not?Just because NIST did not use the word implode it does not mean it wasn't an implosion. The central part fell first and the building fell in on itself. The center of the pile was in the center of the footprint. That's an implosion, just like FEMA acknowledged. You can deny the obvious if you like.

If it does not match the photos doies that now mean you are saying the photos are genuine?There are a number of photos. They are consistent.

[Christopher7]

I did not mean that. I meant, if it wasn't fire, what was it?Subject shift.
Please address the NIST fire simulation not matching the photographs.

[Grizzly Bear]

Just because NIST did not use the word implode it does not mean it wasn't an implosion.
So you feel qualified to make the judgment for them?

The central part fell first and the building fell in on itself.
It would suggest an interior structural member failure, rather than an implosion. Of course I never expect you to be open to that failure mode at all...

The center of the pile was in the center of the footprint. That's an implosion, just like FEMA acknowledged. You can deny the obvious if you like.

Are you sure it was in its own footprint? I think 30 west broadway, and the verizon building would beg to differ... the "in its own footprint" lie i guess is just too good for you to pass up (http://skepticwiki.org/images/6/63/Damage_caused_by_WTC7.jpg)

[Christopher7]

Utterly false. The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, suffered a progressive collapse when a truck bomb destroyed key structural members. The Ronin Point apartments are another example. You have no idea what a progressive collapse is:

Source (http://www.cement.org/buildings/security_progressive.asp)

DoD 2002
A progressive collapse is a chain reaction of failure of building members to an extent disproportionate to the original localized damage. Such damage may result in upper floors of a building collapsing onto lower floors.


GSA 2003
Progressive collapse is a situation where local failure of a primary structural component leads to the collapse of adjoining members which, in turn, leads to additional collapse. Hence the total damage is disproportionate to the original cause.


ASCE 7-02
Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of an initial local failure from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or disproportionately large part of it.


So no, progressive collapse does not require controlled demolition, much as your lie posits.

Regardless of whether this is part of this topic or not, if you intend to make such claims present them accurately, otherwise it is fair game.The Murrah Federal building and the Ronan Point apartments were the result of explosions. Neither was a high rise steel frame building.
You are correct that my statement was too broad so:
Progressive collapses have only occurred in high rise steel framed buildings that were controlled demolitions and WTC 7 was a typical example of a CD.
There has never been a global collapse of a high rise steel frame building before of since 9/11 that was not a CD.

Since when do photos indicate anything more than the fires nearest to the exterior? Are you saying that there is no possibility of fires burning well removed from the exterior walls burning inside the building? How do you determine this based on photos which only give definitive views of the buildings' peripheral fires?There is a series of photographs that clearly show the progression of the fire. As i have pointed out before, to get from the south side to the north side, the fire will burn the offices in between.

"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, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way."
NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation pg.17

[Christopher7]

So you feel qualified to make the judgment for them?You are implying that only an expert can see that WTC 7 imploded. This is absurd. Furthermore, FEMA is qualified to say WTC 7 imploded and they did, twice.

It would suggest an interior structural member failure, rather than an implosion. Of course I never expect you to be open to that failure mode at all... An internal failure leading to the building falling in on itself and landing mostly in it's own foot print withe the center of the pile in the center of the footprint, is an implosion.
You can double talk all you want, you can deny that WTC 7 imploded but it video evidence clearly shows that it did.

The center of the pile was in the center of the footprint. That's an implosion, just like FEMA acknowledged. You can deny the obvious if you like.

Are you sure it was in its own footprint? I think 30 west broadway, and the verizon building would beg to differ... the "in its own footprint" lie i guess is just too good for you to pass up (http://skepticwiki.org/images/6/63/Damage_caused_by_WTC7.jpg)What part of 'center' don't you understand? Did i say entirely? No.

[Grizzly Bear]

The Murrah Federal building and the Ronan Point apartments were the result of explosions. Neither was a high rise steel frame building.
You are correct that my statement was too broad so:
Progressive collapses have only occurred in high rise steel framed buildings that were controlled demolitions and WTC 7 was a typical example of a CD.
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/8062/facepalm2sn8.jpg

I don't think you grasped what a progressive collapse is... despite having the definitions spoon fed to you... A progressive collapse originates from a localized failure which leads to a chain reaction of more failures; hence the two examples I provided. They were not intended to compare directly to WTC 7, they were intended to illustrate what a progressive collapse is. As the two examples I pointed out demonstrate, the collapse mechanism is entirely different from that induced by controlled demolition. I'm not sure why you're continuing to pursue this given your utter confusion between the two.


