WTC 7 Report.

[Redtail]

Does anyone know when the report on WTC 7 is going to be released?

ETA: I ask because I'm in a discussion with a guy on another forum who keeps bringing up there was no mention of 7 in NIST, all the steel from 7 was immediately disposed of, dropped straight down, yadda yadda...

[boloboffin]

Sometime this summer. The NIST website has no firm date, and the latest update of the site is just a press release about some recommendations from the NIST WTC report being used by the ICC (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062007.html).

[Cylinder]

Is it correct to say that the WTC 7 failure study will be the first peer-reviewed paper that investigates a "controlled demolition" hypothesis? Can anyone cite another?

[Redtail]

Ah ha. Thanks.

[Gravy]

NIST doesn't have a release date for the WTC 7 report. As for them not mentioning the building, be sure to refer him to NIST's interim report (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf).

[BillyRayValentine]

NIST doesn't have a release date for the WTC 7 report. As for them not mentioning the building, be sure to refer him to NIST's interim report.

Interested to see their conclusions, but I have a pretty good idea what happened already. Regarding the cause and extent of the damage to wtc 7, the video below is quite interesting. The collapse of wtc1 begins at the 19:40 mark. Then watch what happens at 19:46 - a 60-plus story piece of the north facade peels away and heads straight for wtc 7. Photographs of the damage to wtc 6, which stood between 1 and 7 and was almost completely demolished in the center, are consistent with this scenario.

And the view of the collapse of wtc 1 in general is quite enlightening. I've read quite a bit about it being a "neat, frictionless collapse into its own footprint at free-fall speeds". Go figure. Looked like a violent, debris-spewing mess of a collapse to me.

Ugh. Won't let me post a url since I'm new. Maybe someone else could link the video for me? It's a Googlle video named "What We Saw Never before-released video of the WTC attacks".

Thanks.

[DGM]

http://video.google.com/url?docid=5474006551011489413&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=What+We+Saw+Never+before-released+video+of+the+WTC+attacks&vidurl=/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D5474006551011489413%26q%3DWhat %2BWe%2BSaw%2BNever%2Bbefore-released%2Bvideo%2Bof%2Bthe%2BWTC%2Battacks%26tota l%3D14%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dse arch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H23LTf2tuDItp6IUkPaYKzdr0IW7gg

Here you go. Welcome!

[grmcdorman]

Here it is embedded (use the code with the ID inside - in this case, 5474006551011489413):
[gv]5474006551011489413

BillyRayValentine, until you hit your 15 post level you can enter URLs by putting spaces in them or the like so they aren't recognized. (Turning off 'Automatically parse links in text' might work too, but I don't know for sure.)

(When I was typing this, I mistyped it as '156 post level'. :eek: Hoo boy... that would take a while for some of us.)

[cloudshipsrule]

How anyone can watch that footage and claim the fire diminished over time is beyond me. It's an utterly ridiculous. (Did you notice how the smoke really wasn't 'black', and how the smoke level increased over time, pouring out windows on additional, upper floors as time went on.)

When I see unadulterated video of the attacks that day I always shed a tear. When the video comes to an end I dislike radical Islam just a little bit more.

[T.A.M.]

Is it correct to say that the WTC 7 failure study will be the first peer-reviewed paper that investigates a "controlled demolition" hypothesis? Can anyone cite another?

No. They have said they are going to investigate whether "Blast Scenarios" were possible, and I think, if so, does the evidence fit in with said scenarios.

I don't think it would qualify as investigating "Controlled Demolition". As for Peer Review, I hope so, but would not be able to confirm.

TAM:)

[Cylinder]

As for Peer Review, I hope so, but would not be able to confirm.

I would be quite surprised if NIST papers do not undergo a rigorous peer review process since they make technical recommendations based on the findings. I'll have to re-read...

Strike that. The NIST Plan for the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTCplan_new.htm) does indeed require peer review.

Technical Findings and Recommendations: preparation of interim and final reports; peer review by established NIST Editorial Review Board; augmented NIST review to include senior management and legal; review of key reports by Federal Advisory Committee; finalize and disseminate via published reports, web, and media.

