10 story hole in WTC 7

[applecorped]

Temperatures of the fires in burning offices yes. But that does not neceseraly mean that the steel will reach those temps.

What is your evidence that WTC7 was a CD?

 

[DC]

What is your evidence that WTC7 was a CD?

Alex Jones said it.

 

[applecorped]

Alex Jones said it.

No, you stated it. You didn't ascribe to anyone else when you made the post. What is your evidence that WTC7 was a CD?

 

[DC]

No, you stated it. You didn't ascribe to anyone else when you made the post. What is your evidence that WTC7 was a CD?

oh i do indeed agree on AJ on this one.

 

[funk de fino]

No. steel temps did not exceed 250 °C.

Either claim is wrong anyway

What did they agree on?

have you not read the report?

The forensic tests were for DNA.

How do you know? Can you verify exactly what testing was done at the staging area?

There was NO mention of forensic tests for explosives in the FEMA or any other reports.

You know what they say about absence of evidence.....

FEMA did report in appendix C:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting . . . . . . The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F)


The only known explanation for these results is Thermate.

Bolded part is a lie and politically motivated garbage

 

[funk de fino]

That is the official theory, unfortunately, NIST did not conform that either part of that theory.

They cannot confirm steel temperatures above 250 °C.
That isn't hot enough to weaken the perimeter or core columns enough to cause a collapse.

NIST did not explain how gravity caused the total collapse of the Trade Towers.To say gravity caused the total collapse is speculation, not investigation.

You are lying again. I have already told you they did.

The NIST FAQs explain the collapse.

 

[adoucette]

How would NIST have unambiguously identify SPECIFIC pieces of steel in WTC 7 since they didn't have location markings like WTC columns?

If they were allowed to inspect and select the evidence at the collapse site, they would have been able to positively identify steel from WTC 7.

But that is not what I asked. How would they be able to tell which steel pieces went where in the original 47 story building, since the columns weren't marked as to location?

How would NIST have determined the difference between damage caused BEFORE the collapse, DURING the collapse or AFTER the collapse (in the fires in the debris pile or in the process of recovery)?

NIST would have been able to identify steel framework deformed due to intense fire or severed with cutting charges.

Again, NOT what I asked. Try again.

The steel however was examined and unless you know something the rest of us don't, there were NONE that were saved that had been severed by cutting charges.

Why would anyone who had witnessed the top down global collapse following the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires think that the study of the lower core columns would be in any way relevant to WHY the towers collapsed?

They were part of the collapse.
The question is: why did all three buildings collapse totally?
NIST does not answer this question.
They stop at collapse initiation.

Again, you don't answer the question that I asked.

Try again.

 

[Christopher7]

Hold your horses there Christopher. The only thing these results, in isolation, tell us is that this particular piece of steel was hot and in the presence of both oxygen and sulphur.... Nothing more!

We know that there was plenty of heat since the towers were on fire when they collapsed, and continued to smoulder for many weeks afterwards. There was also a plentiful supply of sulphur from wallboard in the towers. I don't think these facts are in dispute, are they?

So, we have a perfectly good explanation for the oxidative corrosion of steel recovered from the rubble pile.

That theory is pure speculation, nothing more.
Nothing like that has ever happened before and no one has demonstrated how it could happen.

Fires smolder when they were starved for oxygen.
There is little oxygen in a debris pile because there is no ventilation.
Oxygen starved fires don't burn as hot as ventilated fires. [far below 1,000 °C.]

Samples show as much as 5.4% sulfur in the debris dust.
No one has demonstrated how this amount of sulfur in the debris dust could cause the spike seen in the chemical analysis of the beam sample.


On the other hand, Thermate supplies it's own oxygen and sulfur.
Thermate creates temperatures in excess of 1,000 °C.
The chemical signature with the tell tale spike of sulfur matches that of Thermate.

 

[DGM]

That theory is pure speculation, nothing more.
Nothing like that has ever happened before and no one has demonstrated how it could happen.

Fires smolder when they were starved for oxygen.
There is little oxygen in a debris pile because there is no ventilation.
Oxygen starved fires don't burn as hot as ventilated fires. [far below 1,000 °C.]

