10 story hole in WTC 7

[Baylor]

This thread is dead, stop bumping it.

 

[funk de fino]

The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents to further their political agenda. It only requires a few people at the top to falsify a report.

And no-one else involved in that report notices?? Get real C7, how many people were involved in that report, including external companies NIST used?

epic failure.

Why do you still fanatically believe and support the Bush administration?

Even bigger failure than above. Political claptrap and untrue anyway. Most here are against the Bush admin. This is the mantra of the truther who has no arguments based in facts and evidence.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

1) Because it was enough to establish that there was no fire at 2:10 p.m. and no reason to think there was a fire later.

Again with this (bold). What about before 2PM Christopher? You never did answer my question, is there a reason why you make a point to evade that?

2) There were no reports of fire there at any time.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

3) Even if there were a fire there it would not be a factor in the collapse.

Of course, we know now, but at the time of the preliminary report this was an unknown. Stop using outdated material...

The outright refusal to grasp these simple facts shows that everyone here is in denial or getting paid to keep this merry-go-round going around.

False Dilemma

Or you could be using flawed argumentation tactics which expose your confirmation bias, or you're incompetent, the world may never know. However argumentation is not precluded to two exclusive choices.

 

[GStan]

1) Because it was enough to establish that there was no fire at 2:10 p.m. and no reason to think there was a fire later.

Yes there was. At minimum, there was a large quantity of diesel fuel unaccounted for. That alone is enough to trump the single photograph theory (which incidently, only establishes that there was no smoke coming from the louvres at 210 pm), not even considering everything else that would have been factored into the development of the working hypothesis.

2) There were no reports of fire there at any time.

Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. But I'll let it stand if you want to allow me to apply it to your theory as well. There were no reports of explosives being set off. There were no reports of demolition characteristics in the rubble pile. There were no remnants of demolition hardware in the rubble pile. There were no reports of demolition charges or thermite being planted in building 7 prior to 9/11. There were no reports of people going into building 7 on 9/11 to plant demolition charges or thermite. There are no reports from witnesses at ground zero that building 7 was CD'd. There are no reports of seismic activity consistent with what would be recorded in a CD. There are no reports from any scientists who worked on the NIST report stating that Dr. Shyam-Sunder lied or told them to lie. None of these works as proof of my argument anymore or less than your repeated assertion of "no reports of fire" works for yours. Stop saying it. It makes you look like a ********.

3) Even if there were a fire there it would not be a factor in the collapse.

Obviously we know that now. Stop pretending that it was already apparent to them before they even published the first draft.

The outright refusal to grasp these simple facts shows that everyone here is in denial or getting paid to keep this merry-go-round going around.

HEY! Where's my check?!

Dumb question.
Hey mister, did you lie in this report? No? OK, thank you very much.

If that is the best question that you could come up with, given the opportunity to correspond or interview with Dr. Shyam-Sunder, then yes, quite dumb indeed. Hopefully the attorney who ultimately prosecutes the case is able to come up with some questions that are slightly more intelligent.

Is that really what you would ask him if you had the chance? You do realize that even if prosecuted, he will be presumed innocent until his guilt is proven, and he will have the opportunity to defend himself? He should be so lucky as to have such an inadequate prosecutor.

The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents to further their political agenda. It only requires a few people at the top to falsify a report.

That's idiotic. Period. Please explain to me some semblance of a coherent theory as to how "a few people at the top" could falsify a scientific report using an alleged lie that is so blatantly obvious that a layman with no relevant professional experience can identify it, yet hidden enough that every other scientist who worked on or reviewed the report could either not detect it, or have agreed to play along with it. (And this is not just some minor manipulation used to unduly justify a policy initiative, this is the cover up of mass murder!) Your assertion is absurd.

Why do you still fanatically believe and support the Bush administration?

Here is a nickel's worth of free advice. Spend 3 or 4 hours one day reading in the JREF politics forum, particularly the election 08 subforum. You will find a lot of handles of posters who also comment in the conspiracy forums. It will be ridiculously obvious to you very quickly that there is not much love for the Bush administration here at JREF, and that there are even some who would be tickled pink to find evidence that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Etc. planned and executed 9/11, perhaps even wishing for it. (That's probably why some of them argue so politely with truthers and yet so venomously with conservatives.)