There has never been a global collapse of a high rise steel frame building before of since 9/11 that was not a CD.
I fail to see how this proves your argument... is this somehow supposed to imply that despite the long floor spans, lack of firefighting efforts and ongoing fires, should not at all have been areas of concern regarding 7 World trade center's stability?

I can say this much with certainty, if you fail to account for any of that and instead attempt to claim everything by appearance, this is why your argument fails.


There is a series of photographs that clearly show the progression of the fire.
They show that the fires indeed progressed to those areas, however there's not much that can judged about how they spread inside well removed from the exterior, generally the point you continue to dodge...

As i have pointed out before, to get from the south side to the north side, the fire will burn the offices in between.
The best indication we have of the fires' behavior inside the structure are in the simulations, and they cannot be relied upon for 100% accuracy. NIST has already cautioned against making any generalizations regarding what the visible fires show regarding how they progressed. The photos provided a very rough projection but they say little if anything about fires that were burning well removed from view.

[Grizzly Bear]

You are implying that only an expert can see that WTC 7 imploded. This is absurd. Furthermore, FEMA is qualified to say WTC 7 imploded and they did, twice.

They also stated it based on the same conclusion which I've already brought up, the location of the initial failure initiated inside the building. This initiating failure was not the failure of multiple structural members, it was a single failure, which led to a chain reaction of additional structural members failing. Before the the visible facade began to collapse, part of the penthouse failed and began to move downward below the roof line, then the remainder of the east penthouse developed a 'Kink', and then only after those failures took place did the visible facade begin to give way.

Link from the preliminary report (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7TimelineEastPenthousekink.jpg/WTC7TimelineEastPenthousekink-full.jpg)

And this is one of the statements from FEMA's initial investigation:
"The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting and internal failure and implosion."

Remind me again though why this suggests controlled demolition? The failures were clearly progressive...


What part of 'center' don't you understand? Did i say entirely? No.
I'm willing to admit some error on my part but that "all inside the footprint" crap needs to stop.... :rolleyes:

[Christopher7]

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/8062/facepalm2sn8.jpg

A progressive collapse originates from a localized failure which leads to a chain reaction of more failures; hence the two examples I provided. They were not intended to compare directly to WTC 7, they were intended to illustrate what a progressive collapse is. As the two examples I pointed out demonstrate, the collapse mechanism is entirely different from that induced by controlled demolition.

I fail to see how this proves your argument... is this somehow supposed to imply that despite the long floor spans, lack of firefighting efforts and ongoing fires, should not at all have been areas of concern regarding 7 World trade center's stability?
I can say this much with certainty, if you fail to account for any of that and instead attempt to claim everything by appearance, this is why your argument fails. You are talking in circles. This is just an attempt to avoid the fact that the NIST fire simulation does NOT match the photographs.

There is a series of photographs that clearly show the progression of the fire. As i have pointed out before, to get from the south side to the north side, the fire will burn the offices in between.

The best indication we have of the fires' behavior inside the structure are in the simulations, and they cannot be relied upon for 100% accuracy.Yes, that's the best you have and they bear no resemblance to the photographs.

NIST has already cautioned against making any generalizations regarding what the visible fires show regarding how they progressed. They made very specific conclusions based on those simulations.

The photos provided a very rough projection but they say little if anything about fires that were burning well removed from view.On the contrary. The photographs showed how the fire progressed with a high degree of accuracy. The photographs also show the fires progressed in a predictable manner based on what is known about the layout of floor 12.

"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, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way."
NIST NCSTAR 1A, WTC Investigation pg.17

[Christopher7]

You are implying that only an expert can see that WTC 7 imploded. This is absurd. Furthermore, FEMA is qualified to say WTC 7 imploded and they did, twice.
They also stated it based on the same conclusion which I've already brought up, the location of the initial failure initiated inside the building.
Link from the preliminary report (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7TimelineEastPenthousekink.jpg/WTC7TimelineEastPenthousekink-full.jpg)

And this is one of the statements from FEMA's initial investigation:
"The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting and internal failure and implosion." FEMA based the conclusion that WTC 7 imploded on the video because it is obvious. The small debris field with the center of the pile in the center of the building is further evidence of implosion.