Samples show as much as 5.4% sulfur in the debris dust.
No one has demonstrated how this amount of sulfur in the debris dust could cause the spike seen in the chemical analysis of the beam sample.


On the other hand, Thermate supplies it's own oxygen and sulfur.
Thermate creates temperatures in excess of 1,000 °C.
The chemical signature with the tell tale spike of sulfur matches that of Thermate.

You do know that Dr Jones has dropped the sulfur based thermate claims? Seems like he couldn't support his assertions.

 

[GlennB]

Fires smolder when they were starved for oxygen.
There is little oxygen in a debris pile because there is no ventilation.
Oxygen starved fires don't burn as hot as ventilated fires. [far below 1,000 °C.]

Except, perhaps, when there's a subway system just underneath feeding air up through the debris pile? Is that possible? I think I read something about this somewhere ...

Oh .. and there's also just a chance it happened before collapse too. Dang.

Chris, your long-maintained veneer of rationality seems to have cracked.

 

[adoucette]

FEMA did report in appendix C:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting . . . . . . The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F)


The only known explanation for these results is Thermate.

Hardly.

While the FEMA researchers only had a COUPON cut from the column, the NIST scientists had the entire column (NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Fig 6-20 pg 262) and thus could determine that:

The column type (50ksi type 143) means that this core column was no higher than the 53rd floor of either tower, and since the collapse began 25+ floors above that at the fire impact floors it is clear that this damage played no role in the collapse of the towers.

Similarly, as seen in 1-3C fig 6-20, while the damage is locally extensive, there is no bending of the column, indicating there was little to no load on the column when the damage occurred, again, consistent with damage in the debris pile.

The damage was only on the web portions with minimal damage to the flanges, and because there was significantly more damage to the outer web than the inner web indicates that the damage occurred in a horizontal position, progressing from the outer web to the inner web (pg 231). Since the position of this column type in the tower is vertical this would indicate the damage occurred in the debris pile.

The microstructure of the material indicates that the plate temperature in this region exceeded 830 C (above the critical temp to enter the austenitic region) for a short time, but this did not happen to the lower part of the column and that the microstructure also shows that this area cooled down very slowly, again something which is consistent with conditions in the debris pile.

 

[Christopher7]

So, would it be safe to say that NIST didn't have plans to use the steel in an official proceeding before it was discarded?

Yes.
I see your point, however, FEMA's failure to demand that the physical evidence be preserved was a dereliction of duty and resulted in NIST's inability to verify steel temperatures in excess of 250 °C and therefore their ability to confirm the official collapse initiation theory.

The physical evidence was essential to a real investigation of the total collapse of all three buildings.
FEMA and NIST ignored the numerous accounts of explosions and limited their investigation to a predetermined theory.
That's not a real investigation, it's a cover up like the 911 Commission report.


The World Trade Center was a federal crime scene and an official investigation by the FBI was mandatory.
I don't know the statute and LashL will not post it because he/she knows it requires the preservation of evidence at a crime scene involving multiple deaths.

The administration was and is in control of the FBI, FEMA and NIST.
It's like having murder inc. investigate itself.

 

[Christopher7]

No. steel temps did not exceed 250 °C.

Either claim is wrong anyway

Your proof please.

have you not read the report?

What report? Please post the URL.

NIST would have been able to identify steel framework deformed due to intense fire or severed with cutting charges.

The stleel had already been forensically examined and catalogued

The forensic tests were for DNA.

How do you know? Can you verify exactly what testing was done at the staging area?

Here's a report on the forensic identification of 911 victims.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=525937&page=1

Rather than asking me to prove a negative, please provide a source for your claim that the steel had been forensically examined for cutting charges.

You know what they say about absence of evidence.....

You can't make a claim without evidence to back it up.

 

[LashL]

Well, I'm very disappointed, Christopher7.

I offered you a valuable learning opportunity and you failed and refused to avail yourself of it. I gave you a road map to educate yourself on the matter and instead of even attempting to do so, you simply repeated one of your previous (uneducated and erroneous) posts.

*sigh*

See:

Yes, indeed, and you have not yet supported your claims that the NY state law you cited applies or that it means that the removal and eventual sale and/or destruction of steel from the WTC site constitutes a felony.

