• 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

Grizzly Bear said:
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...
Click to expand...

??? Haven't seen any AE911 structural analysis software. Pls provide link to the NIST software that, (1) does intact structural analysis, (2) pinpoints the first failure, (3) recalculates the structural analysis with first failure -new damage analysis + deformations, (4), keeps tracks of any loose parts due to (2), (5) does analyse again the next step in the destruction, (6) pinpoints the second failure, (7) recalculates the analysis with second failure -renewed damage analysis, (8) keeps tracks of more loose parts, etc, etc.
I like that the software can print out any stage of destruction with parts flying around. Who has written this fantastic software? And what type of computer can handle it?
 
Hey Heiwa, congratulations on your Stundie Award victory for the month of November! Do you mind if I share some of the honor since I nominated you?
 
Heiwa said:
??? Haven't seen any AE911 structural analysis software. Pls provide link to the NIST software that, (1) does intact structural analysis, (2) pinpoints the first failure, (3) recalculates the structural analysis with first failure -new damage analysis + deformations, (4), keeps tracks of any loose parts due to (2), (5) does analyse again the next step in the destruction, (6) pinpoints the second failure, (7) recalculates the analysis with second failure -renewed damage analysis, (8) keeps tracks of more loose parts, etc, etc.
I like that the software can print out any stage of destruction with parts flying around. Who has written this fantastic software? And what type of computer can handle it?
Click to expand...

I don't know Heiwa, apparently just about any software is fantasy as far as NIST is concerned... just don't tell that to these guys. They apparently didn't get the NWO memo... :|
 
Grizzly Bear said:
I don't know Heiwa, apparently just about any software is fantasy as far as NIST is concerned... just don't tell that to these guys. They apparently didn't get the NWO memo... :|
Click to expand...

I am one of those guys:)-

What about the FEA + loose parts flying around software? Any clues where NIST got it from? I would guess some Hollywood outfit!
 
jaydeehess said:
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.
Click to expand...


Sigh... everything has to be spelled out for some people.

I never said it fell off of WTC-7.

But I think some of you know I was using the towers as an example in the same manner some here used pictures of bridges to claim thermal expansion is a long well known phenomenon that can happen. I think some people are just being conveniently ignorant. How surprising.

So I ask again if it's so well known then how was it considered in the building of the WTC complex? And how many other steel constructed high-rise buildings have suffered complete collapse because of it?
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
So I ask again if it's so well known then how was it considered in the building of the WTC complex? And how many other steel constructed high-rise buildings have suffered complete collapse because of it?
Click to expand...

How many other steel framed skyscrapers had multi-floor fires which were totally unfought or seven hours, and were predicted to collapse by the fire department?
 
Last edited:
Homeland Insurgency said:
Sigh... everything has to be spelled out for some people.

I never said it fell off of WTC-7.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, my bad. This thread concerns WTC 7 and you stated in post 244
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?
Click to expand...

So naturally I assumed you were speaking on the subject of this thread.

I did not mention that spray on "fire proofing" (a misnomer given that nothing is a complete prophylaxis against fire damage) is rated for specific times. The insulation simply slows the rate at which the steel heats up. It still heats up and as the rated time approaches the insulation is less and less effective at its job. After that time it cannot be assumed tohave any effect on the transfer of heat. This building had fires that went unfought. Fires in the building burned until they exhausted the fuel or the building fell down.



So I ask again if it's so well known then how was it considered in the building of the WTC complex? And how many other steel constructed high-rise buildings have suffered complete collapse because of it?
Click to expand...

Few have suffered complete collapse but I see that you ignore the contribution of assymetric placement of the beams in question. I ask you then, how many examples of fires in structures with such assymetry are there to compare with? NIST states that this was an important contributor to the collapse.

WTC 7 is building constructed over an existing building, with many non-standard angles, large area spaces etc. NIST illustrates examples of the effects of thermal expansion in other structure fires and examines how this would affect the structural members in WTC 7 taking into consideration the way that specific building was put together.

Did the original designers take this into account several deacades ago when they did not have the advantage of the high speed computers that present day NIST has? Did they mistakenly assume that the assymetry would have little effect? I don't know, but they did not tie the beams into the concrete better either and they did leave very large open spaces in the floor plans so perhaps it was overlooked. My guess though is that it was more a case of not having the tools to do the modelling that NIST did do let alone the money to do it.

