And your totally unsubstantiated point about controlled demolition C7 is also now moot, and have been so since the day WTC 7 collapsed, since NIST has stated repeatedly that:
Did you see this Christopher7. (For new readers: The 5th floor is the floor where the pressurized diesel fuel fire could have occurred. It is also to be noted that blast scenarios also could be caused by naturally occurring backdraft somewhere in the building)
Based on the above work NIST maintains and narrows the cause of the initiating event in their working hypothesis:
NIST December 18, 2007
This is a two way street C7, you can not cherry pick one of NIST's findings while you totally disregard their findings in other areas, that is disregarding without being able to substantiate your reason for doing so in any reasonable manner.
Not so.
I can accept that which i know to be true and reject that which i know to be false.
I have previously listed the facts that show there were no diesel fuel fires in the area of the AIE, and the facts showing that debris damage did not have a significant structural effect on the AIE.
NIST has now come to the same conclusion using those same facts.
The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires,
not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.
I accept their conclusion because i already knew it was true.
I do not accept their denial that WTC7 looks like a CD.
CD discussed here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3293996#post3293996
This thread is about the lack of evidence to support the NIST hypothesis [set of assumptions] that DD/F caused the collapse of WTC7.
After 106 pages of debate, it turns out that i was right about:
The debris damage did not have a significant effect on the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC7.
There were no diesel fuel fires in the AIE.
That leaves "normal building fires".
There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the initiating event.
[the failure of core columns 79, 80 and/or 81]
Fires in east half of WTC 7
NIST L-24
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Looking from the southeast corner to the south face:
Fire on floor 12*, moved toward the east face
[NIST did not publish this photo]
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floors 11 and 12 at southeast corner, progressed to the north
[Louvers = north east generator room]
*corrected to 12 in Final 4-5-05
NIST L-24
Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face.
Some time later, fires were observed on Floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8
moving from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west.
NIST L-26
The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the
northeast corner and moving to the east face.
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 publish this photo]
*The fire on Floor 8 had already burned that part out.
NIST L-38-41
A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F on 4 contiguous floors and 2 or 3 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle.
Fires in the Meridian Plaza burned out of control over 8 contiguous floors for 19 hours.
Beams and girders sagged and twisted but they did not collapse.
“Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.”
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf pg 19 [24 on pg counter]
The columns in WTC 7 were heavier and would take longer to heat up.