Remind me again though why this suggests controlled demolition? The failures were clearly progressive...You are very good at avoiding the point* by arguing the definitions of words at great length and trying to change the subject.

*The NIST floor 12 fire simulations do not match the photographs of the fire.

[ref]

Subject shift.
Please address the NIST fire simulation not matching the photographs.

It is not a subject shift. You are just avoiding the question.

Since I started this thread, and the thread is about the NIST report that says fire caused the collapse, and you say it was not fire that caused the collapse, I will ask you again. If it wasn't fire, what was it?

[DC]

from a localized failure which leads to a chain reaction of more failures;

like a CD, or is Bazant wrong in that?

[funk de fino]

Just because NIST did not use the word implode it does not mean it wasn't an implosion. The central part fell first and the building fell in on itself. The center of the pile was in the center of the footprint. That's an implosion, just like FEMA acknowledged. You can deny the obvious if you like.

It was a collapse. I thought the east part fell first?

The building fell down, thats what they do in cases like this when structural support is compromised. Gravity causes this.

There are a number of photos. They are consistent.

So you have backed away from your fake photos claims of other threads?

[Christopher7]

It is not a subject shift. You are just avoiding the question.

Since I started this thread, and the thread is about the NIST report that says fire caused the collapse, and you say it was not fire that caused the collapse, I will ask you again. If it wasn't fire, what was it?Like you said, this thread is about the NIST report and NIST says fire caused the collapse. When you are able to admit that the fire simulation does NOT match the photographs and the fire had burned out in the area of the initiating event before 4:00 p.m., we can move on to what else might have caused the collapse.

[Christopher7]

The NIST fire simulation bears NO resemblance to the photographs.

The 2:00 p.m. graphic has the fire well inside the building where it was about 1:00 p.m.
The 3:00 p.m. graphic has the fire where it was at 2:10 p.m.
The 4:00 p.m. graphic has the fire where it was at 3:00 p.m. and where it was at 4:00 p.m.
The 5:00 p.m. graphic has fire around column 79 an hour and a half after everything around it had burned out. There is just no way the north face could burn out from the east corner to well past center and leave the area around column 79 unburned.

[Christopher7]

Since I started this thread, and the thread is about the NIST report that says fire caused the collapse, I am one of the usual bunch that think the NIST report is fatally flawed. The following is one of those fatal flaws:

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

[ULTIMA1]

How can NIST come up with a proper report for building 7 when they failed to recover steel from building 7 for testing?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf
Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.

[beachnut]

How can NIST come up with a proper report for building 7 when they failed to recover steel from building 7 for testing?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf
Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.

It is called science and engineering; how do we know what the sun is made of?

You have the easy questions. Guess you are not an engineer.

[ULTIMA1]

It is called science and engineering.

Do you agree then that they did not do a proper investigation since they failed to recover steel for testing?

[beachnut]

Do you agree then that they did not do a proper investigation since they failed to recover steel for testing?NO

They have evidence, you missed it! You are not doing well! Try again, think, use some of that NSA stink you claim to have.

[ULTIMA1]

NO
They have evidence, you missed it! .

I have posted a NIST report that states they failed to recover steel from building 7 for testing. This proves that NIST did not do a proper investigation.

[beachnut]

I have posted a NIST report that states they failed to recover steel from building 7 for testing. This proves that NIST did not do a proper investigation.
You have not shown the NIST report on WTC7 to be wrong.

Read the report and comment on facts, not your bs. They have evidence, are you denying the they have evidence?

[funk de fino]

How can NIST come up with a proper report for building 7 when they failed to recover steel from building 7 for testing?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf
Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. The recommended values for the stress-strain behavior were estimated using the same methodology that was used for the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steels (NIST NCSTAR 1-3D). The static yield strengths were estimated from historical averages and corrected for testing rate effects.

Because, prior to collapse, WTC 7 did not suffer any high-strain rate events, NIST made no effort to estimate high-strain-rate or impact properties of the steel.

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.

except there was.

All steel from WTC was taken to sorting stations. At these stations the steel was inspected by demo teams, forensic investigators and public officials. This included steel from WTC7.

There were also two special samples kept aside for further examination. One was from WTC7 and one was from WTC1 or 2. These were examined by Fema and also external investigators.

[ref]

I am one of the usual bunch

I had figured that out by now.

[ref]

Like you said, this thread is about the NIST report and NIST says fire caused the collapse. When you are able to admit that the fire simulation does NOT match the photographs and the fire had burned out in the area of the initiating event before 4:00 p.m., we can move on to what else might have caused the collapse.

Your fellow bunchers have suggested the following, depending on who's talking:

Conventional explosives
Thermate with linear shaped charges
Superthermite in the nano-composite sol gel form painted on the steel columns
Thermate or other devices installed during fireproofing upgrades
Superthermite powder mixture
Nanothermate

Maybe you guys should get together and form a single, coherent alternative explanation? Each one of you has his own version. Come on guys. If you can't agree on anything else but "it wasn't natural collapse" you are not going to get anywhere anytime.

I challenge you "bunch". Offer one single and coherent alternative explanation, that each one of you agrees on.

[Christopher7]

Your fellow bunchers have suggested the following, depending on who's talking:

Conventional explosives
Thermate with linear shaped charges
Superthermite in the nano-composite sol gel form painted on the steel columns
Thermate or other devices installed during fireproofing upgrades
Superthermite powder mixture
Nanothermate

Maybe you guys should get together and form a single, coherent alternative explanation? Each one of you has his own version. Come on guys. If you can't agree on anything else but "it wasn't natural collapse" you are not going to get anywhere anytime.

I challenge you "bunch". Offer one single and coherent alternative explanation, that each one of you agrees on.When people think for themselves they have differing opinions on the various details. When people read from a script they all agree.


Your ability to ignore that which you cannot deny is limitless.

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

You refuse to address this FACT and repeatedly try to change the subject.

[ULTIMA1]

These were examined by Fema and also external investigators.

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.

[Mince]

When people think for themselves they have differing opinions on the various details. When people read from a script they all agree.

So, when 12 people look at a green car and all agree that it is a green car, are they reading from a script?

[ULTIMA1]

So, when 12 people look at a green car and all agree that it is a green car, are they reading from a script?

Typical beleiver non answer.

I mean lets look at all the Pentagon witnesses that could not agree on what type of plane they saw.

Or the Pentagon witness that stated they doid not know what hit the Pentagon they were told later it was a 757.

[Mince]

Typical beleiver non answer.

I mean lets look at all the Pentagon witnesses that could not agree on what type of plane they saw.

Or the Pentagon witness that stated they doid not know what hit the Pentagon they were told later it was a 757.

So, according to you, since they don't agree, they are not reading from a script, right? I mean, you're the one that said all who agree are reading form a script. I'm merely exposing your flawed logic.

[ULTIMA1]

So, according to you, since they don't agree, they are not reading from a script, right? I mean, you're the one that said all who agree are reading form a script.

NO, since they did not agree how can you take what they saw as evidence?

NO i am not the one that stated about reading from a script. Please read post before reponding.

[Mince]

NO, since they did not agree how can you take what they saw as evidence?

Dude, I never said I took anything as evidence. Please stop claiming something I've never claimed. Thank you.


NO i am not the one that stated about reading from a script. Please read post before reponding.

My apologies. It was Christopher7. However, you did make the claim that "most family members, experts and first responders wanted a new investigation." You've yet to provide a source for your claim.

[ULTIMA1]

Dude, I never said I took anything as evidence. Please stop claiming something I've never claimed. Thank you.

Well why wont you state what you believe? Or was i right about you just flipping sides?

However, you did make the claim that "most family members, experts and first responders wanted a new investigation." You've yet to provide a source for your claim.

When you tell me what you believe.

[Mince]

Well why wont you state what you believe? Or was i right about you just flipping sides?



When you tell me what you believe.

Flipping sides? I've never told you I'm on a particular side. That is more presumption on your part. I'm just exposing your flawed logic. Do I have to be on a particular "side" to do this?

Any luck on your citation regarding the beliefs of the family members, experts and first responders?

[ULTIMA1]

Any luck on your citation regarding the beliefs of the family members, experts and first responders?


Its called research, you should try it sometime.

[Christopher7]

Its called research, you should try it sometime.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