You have merely cited the existence of a NY state law, misinterpreted it badly because you haven't a clue about how the law actually works, haven't a clue about statutory interpretation, haven't a clue about the elements of the offence that you claim have been met somehow, (heck, you probably don't even know what the "elements of the offence" means, let alone how to figure out whether or not the elements have been met), and you are simply taking a few words out of a statute and erroneously interpreting them in a way that suits your delusions.

Were you contemplating supporting your claim any time soon?

Ah, now, here is a valuable learning opportunity for you. Statutory interpretation 101: The drafters of statutes are presumed to have chosen their words carefully, and it is presumed that all of the words in any given statute have meaning. In other words, you cannot take only a few words out of a statute, ignore the rest, ignore their definitions, ignore their interplay with other sections and other statutes, and claim that the few words you've chosen to address mean what you want them to mean.

So, take a look at all of the important words that you have been ignoring, and that will give you a clue as to why and how you have gone so wrong.

I'll give you a couple of hints, since you seem to be struggling so badly: pay particular attention to the type of proceeding to which the state statute applies, and pay particular attention to the words that go to the mens rea and the actus reus of the offence.

And what did you respond with? Nothing but a cut and paste of one of your previous (incorrect and uneducated) posts.

See:

The law: <snipped>

Snipped because you have once again selectively and wrongly cherry picked the statute; you have entirely failed to acknowledge key elements; you do not recognize the requisite elements; and you demonstrate that you do not even know what "the elements" means, never mind the interplay that words have with other sections, prescribed definitions, other statutes, and judicial precedent as to the meaning and interpretation of words used in statutes.

The choices are few here. Either (a) you didn't even try; (b) you did try but failed to comprehend; or (c) you did follow the road map I gave you, comprehended the results, realized how and why you went wrong and then chose to pretend otherwise with your responding post above.

So, which is it?

In any event, your response is disappointing, yet completely unsurprising.

Let's take this one step at a a time.

The evidence was about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding,

Yes or no?

The answer to your question is, "No."

That's not the only reason that your claim (i.e., that the removal and eventual sale of some of the steel = a felony) is wrong, by the way. Had you done what I suggested in the 'statutory interpretation' portion of my post above, you may very well have figured out the other reasons why your claim is wrong. I wish you would have at least tried to educate yourself on the matter, though. Obviously, you are not interested in doing so.

 

[Christopher7]

How would they be able to tell which steel pieces went where in the original 47 story building, since the columns weren't marked as to location?

Column 79 was unique [3"x26" cover plates]. It would have been easy to identify.
Column 79 supported the largest floor area and it is probably the column NIST is referring to as the initiating event.

They could have identified columns 1,15(?),28,42,70,73,76,80 and 81 by their web plates.
NIST Final pg 11
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf
[note: floor plan upside down and backwards in relation to the built up columns]

They could have identified the unique trusses 1 & 2 that are a vital part of the NIST hypothesis.
FEMA-5 pg 8-9
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

Since WTC 1 & 2 had floor trusses and WTC 7 had floor beams, these floor beams were different from anything in WTC 1 & 2 and could therefore be identified as being from WTC 7.
NIST L pg 5 [pg 6 - column numbers]
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

adoucette
How would NIST have determined the difference between damage caused BEFORE the collapse, DURING the collapse or AFTER the collapse (in the fires in the debris pile or in the process of recovery)?

Column and beam distortions due to intense fire would have happened before the fire. Any distortions due to heat after the collapse would be due to the molten metal [reported to Mark Loiseaux by contractors he had been working with] and would have been found in close proximity of the molten metal.
Anydamage due to cutting charges, explosives, etc., would have occurred prior to the collapse.

The steel however was examined and unless you know something the rest of us don't, there were NONE that were saved that had been severed by cutting charges.

You don't know that.
Some of the steel was cut up at the site before it was sent to a salvage yard and inspected.
The SEAoNY engineers might not be able to discern a cutting charge cut from a torch cut.

There were 131 "engineer visits" to the salvage sites.
They had to climb around in piles of unsorted steel trying to find and identify pieces from certain areas of the 3 buildings.
[see pg 3-4]
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf

They inspected a small percentage of the steel. [much of it was buried and unaccessible]

None of the saved pieces has been tested for explosives.
pg 4-5
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

 

[Christopher7]

Well, I'm very disappointed, Christopher7.

