• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NIST Releases FINAL WTC 7 Report - Nov. 20

A W Smith said:
this doesn't look like a global collapse to me either Anders. Sections of the north and south tower still standing circles in yellow. and a few even survived the collapse in a core stairwell. Guess you cannot use that old "global" canard anymore? can ya?

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/wtc_overview_west_1-1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Subject is WTC7 - a typical classic total collapse; whatever that is???

According NIST a typical classic total collapse is when a big steel structure with >50 solid steel columns (abt 190 m tall) on which 49 floors of total 4165 steel beams/girders are attached (>8330 horizontal connections between columns and girders/beams and unknown number of slooping beams/girders)) collapses when only one piece of a column between two floors is removed ... the whole structure then collapses at free fall speed and all structural parts or connections are cut or ripped apart ! A typical classic total collapse! Apparently a common event in USA because it is both typical and classic = happens all the time! Doesn't happen elsewhere, though!

NIST has a structural analysis software that can calculate how every part/connection is ripped apart (due overload), the energy required and how the loose part (weight, speed, forces acting on it) then flies away and lands in the rubble = typical classic total collapse.

However, it is a pity that NIST cannot produce any details about this software. Sounds magic!

I would like to test it on my structures!
 
So what's the argument about the potential of steel to expand? Was it not considered in the design of the WTC buildings? The towers didn't even have sprinkler systems originally did they? So the only thing foreseen to help with the apparently well known potential of steel to expand in a fire was the spray on fire proofing that according to the official version just fell off?
 
Heiwa said:
However, it is a pity that NIST cannot produce any details about this software. Sounds magic!
Click to expand...
Apparently the software that AE911 is using must be magic too... they apparently used the same software to do whatever models they put out, whether they did so correctly or not...
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
I do. Show me where I am wrong.
Click to expand...


I don't believe that is necessary. You know exactly where you're wrong. To deny that is to admit that you know little about the topic on which you speak. Strange that I have more confidence in your knowledge than you do...
 
Last edited:
Homeland Insurgency said:
So the only thing foreseen to help with the apparently well known potential of steel to expand in a fire was the spray on fire proofing that according to the official version just fell off? ..............

......I do. Show me where I am wrong.
.
Click to expand...

Well I just checked and I cannot find anywhere in the WTC 7 report where NIST says the SFRM just fell off.

Its your claim they did, prove it. Give us a quote and page number, or admit you got nothing.

Perhaps you missed the part of the report dealing with asymettric beam placement and its effect under extreme thermal expansion.
 
Last edited:
Re-bump for RedIbis.

Cl1mh4224rd said:
He's clearly ignoring the fact that he's been caught in some pretty blatant hypocrisy by denying those examples (Titanic, Colmbia, etc.) as valid comparisons. The Columbia slip-up of his is particularly damning.

Just to lay it out for others:

  • WTC7 collapses due to loss of structural integrity caused by thermal expansion.
  • Columbia burns up in the atmosphere due to loss of structural integrity caused by foam impact.

  • RedIbis denies that thermal expansion could cause global collapse, because it's never happened before, and because we lack a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (column 79), despite acknowledging (or, at least, not denying) that thermal expansion is a known phenomenon.
  • RedIbis accepts that a Shuttle can burn up in the atmosphere upon reentry, despite it having never happened before, and despite our lack of a "critical" and primary piece of physical evidence (the damaged wing). He accepts this simply because impact of foam is a known phenomenon.

Really, RedIbis... you're cracking.
Click to expand...

Afraid to address the point?
 
Heiwa said:
Doesn't look like a classic total collapse to me! Left side remains standing, etc.
Click to expand...

Fire caused complete collapse of the steel frame sections aside from the sections at the bottom which had bricks and mortar up to around 15 feet or more. Building next door gave support.
 
Last edited:
Skimming over this thread I'm realizing how far behind I am in my research. I've had a busy few months and have yet to read the WTC7 report.

I haven't seen any riots in the street yet, however, so I assume that an inside job is not what NIST eventually concluded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom