NIST Releases FINAL WTC 7 Report - Nov. 20

[Reality Believer]

Since this thread is about NIST's WTC 7 report conclusions, if your post asked about controlled demolition, please don't be surprised that I will completely ignore it.

That should cancel out the majority of posts addressed to me. For the others, I will suspend all skepticism, concede defeat and accept NIST's conclusion.

This unfortunately forces me to ask a very simple question. Where's Column 79, any of the shear studs, or any other physical evidence?

Is it in Fresh Kills? Was it melted down in China? What happened to the WTC 7 material? What was the chain of custody for this evidence? Perhaps it still exists. It's not like we're looking for a single human hair to analyze the DNA.

To produce computer simulations and a hypothesis that relies so heavily on such extraordinary circumstances, even a shred of physical evidence is required before it should even be considered a theory.

WTC 7 steel was not serialized or marked in any way to identify its place in the structure. If there was a pile of steel still in existence somewhere, there would be no positive way of identifying col. 79.

 

[RedIbis]

WTC 7 steel was not serialized or marked in any way to identify its place in the structure. If there was a pile of steel still in existence somewhere, there would be no positive way of identifying col. 79.

Well the first question is why wasn't it marked properly? If there's a steel pile in existence there is absolutely a positive way of identifying it. Please let me know when you learn of the location of such a pile.

If not, you might activate your curiosity meter.

 

[Pardalis]

Well the first question is why wasn't it marked properly?

I believe RB's point is that :"WTC 7 steel was not serialized or marked in any way to identify its place in the structure" while it was assembled during the constuction of the building.

You may correct me on that, Reality Believer, if I didn't get this right.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Well the first question is why wasn't it marked properly?

Do you have evidence that not marking each member's location in the building is improper?

 

[Orphia Nay]

Who was the truther here who would settle for nothing less than a replica WTC be built and a 767 flown into it to see if it would collapse?

Tanabear, if my memory serves me. I recall seeing him say that a couple of times.

[searching...]

Yep, tanabear. And you nominated him for a Stundie in August, which he well deserved.

Wrong. As I wrote previously, "I've stated on previous occasions what it would require to falsify my ideas regarding 9/11. Someone needs to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with impact damage and fire and it's destruction needs to mirror the collapse of WTC1 and 2(crush-down/crush-up) and WTC7(implosion). Or is the experimental method to rigorous for those who believe the official story?"

So if all the demolition experts in the world agree with the official story, then there should be at least some who are able to demolish a steel-frame high-rise with fire and impact damage. Where can I see an example of this?

It is the believers in the official story whose beliefs are not falsifiable.

 

[Reality Believer]

Well the first question is why wasn't it marked properly? If there's a steel pile in existence there is absolutely a positive way of identifying it. Please let me know when you learn of the location of such a pile.

If not, you might activate your curiosity meter.

It is a matter of preference of construction management when they built the building. The twin towers had marked steel. Each piece had individual markings. Its place could be identified within the structure by these markings.

WTC 7 was constructed under different circumstances. The steel was not marked. I don't know why, I just know this is the case. The project was managed in a different way. That is why it is moot to consider that even if they preserved the entire pile, that examining individual pieces would yeild meaningful results.

The steel is gone. There was no conceivable reason to preserve it.

 

[Reality Believer]

Do you have evidence that not marking each member's location in the building is improper?

The only markings that I can think of that MIGHT be procedurally required would be "lot traceability". That would identify steel from a certain "heat lot" from the foundry so the chemical and physical properties can be traced. It is NOT tied into the position in the building, but simply the chemical and physical properties from the steel supplier.

A slab of steel that had lot #B67G might be cut up into a score of unrelated pieces, placed all over the building. Some of these pieces might even end up in different structures altogether, but each time that steel is cut and placed into a structure or assembly, it would be stamped with the lot number.

The purpose is, if there was a failure of some kind, and the chemical and physical properties are suspect, that steel lot could be traced to all the components that came from that slab or coil.

Of course there was no concern, that I know of, that the steel in WTC 7 did not meet specification, nor do I know that lot traceability was even required on this project.

So if one wanted to probe further, you would want to know if steel lot traceability was required on WTC 7, and if it was, where are the QC results for those lots. Perhaps NIST already did this. I'm sure they did. Heck, I'm a hack engineer and I thought of it!

I take this experience from oil drilling equipment, and not building construction, so the standards might be quite different.

 

[johnny karate]

Since this thread is about NIST's WTC 7 report conclusions, if your post asked about controlled demolition, please don't be surprised that I will completely ignore it.

That should cancel out the majority of posts addressed to me. For the others, I will suspend all skepticism, concede defeat and accept NIST's conclusion.

This unfortunately forces me to ask a very simple question. Where's Column 79, any of the shear studs, or any other physical evidence?

Is it in Fresh Kills? Was it melted down in China? What happened to the WTC 7 material? What was the chain of custody for this evidence? Perhaps it still exists. It's not like we're looking for a single human hair to analyze the DNA.

To produce computer simulations and a hypothesis that relies so heavily on such extraordinary circumstances, even a shred of physical evidence is required before it should even be considered a theory.

RedIbis, have you or will contact any industry or scientific professionals to have these questions answered?

Or is your supposed curiosity confined strictly to the times you are logged onto this forum?