I am a conservative, but I believe that W has done far more to hurt the conservative movement in this country than he has to help it. And even if I didn't hold that belief; even if I thought he was doing a terrific job; if evidence is found that he and/or individuals in his administration have had any hand in perpetrating the events of 9/11, you grab the torches and I'll bring the pitchforks. I will stand right along side you and pursue him/them with as much vigor as we have put into the war on terror.

You're not there. The evidence has not been found. If you want to find it, find it. But stop wasting your life pretending that that which is not evidence, is.

 

[Jono]

The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents to further their political agenda. It only requires a few people at the top to falsify a report.

Why do you still fanatically believe and support the Bush administration?

This is demonstrably illogical. There is a differences between how many people are required to falsify a report (one) and how many people directly involved in reviewing it are required.

Show me one scientific document distorted by the any member of the elected Bush administration, please.

 

[BCR]

I am a conservative, but I believe that W has done far more to hurt the conservative movement in this country than he has to help it. And even if I didn't hold that belief; even if I thought he was doing a terrific job; if evidence is found that he and/or individuals in his administration have had any hand in perpetrating the events of 9/11, you grab the torches and I'll bring the pitchforks. I will stand right along side you and pursue him/them with as much vigor as we have put into the war on terror.

Ditto...

 

[DavidJames]

Show me one scientific document distorted by the any member of the elected Bush administration, please.

I'm surprised you find this hard to believe. You could start here.

 

[jaydeehess]

This is demonstrably illogical. There is a differences between how many people are required to falsify a report (one) and how many people directly involved in reviewing it are required.

Show me one scientific document distorted by the any member of the elected Bush administration, please.

there have been articles in magazines that I read such as "Discover" and Scientific American" which deal with the Bush administration changing the wording of scientific papers.

That is not the point. With the NIST reports, Chris is trying to say that because non-technical people have pushed to spin the wording of gov't sponsored papers that NIST as a whole and the researchers involved in writing the WTC NIST reports are either bowing to political pressure, staying quiet about having their work altered by political machinations, or activley involved in producing a docuement with little or no technical honesty, or worse, deliberately creating a an utterly false report.

There are several other organizations that have no, or minor, problems with the content of the reports and whose membership is comprised of technical persons with the training and ability to spot such a lie as Chris would have us believe that he IS the NIST WTC 7 report. The ASCE and the CTBUH to name two.

Chris wishes to have us believe that since papers have been altered due to political pressure by this administration in the past that THIS particular paper must also not only be a case of 'spin' but also a complete and utter fabrication to cover up the single most aggregious act of treason and mass murder in the history of his country, possibly the entire span of human history.

To this end Chris himself is completely willing to 'spin' the contents of the NIST report, twisting it to suit his own forgone conclusions that NIST is a den of liars and accomplices to mass muder and that the events of 9/11/01 were the result of the afore mentioned treason and mass murder by persons unknown in the US government. (or Israel, or a shadowy, back room, world controlling, organization)

 

[jaydeehess]

. It will be ridiculously obvious to you very quickly that there is not much love for the Bush administration here at JREF, and that there are even some who would be tickled pink to find evidence that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Etc. planned and executed 9/11, perhaps even wishing for it. (That's probably why some of them argue so politely with truthers and yet so venomously with conservatives.)

I am a conservative, but I believe that W has done far more to hurt the conservative movement in this country than he has to help it. And even if I didn't hold that belief; even if I thought he was doing a terrific job; if evidence is found that he and/or individuals in his administration have had any hand in perpetrating the events of 9/11, you grab the torches and I'll bring the pitchforks. I will stand right along side you and pursue him/them with as much vigor as we have put into the war on terror.

You're not there. The evidence has not been found. If you want to find it, find it. But stop wasting your life pretending that that which is not evidence, is.

In order for me to make the above fit me I would have to change it slightly, as below

I am a liberal (by any measure that would be used in the USA) , and I believe that W has done far more to hurt the conservative movement in this country than he has to help it. And even if I didn't hold that belief; even if I thought he was doing a terrific job; if evidence is found that he and/or individuals in his administration have had any hand in perpetrating the events of 9/11, you grab the torches and I'll bring the pitchforks. I will stand right along side you and pursue him/them with as much vigor as we have put into the war on terror.

I might add that I was relieved when Rumsfeld left the Pentagon, relieved for the future of the men and women serving in the US military.

I am relieved that finally GWB has reached the end of his allotted time to screw up the USA and the world.

I believe deeply that history will not be kind to GWB, Cheney or Rumsfeld and that they, and many others in the administration (Karl Rove comes to mind), will be branded as the worst persons ever to serve their respective offices..

However because of the desparate political beliefs of the TM and Christopher 7, they will always find it neccessary to absolutly demonize persons in the administration, persons in the gov't agencies who stand in the way of their politically driven claims, and those who oppose their politically driven forgone conclusions. So if Chris wishes to believe that we are all Bush loving neo-cons driven to support the so-called 'official conspiracy theory' because we all love the present administatration, then let him rant on in that vein. It clearly demonstrates his desparation.

 

[GStan]

Dang! I got all excited when I saw this back on the front page. I thought maybe Christopher had returned to say that he'd read the final NIST WTC7 and to apologize for being so wrong for so long.

Nothing else to add, just wanted to do my part to ensure that this thread never EVER dies.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I thought maybe Christopher had returned to say that he'd read the final NIST WTC7 and to apologize for being so wrong for so long.

Tell me, what colour is the sky in your world?

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
1) Because it was enough to establish that there was no fire at 2:10 p.m. and no reason to think there was a fire later.

Yes there was. At minimum, there was a large quantity of diesel fuel unaccounted for.

So what? There was no reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room. The damage was to the south west corner.

2) There were no reports of fire there at any time.

Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

That IS evidence of absence. "Could have been" without any evidence to support a hypothesis doesn't warrant investigation it in a scientific document.

3) Even if there were a fire there it would not be a factor in the collapse.

Obviously we know that now. Stop pretending that it was already apparent to them before they even published the first draft.

STOP DENYING THAT THEY KNEW THAT IN 2004!
If the louvers were closed a fire would burn out when it had used up the oxygen in the room and therefore COULD NOT BE A FACTOR IN THE COLLAPSE.

 

[Baylor]

 

[Christopher7]

[FONT=&quot]There are numerous problems with the collapse of the girder between columns 79 and 44 on floor 13.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The girder collapses twice.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2) [/FONT][FONT=&quot] NIST deleted key words from a paragraph in the NIST L report in order to claim the absence of shear studs on the girder between columns 79 and 44. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] NIST brought the temperatures of the beams and girder up to 600oC and 500oC respectively, over their entire length in less than 3 seconds.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]NIST did notinclude the expansion of the floor slab in their calculations for the computer model that showed the shear studs on the beams failing. Concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* * * * *[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) 1-9 Vol.1 pg 353 [/FONT][FONT=&quot][397 on pg counter][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436°C, shown in Figure 8-27 (a), leading to the collapse of the floor system, and rocking the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8-27 (b)" [to the east][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1-9 Vol.2 pg 487 [/FONT][FONT=&quot][149][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Walk-off failure of beams and girders was defined to occur when (1) the end of the beam or girder moved along the axis of the beam until it was no longer supported by the bearing seat, or (2) the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][see pg 33 Tech Brief] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Technical_Briefing_082608.pdf[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1-9 Vol.2 pg 525[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [187][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A girder was considered to have lost vertical support when its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. The bearing seat at Column 79 was 11 in. wide. Thus, when the girder end at Column 79 had been pushed laterally at least 5.5 in.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [to the west][/FONT][FONT=&quot], it was no longer supported by the bearing seat.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]* * * * *[/FONT]
2) In their June 2004 report, NIST referred to the use of shear studs in World Trade Center 7. Shear studs are used to keep steel floor beams and girders in place; they impart stability and strength to buildings. But in their August 2008 final report, NIST re-worded their comments on shear studs to make it appear that none were used on the floor girders.

Why would they do this? To know the answer, you need to understand NIST's collapse theory. This is how it goes:
1. The key girder between column 79 and the exterior wall fails at floor 13.
2. Its failure causes the collapse of floors 13 through 6.
3. Column 79, now unsupported laterally by these floors, buckles and brings down the entire building.