Thanks for the nit-pick though. I want to keep my claims as precise as possible though the language is not that far off, since the NIST will make assessments of the following hypotheses:

Investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios
Evaluation of thermite as a possible heat source substance

OK - so they left out mini-nukes and sooper-sekret ray guns from orbit.

[Travis]

I know I, for one, will be on the NIST WTC7 report like a fly on ...well you know when it finally comes out. I've been waiting for this for, seemingly, forever.

It won't matter to the Loonies though, they already think NIST is evil and their reports are "fiction."

[R.Mackey]

No. They have said they are going to investigate whether "Blast Scenarios" were possible, and I think, if so, does the evidence fit in with said scenarios.

I don't think it would qualify as investigating "Controlled Demolition". As for Peer Review, I hope so, but would not be able to confirm.

TAM:)

My understanding is that the "blast scenarios" part of the document is aimed at modeling hypothetical future acts of terrorism.

Once we've got the building models assembled, it's a relatively easy thing to reuse them for different scenarios. It's highly likely that the next attempt will not be a hijacked airliner, but a more pedestrian truck bomb. Since this is a rare event, it makes sense to use models to determine expected building performance and identify any easily corrected weaknesses. Doing this takes a lot of time and money, so extending the current NIST investigation to cover these cases makes a lot of sense.

NIST is not particularly concerned about the lunatic fringe. Few scientists are.

[Cylinder]

My understanding is that the "blast scenarios" part of the document is aimed at modeling hypothetical future acts of terrorism.

Once we've got the building models assembled, it's a relatively easy thing to reuse them for different scenarios. It's highly likely that the next attempt will not be a hijacked airliner, but a more pedestrian truck bomb. Since this is a rare event, it makes sense to use models to determine expected building performance and identify any easily corrected weaknesses. Doing this takes a lot of time and money, so extending the current NIST investigation to cover these cases makes a lot of sense.

NIST is not particularly concerned about the lunatic fringe. Few scientists are.

The release of this NIST FAQ (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) - which is in direct response to the tin-foil crowd - seems to indicate otherwise:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emphasis is mine.

[boloboffin]

Yes, NIST is examining the idea of hypothetical blast scenarios in the collapse of WTC 7. But the truthers will be not be pleased.

Identify and analyze hypothetical blast scenarios in three phases (http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_award0539.htm), with the results from each phase being used to decide if the analyses in the next phase is required:

1. Identify hypothetical blast scenarios, using analysis and/or experience, to determine conditions that would fail specified column sections by direct attachment of explosive materials.
2. Analyze the overpressure produced by the blast load and determine if the overpressure would have failed windows in WTC 7.
3. Determine if the overpressure would result in sound levels transmitted through intact WTC 7 windows that could be heard outside the building.

Also, from the 12/06 Status Summary, a bit more information:

NIST is analyzing scenarios for the event that initiated the collapse of WTC 7. As a part of this work, NIST is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST will estimate the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements as a result of blast.
* Phase I - Identify hypothetical blast scenarios and materials, based on analysis and/or experience, for failing specified columns by direct attachment methods. Preliminary section cutting shall be considered. Compare estimated overpressures for each scenario against windowstrength.
* Phase II - For blast scenarios with overpressures that clearly would not have broken windows, the worst case scenario(s) will be analyzed using SHAMRC software to determine overpressures at windows.
* Phase III - If Phase II overpressures did not clearly fail windows, 3 blast scenarios will be selected to determine the sound levels that would be transmitted outside the building through intact windows.

[R.Mackey]

NIST has released FAQ's addressing calls and letters from our nutty friends, but this takes almost no actual effort. If you read the text of the FAQ carefully, you'll see that their goal is to identify how vulnerable an undamaged structure is to hypothetical explosives. This is in perfect agreement with my impressions above.

If the "Truth Movement" wants to claim this as something in response to them, fine, I don't care. It's useful information and a reasonable question to ask even if the "Truth Movement" had never existed.

[Hokulele]

For me at least, the timing on this is very good. I should be finishing up the last of the NIST NCSTAR in a week or so, and will be ready to tackle a new project soon.

[MG1962]

Damn that video is hard watch :( - I dont know if anyone notices, but there is a kid's nursery playing in the background during the first part