I offered you a valuable learning opportunity and you failed and refused to avail yourself of it. I gave you a road map to educate yourself on the matter and instead of even attempting to do so, you simply repeated one of your previous (uneducated and erroneous) posts.
*sigh*

I love it when you talking to me that way dear. It makes the children feel warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[Jwheelz]

Yes.
I see your point, however, FEMA's failure to demand that the physical evidence be preserved was a dereliction of duty and resulted in NIST's inability to verify steel temperatures in excess of 250 °C and therefore their ability to confirm the official collapse initiation theory.

Even though I disagree with your entire line of thinking, I am going to hang in there with you for another comment. If NIST/FEMA didn't have plans to use the steel in an official proceeding then the statute you cited was not violated. That is all I was getting at. You can say it was a dereliction of duty but that doesn't make disposing of the steel illegal.

The World Trade Center was a federal crime scene and an official investigation by the FBI was mandatory.

And they conducted largest and most complex investigation in the history of the FBI. Here is a little tidbit of their investigation (sorry can't post links yet) -- "Nationwide we covered over 500,000 investigative leads and conducted over 167,000 interviews. We collected over 7,500 pieces of evidence which were submitted for analysis. Working in conjunction with New York City agencies and authorities, we helped process over 1.8 million tons of debris for investigative leads and victim identification and took more than 45,000 crime scene photographs."

The problem is that you believe they should have been investigating for controlled demolition. From their standpoint, they knew a 767 had flown into each of the towers, each of which caught fire after the resulting fireballs. The collapse of the towers came as a result of the structures being SEVERELY and CRITICALLY weakened where massive fires continued to burn at the very weakest parts of what was left of each of the buildings. There was absolutely no sign of a controlled demolition. The random explosions that were heard were very obviously not that of a sequence as used in a controlled demolition. THEY HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

You spend so much time trying to analyze the work of professionals when you couldn't hold a candle to their expertise. I don't mean that as an insult, seriously, have you looked into the backgrounds and histories of the investigators? There are thousands of the most highly qualified professionals who investigated this hands on - not from a computer over the Internet. To say that there was controlled demo also says that either these highly educated/experienced people are freaking incompetent or many of them are in on it. They sifted more than a million tons of debris - notice THEY as in thousands of investigators - and not a lick of evidence was found for controlled demolition.

You can say they weren't looking for controlled demolition but we are talking about people who are trained to identify just about any kind of explosive you could think of. Yeah, they didn't have a goal of finding evidence of CD but there would be no slipping the amount of CD material it would take by the people who spent months combing all the debris.

After they were done, it was just that, debris. Debris that the FBI determined was of no value to the investigation. As for NIST of FEMA, it isn't their job to perform a criminal investigation in place of the FBI. Suspecting CD would be the FBI's job. They might glance over it in the NIST report but if there was really any sign of CD, you can bet the FBI would be leading the way.

I'm pretty sure that my words are falling on deaf ears with you Chris and I am also sure that you will be formulating a response before you actually take time to read what I wrote. I can only hope that someone honestly looking for answers can take the words of an outsider to heart. For the record, I hate this administration and have also never voted republican. I just don't let that hate make me want to believe things which are nothing but passed on delusions from the same damn type of people who pass on delusions about all major events in history.

Chris, do you really think you have more to offer than an entire organization like NIST???

 

[Christopher7]

While the FEMA researchers only had a COUPON cut from the column, the NIST scientists had the entire column (NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Fig 6-20 pg 262) and thus could determine that:

Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2.
FEMA 403 C pg 1
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Nist said "No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7."
NISTNCSTAR1-3B pg 27[on pg counter]
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

The column type (50ksi type 143) means that this core column was no higher than the 53rd floor of either tower, and since the collapse began 25+ floors above that at the fire impact floors it is clear that this damage played no role in the collapse of the towers.

Agreed

Similarly, as seen in 1-3C fig 6-20, while the damage is locally extensive, there is no bending of the column, indicating there was little to no load on the column when the damage occurred, again, consistent with damage in the debris pile.