 

[dtugg]

Tishman Realty & Construction managed the construction of the first (and second) WTC7. I urge RedIbis to contact them if he really wants to know why the steel wasn't marked in such a way that it could be identified post fire and collapse. Will he do this? I seriously doubt it.

 

[WildCat]

Tishman Realty & Construction managed the construction of the first (and second) WTC7. I urge RedIbis to contact them if he really wants to know why the steel wasn't marked in such a way that it could be identified post fire and collapse. Will he do this? I seriously doubt it.

Red's on record here as saying the extent of his investigating is asking his family and friends about 9/11. Since they live in NYC, this makes them experts or something in RedIbis world.

 

[jaydeehess]

Since this thread is about NIST's WTC 7 report conclusions, if your post asked about controlled demolition, please don't be surprised that I will completely ignore it.

That should cancel out the majority of posts addressed to me.

Of the 9 short paragraphs of my post above only 2 of them concern explosives yet you fail to address the entire post.

This unfortunately forces me to ask a very simple question. Where's Column 79, any of the shear studs, or any other physical evidence?

Is it in Fresh Kills? Was it melted down in China? What happened to the WTC 7 material? What was the chain of custody for this evidence? Perhaps it still exists. It's not like we're looking for a single human hair to analyze the DNA.

To produce computer simulations and a hypothesis that relies so heavily on such extraordinary circumstances, even a shred of physical evidence is required before it should even be considered a theory.

Answered several times now. The steel used in the construction of WTC 7 was not permanenttly and uniquely marked to indicate its position in the structure. How then would one go about identifying specific parts of the building?

Why also do you focus on column 79? It failed, according to the NIST sim, by buckling after losing lateral support due to fire damage to the floor beams and cross girder. Should you not be asking instead, where those pieces are?
Column 79 was not the straw that breaks the camel's back. It was simply the first vertebrae that failed.

 

[Btodd]

Truly a red herring. This thread is about NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory and whether or not you think it's necessary that they produce the key physical evidence.

Either you think physical evidence is necessary to support their theory or you don't.

That's merely a deliberate attempt to keep your ideas off the table, away from scrutiny....a method more and more Truthers have adopted over the years. "I don't have to explain what did happen, in order to know what didn't happen". If that's true, then it isn't a Truth Movement at all, but a Denial Movement.

If you do not believe WTC 7 fell due to fire, then it has an explanation...at least a plausible alternative. What is yours, if not controlled demolitions or some other method of intentional destruction by the government? If you consider those even remote possibilities, then I want to know the motive. Without one, the idea is pretty silly on its face.

When I doubt an explanation for any given phenomena, I naturally look for another one. Surely you've done this by now, and at least have something that's theoretically plausible.

 

[1337m4n]

Red-Ibis , you might have missed this question.

What would you expect to find on col 79 that would support or refute the NIST hypothesis, or for that matter a CD hypothesis?

Bump.



And Red, you're the one who brought up Column 79 as "key physical evidence", so I don't want to hear any cries of "Red herring!"

 

[1337m4n]

This unfortunately forces me to ask a very simple question. Where's Column 79, any of the shear studs, or any other physical evidence?

Gone. Not here. We don't have it. JREF cannot provide for your request. Is there anything else JREF can do for you? Such as providing you with contact information for the people who WOULD know this stuff? We'd be happy to if you would just ask.

 

[1337m4n]

To produce computer simulations and a hypothesis that relies so heavily on such (1)extraordinary circumstances, (2)even a shred of physical evidence is required before it should even be considered a theory.

1) Please detail the "extraordinary circumstances".

2) Why?

 

[RedIbis]

Bump.



And Red, you're the one who brought up Column 79 as "key physical evidence", so I don't want to hear any cries of "Red herring!"

How about the buckling from extreme heat, or evidence of thermal expansion, or how the girder to floor 13 failed. You know, basic forensic engineering.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Still no evidence of a controlled demolition eh?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

How about the buckling from extreme heat, or evidence of thermal expansion, or how the girder to floor 13 failed. You know, basic forensic engineering.

I'm not quite sure why thermal expansion would have to be proven, it happens at every range of temperatures. The only variables that would need to be known are the maximum temperature differentials and the length of the structural member. from that you could find out how much the beam would expand, and eventually if you knew the engineering calcs, how much it would have deflected other structural members attached to it...

And extreme heat is really relative... steel begins to weaken at temperatures of as low as 400oC, and weakens even further with increasing temperatures. I don't know what threshold you consider to be extreme heat, but temperatures hot enough to weaken steel, and thermal expansion are both conditions that were present inside the building

 

[jaydeehess]

How about the buckling from extreme heat, or evidence of thermal expansion, or how the girder to floor 13 failed. You know, basic forensic engineering.

RED Ibis,, I have pointed out several times now that the WTC 7 report never states that column 79 failed due to its buckling from heat.

Column 79 failed because it lost lateral support when the floors collapsed due to heat unduced failures..

So,,,,,,,,, once again,,,,,,,, what would you expect to find on column 79 that would support or refute this?

 

[RedIbis]

RED IbisSo,,,,,,,,, once again,,,,,,,, what would you expect to find on column 79 that would support or refute this?

That it buckled due to the fire induced damage around it.