This scenario is easier to posit if the key girder isn't being held firmly with shear studs. Thus, in the August 2008 report, NIST did what it had to do to make it more reasonable that the girder would fail: It magically omitted the shear studs.

Compare these two paragraphs. In the excerpted paragraph of the 2004 report, NIST says that studs were used with both beams and girders, although the studs "were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders" (the girder associated with column 79, by the way, was not a core girder). In the 2008 report, however, not only does NIST drop the association of girders with shear studs ( first sentence of excerpted paragraph), but then they go on to imply that studs were not indicated at all on the girders (last sentence of excerpted paragraph):

June 2004 NIST L pg 6 [10 on pg counter]
Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders.
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

August 2008 NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 15 [59]
Most of the beams - - - - - - - - - were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced - - - - 2 ft on center*. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for - - - - - - the - - - - girders.
http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazona...STAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf

Then, in this paragraph of the 2008 report, they use the "absence" of shear studs to help make their case:

August 2008 NCSTAR 1A pg 49 [87]
At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams.
http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazona...IST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf

This deliberate distortion of the evidence can only be called fraud. Even those who have accepted the official story must acknowledge that NIST's isstatements of its own report are not mistakes. They are bending the facts to accommodate a theory that cannot, so to speak, stand up.

* "on center" - a term that means “apart”

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This bit of sophistry seems to be their reasoning:[/FONT]

9-1 pg 15 [59]
"The structural design drawings (Irwin G. Cantor P.C., Structural Engineers 1985) specified design forces for connections and suggested a typical detail, but did not show specific connection designs; this was standard practice on the U.S. east coast. The erection drawings (Frankel Steel Limited 1985) indicated that design shear forces for the typical beam and girder connections were to be taken from the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) beam design tables for beams without shear studs, using 1.5 times those forces for beams with shear studs. However, actual connection designs were obtained from fabrication shop drawings (Frankel Steel Limited 1985a), which provided detailed descriptions of the floor connections and column splices in WTC 7."

This paragraph is discussing shear forces for floor beam and girder connections. It does not say there were no shear studs on the floor beams and girders, yet they conclude that there were shear studs on the beams but not the girders.

This paragraph can be interpreted two ways.
1) The designers made the beam and girder connections stronger because they did not use shear studs. [to cut cost]
2) The designers were making the beam and girder connections stronger than the minimum requirements by 50%. [would not add a great deal of cost]

There is no justification for assuming there were no studs on the floor girders.

* * * * *
[FONT=&quot]3) NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 Pg 351[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To avoid dynamic effects, the gravity loading was ramped up smoothly over a period of 1 s, as shown in Figure 8–24. Ramping of the temperatures for the beams and the girder then commenced at 1.1 s, as shown in Figure 8–25, leveling off at temperatures of 600 °C for the beams and 500 °C for the girder at 2.6 s. These temperature histories were prescribed uniformly for all nodes of the beams and the girder, respectively. The material model for the steel beams and girders incorporated temperature dependence in the stress-strain behavior and accounted for thermal expansion. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4) [/FONT][FONT=&quot] No thermal expansion or material degradation was considered for the concrete slab.[/FONT]

 

[Christopher7]

Talk to yourself much?

http://www.betadaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/beating-a-dead-horse.jpg

The fact that any fire in the north east generator room, if it existed, would not be a factor in the collapse is self evident and NIST knew that in 2004.

 

[Baylor]

The fact that any fire in the north east generator room, if it existed, would not be a factor in the collapse is self evident and NIST knew that in 2004.

Refer to post #2

 

[apathoid]

Has anyone seen a realistice explanation for why this thread hasn't been closed?











I'm not joking...

 

[Christopher7]

Refer to post #2

Has anyone seen a realistice explanation for why this thread hasn't been closed?

Rather than acknowledge the obvious truth, you sidestepped.

 

[beachnut]

...
The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents to further their political agenda. It only requires a few people at the top to falsify a report.

Why do you still fanatically believe and support the Bush administration?

Paranoid to the end, not a clue about WTC7, so you just lie and say Bush faked the reports. Great lie, now you can prove your fantasy. But you can’t.

 

[Baylor]

Rather than acknowledge the obvious truth, you sidestepped.

No, I acknowledge this thread should be closed.