Agreed

The damage was only on the web portions with minimal damage to the flanges, and because there was significantly more damage to the outer web than the inner web indicates that the damage occurred in a horizontal position, progressing from the outer web to the inner web (pg 231). Since the position of this column type in the tower is vertical this would indicate the damage occurred in the debris pile.

Agreed

The microstructure of the material indicates that the plate temperature in this region exceeded 830 C (above the critical temp to enter the austenitic region) for a short time, but this did not happen to the lower part of the column and that the microstructure also shows that this area cooled down very slowly, again something which is consistent with conditions in the debris pile.

Agreed

 

[LashL]

I love it when you talking to me that way dear. It makes the children feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Another swing and another miss, Christopher7. I am quite certain that you know you aren't fooling anyone but yourself with that ridiculous and nonsensical post.

Please address the issues raised in my post above instead of dodging them yet again.

Frankly, I doubt that you will, because you've demonstrated that you are quite incapable of doing so, but I'd love for you to prove me wrong.

So far, you've demonstrated that you have no concept or knowledge whatsoever about the law that you purport to opine upon. You've shown that you are incapable of responding in any meaningful fashion whatsoever to legitimate questions. You've shown that you are wholly incapable and unqualified to opine on, well, just about everything that you have attempted to opine on since you started posting here. You've also shown that you are incapable of supporting your misinformed, uneducated opinions with anything other than repetitions of your unsupported, misinformed and uneducated opinions.

Sad, really.

Do I really have to re-post your (most recent) dodges, lies, and deceits yet again, or will you stop trying to change the subject and address them like a man? I suspect the former, but I'm hoping for the latter.

 

[Christopher7]

Even though I disagree with your entire line of thinking, I am going to hang in there with you for another comment. If NIST/FEMA didn't have plans to use the steel in an official proceeding then the statute you cited was not violated. That is all I was getting at. You can say it was a dereliction of duty but that doesn't make disposing of the steel illegal.

Your point was well taken.
However
The intent of the law is to prevent what happened.
NIST did not have sufficient physical evidence to determine the cause of the collapse initiation, much less the total collapses.
Knowing why and how the 3 buildings collapsed completely and what changes need to be made in design requirements, is vital because this design has been used, and will continue to be used, in other buildings.

And they conducted largest and most complex investigation in the history of the FBI. Here is a little tidbit of their investigation (sorry can't post links yet) -- "Nationwide we covered over 500,000 investigative leads and conducted over 167,000 interviews. We collected over 7,500 pieces of evidence which were submitted for analysis. Working in conjunction with New York City agencies and authorities, we helped process over 1.8 million tons of debris for investigative leads* and victim identification and took more than 45,000 crime scene photographs."

*but they didn't test for explosives despite the numerous reports of explosions

The problem is that you believe they should have been investigating for controlled demolition. From their standpoint, they knew a 767 had flown into each of the towers, each of which caught fire after the resulting fireballs. The collapse of the towers came as a result of the structures being SEVERELY and CRITICALLY weakened where massive fires continued to burn at the very weakest parts of what was left of each of the buildings.

And therein lies the rub.
They had determined the cause before the investigation began.

There was absolutely no sign of a controlled demolition.

Pure denial.

The random explosions that were heard were very obviously not that of a sequence as used in a controlled demolition.

You don't know that.
A building had never been destroyed in this manner before. It was done quite differently than other CD's.

THEY HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

They brushed off scores of first responders, witnesses and reporters who heard explosions.
They ignored the fact that all three buildings fell straight down thru what should have been the path of greatest resistance at near free fall, as in a CD.
They denied that there was molten metal at all three buildings.

In short, they looked only for evidence that supported their pre-investigation conclusion and ignored or denied any evidence to the contrary.

The FBI, FEMA and NIST are controlled by Cheney/Bush Appointees.
The Cheney/Bush administration systematically distorts scientific reports to further their political agenda.
The Cheney/Bush administration lied us into a war in Iraq to further their political agenda, the Project for a New AMERICAN Century.
So why do you believe these liars?

Your fanatic loyalty to the Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory is rather transparent.
You parrot their talking points with passion.
You will never concede a point or even admit that WTC 7 looks like a CD.

Have a nice day.