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

[Golden Bear]

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

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]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1588848d19d080bc8e.jpg[/qimg]

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]

NIST fire simulation - not realistic

 

[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]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1588848d19d080bc8e.jpg[/qimg]

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.

/me 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 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...