This goes back to the space shuttle comparison. How many shuttles have ever suffered complete mission failure due to foam/ice impacts on take off? ONE! Until that time there had been many instances of foam or ice impacts at lift off but no complete loss of the mission either in space or on re-entry. By the logic of 'it never has happened in the past so it cannot have happened on 911', Columbia should still be part of the shuttle fleet.

WTC 7 and the shuttle have one thing in common, they are special cases in their general categories of buildings and aircraft.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Oh dear, my bad. This thread concerns WTC 7 and you stated in post 244


So naturally I assumed you were speaking on the subject of this thread.

I did not mention that spray on "fire proofing" (a misnomer given that nothing is a complete prophylaxis against fire damage) is rated for specific times. The insulation simply slows the rate at which the steel heats up. It still heats up and as the rated time approaches the insulation is less and less effective at its job. After that time it cannot be assumed tohave any effect on the transfer of heat. This building had fires that went unfought. Fires in the building burned until they exhausted the fuel or the building fell down.

Few have suffered complete collapse but I see that you ignore the contribution of assymetric placement of the beams in question. I ask you then, how many examples of fires in structures with such assymetry are there to compare with? NIST states that this was an important contributor to the collapse.

WTC 7 is building constructed over an existing building, with many non-standard angles, large area spaces etc. NIST illustrates examples of the effects of thermal expansion in other structure fires and examines how this would affect the structural members in WTC 7 taking into consideration the way that specific building was put together.

Did the original designers take this into account several deacades ago when they did not have the advantage of the high speed computers that present day NIST has? Did they mistakenly assume that the assymetry would have little effect? I don't know, but they did not tie the beams into the concrete better either and they did leave very large open spaces in the floor plans so perhaps it was overlooked. My guess though is that it was more a case of not having the tools to do the modelling that NIST did do let alone the money to do it.

This goes back to the space shuttle comparison. How many shuttles have ever suffered complete mission failure due to foam/ice impacts on take off? ONE! Until that time there had been many instances of foam or ice impacts at lift off but no complete loss of the mission either in space or on re-entry. By the logic of 'it never has happened in the past so it cannot have happened on 911', Columbia should still be part of the shuttle fleet.

WTC 7 and the shuttle have one thing in common, they are special cases in their general categories of buildings and aircraft.
Click to expand...

Few have suffered complete collapse? None have ever suffered complete collapse.

Now your story is 3 complete collapses for two different reasons all on the same day.

Brilliant.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
So now WTC-7 was the only skyscraper to ever go on fire for 7 hours or longer? I guess you missed my link.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in that link does it show a steel framed skyscraper that had multi story, totally unfought fires for seven hours and predicted to collapse by the FIRE DEPARTMENT.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Are you impaired? WTC-7 was on fire for seven hours and not even completely. I linked to fires that went for 17-19 hours. What were they fighting those fires with for 17 hours? Gasoline?
Click to expand...
Ah Meridian plaza the fire that was finally suppressed by the sprinklers on the 30th floor. Don't forget the steel portion did collapse.

Hey try again.

Remember UN-FOUGHT
 
DGM said:
Ah Meridian plaza the fire that was finally suppressed by the sprinklers on the 30th floor. Don't forget the steel portion did collapse.

Hey try again.

Remember UN-FOUGHT
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about Meridian. Meridian went even longer. "Portion" is the operative word there in your reply.

And if WTC-7 was totally UN-FOUGHT then why don't you Mr debunker explain what Silverstein meant by "pull" if not the firefighters?
 
Last edited:
Homeland Insurgency said:
I wasn't talking about Meridian. Meridian went even longer. "Portion" is the operative word there in your reply.

And if WTC-7 was totally UN-FOUGHT then why don't you Mr debunker explain what Silverstein meant by "pull" if not the firefighters?
Click to expand...
Silverstein never gave "the order" to anyone. He was just reaffirming what the FDNY already did hours before.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
And if WTC-7 was totally UN-FOUGHT then why don't you Mr debunker explain what Silverstein meant by "pull" if not the firefighters?
Click to expand...

So now the FDNY is lying about this? Cool. Thanks for clearing it up.

Silverstein wasn't even there. And his "pull it" quote was taken from an interview a year (I think) later. And he could have just been talking about pulling firefighters from near the area since it was evident it was going to collapse.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Now your story is 3 complete collapses for two different reasons all on the same day.
Click to expand...

Well, that's because they were caused by two different reasons. Are you saying that this would be less suspicious (in your mind) if it was 3 collapses for the same reason (despite two different buildings) or 3 reasons for 3 buildings (despite that two buildings has the same thing done to them)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom