10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

No, I acknowledge this thread should be closed.

Because you cannot deal with the truth. You refuse to acknowledge this simple self evident fact.

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

 

[Jonnyclueless]

By truth you mean crap that you make up. Got it.

 

[Klimax]

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

It needs for self-terry-close another 5000 posts...
(I would not expect to get there before implosion of board.Well,you can sue report function to ask for close...)

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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.

Good lord give it a rest with the generator fire crap. No offense intended, but this has got to be one of the most persistent cherry-pickings I've ever seen. I commend you for your persistence but arguing it ad nauseum doesn't earn you points for evidence. You're continual reference to an older document serving as a preliminary report and not a final is serving you no better. This has been explained to you countless times. You're beating a dead horse to a pulp

 

[jaydeehess]

beating a dead horse to a pulp

One of the reasons why I raely post to this thread anymore. Abuse of dead critters. :lol:

 

[Christopher7]

Good lord give it a rest with the generator fire crap. No offense intended, but this has got to be one of the most persistent cherry-pickings I've ever seen.

When faced with a reality you cannot reasonably dispute or deny, you go to the deniers playbook and pull out a catch praise.
NIST wasted a great deal of time and money on a baseless, non-scientific speculation.

I commend you for your persistence but arguing it ad nauseum doesn't earn you points for evidence. You're continual reference to an older document serving as a preliminary report and not a final is serving you no better.

Here's another catch phrase "older document", as if that mattered. These reports are supposed to be scientific documents and an investigation into something that obviously had no effect on the collapse is not scientific. The investigation of diesel fuel fires continued and is included in the Final report.

 

[Bell]

Christopher7, this thead exists for almost two years. What have you learned from the JREF members in that time?

 

[dtugg]

Christopher7, do you have a theory about WTC7? Are you a magical silent explosives type of guy or a thermite type of guy?

 

[Christopher7]

One of the reasons why I raely post to this thread anymore. Abuse of dead critters. :lol:

Will you address the fraud in the final report?

[FONT=&quot]There are numerous problems with the collapse of the girder between columns 79 and 44 on floor 13.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The girder collapses twice.[/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]3)[/FONT][FONT=&quot] NIST brought the temperatures of the beams and girder up to 600[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C and 500[/FONT][FONT=&quot]°[/FONT][FONT=&quot]C respectively, over their entire length in less than 2 seconds.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]4) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]NIST did not include 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]1) [/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]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] 1-9 Vol.1 pg 353 [/FONT][FONT=&quot][397 on pg counter][/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]

Edited by chillzero: 

Uncited Source = http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=10699
[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.

Trimmed for Rule 4.

* * * * *
[FONT=&quot]3)NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 Pg 351[/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]

Christopher7, this thead exists for almost two years. What have you learned from the JREF members in that time?

A great deal thank you. Gravy gave me the URL to the NIST L report and others here have posted URLs to relevant documents. I have also learned that everyone here is fanatically loyal to the OCT. Any evidence, no matter how conclusive, that undermines the OCT is rejected or ignored. You all fought relentlessly for the 10 story gouge and the diesel fuel fires only to be proven wrong in the end. Now you all refuse to admit that there was no basis for the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

When faced with a reality you cannot reasonably dispute or deny you go to the deniers playbook and pull out a catch praise.

And that is exactly what you're playing as you have for two years, long before I joined here. Please keep up with the times and understand that an investigation develops. If a theory is has insufficient evidence to back it up then they eliminate it from the list of plausible causes. Seeing as how you demand a thorough scientific investigation, your demanding that they skip the investigation because it's "so bloody obvious" appears to be quite the opposite. As semantics go, this makes you a hypocrite. You should take notes from your favorite expert authority figures at AE911truth, they excel at this sort of "unscientific work" as you put it. Is constantly cherry-picking a report that was still in-progress no less, your standard of deeming a final conclusion void? Quite grasping at straws with the semantics game.

Here's another catch phrase "older document", as if that mattered.

What? I thought the entire purpose of a scientific or forensic investigation is to gather all of the available information; eliminate faulty hypotheses, and refine those which are more valid in order to come to a reasonably concrete solution? Have you any specific criticism other than your constant cherry-picking of a document presented long before the final product and your constant bickering over a component which has been concluded ultimately to agree with your own statements?

Are you implying that any progress in a scientific investigation is grounds for criminal prosecution under Federal Law?

These reports are supposed to be scientific documents and an investigation into something that obviously had no effect on the collapse is not scientific.

Show that there is concrete evidence that this was bloody obvious at the time that the NIST L report was published then. The only thing you have presented to substantiate your case is a photograph that is only a snapshot in time. What it represents is the condition of the building at that particular time. Tell me Christopher, is this diesel fire quirk of yours the only thing you have left to argue?

Will you address the fraud in the final report?

Simple, you're playing semantics based on small edits in context.

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_.../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.amazonaw...t_unlocked.pdf

The difference between the two appears to me to mean that they examined the design specifications more thoroughly than they had gone when the progress report was made. Christopher I have a suggestion for you; instead of playing semantics with cherry-picking choice words of context, if you have such a frantic problem with NIST's changes, then why not call the appropriate institution and inquire upon the possibility of requesting copies of the design specifications for the old WTC 7 complex?

A great deal thank you.

I have also learned that everyone here is fanatically loyal to the OCT.

Have you ever bothered to place your own authoritative sources under the microscope as much as you do the NIST Appendix L release (forget the final, you're glued to the appendix L)? Just curious is all... because judging by your numerous posts, you haven't done so; that is an astounding level of confirmation bias.

Any evidence, no matter how conclusive, that undermines the OCT is rejected or ignored.

Okay I get it... you just nuked my irony meter... I had fifty of them... and they all just exploded with the might of the Tsar Hydrogen Bomb.

 

[beachnut]

A great deal thank you. Gravy gave me the URL to the NIST L report and others here have posted URLs to relevant documents. I have also learned that everyone here is fanatically loyal to the OCT. Any evidence, no matter how conclusive, that undermines the OCT is rejected or ignored. You all fought relentlessly for the 10 story gouge and the diesel fuel fires only to be proven wrong in the end. Now you all refuse to admit that there was no basis for the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

What did you say?

Any evidence, no matter how conclusive, that undermines the OCT is rejected or ignored.

There is zero evidence for you to support your 9/11 truth ideas; or do you have any truth ideas? You have nothing; as in zip. Zero. 0

Please present any evidence that undermines what happen on 9/11. You can't, because you and 9/11 truth have zero evidence to support your failed, fantasy, false ideas. Nice try, but talk is not evidence.

Are you saying no fuel oil burned on 9/11? Or are you still saying there was no exterior damage? What are you saying? What was your CT on 9/11?

19 terrorists did all the damage on 9/11, and WTC7 started on fire due to the attack by terrorists. What was your big story?

There was no 10 story hole as described on ...

Are you wrong, or what? This entire thread is due to you quiblling over the damage to WTC7 from WTC1.

(NIST) -[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7’s structure in a way that contributed to the building’s collapse?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building’s collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 (the south tower) hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings. [/SIZE]
[/FONT]

So you were wrong, there was damage to WTC7, in fact the damage is where the fires started which destroyed WTC7.

So you said there was not 10 stories of damage. How many did you say there were?

 

[Christopher7]

If a theory is has insufficient evidence to back it up then they eliminate it from the list of plausible causes.

Exactly. NIST had the data that clearly showed diesel fuel fires were NOT a factor in the collapse in 2004 and they should have eliminated that hypothesis then.

Show that there is concrete evidence that this was bloody obvious at the time that the NIST L report was published then. The only thing you have presented to substantiate your case is a photograph that is only a snapshot in time.

WRONG!
I have to repeat this for each new uninformed person that joins the debate. Have any of you guys read NIST L pg 22 - 26 ?
There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time.
There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.
There was NO debris damage anywhere near the north east generator room.

If the louvers were open, smoke from a fire would be pouring out. If they were closed, a fire would burn out when it ran out of oxygen.

The data NIST had in 2004 was enough to determine that diesel fuel fires were NOT a factor in the collapse.


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_.../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.amazonaw...t_unlocked.pdf

The difference between the two appears to me to mean that they examined the design specifications more thoroughly than they had gone when the progress report was made.

So, you think the experts at NIST misread the design drawings in 2004 but you accept everything they say now without question.

". . . if you have such a frantic problem with NIST's changes, then why not call the appropriate institution and inquire upon the possibility of requesting copies of the design specifications for the old WTC 7 complex?"

Many requests for data have been made including this one: [paragraph 6]
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794

NIST has not released the design drawings or computer model input making verification impossible. Until their findings can be verified independently, they are NOT considered science fact. Take my word for it does not cut it in science.

 

[phunk]

If the louvers were open, smoke from a fire would be pouring out. If they were closed, a fire would burn out when it ran out of oxygen.

Unless of course they were open and feeding air IN to the fire.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

WRONG!
I have to repeat this for each new uninformed person that joins the debate. Have any of you guys read NIST L pg 22 - 26 ?
There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time.
There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.
There was NO debris damage anywhere near the north east generator room.

The generators were found to have lost a significant portion of their payloads. It was unknown at the time what role the fuel played in the collapse (de javu). IIRC they utilized feeder lines in between, one of their initial hypotheses involved one of those fuel lines being compromised in the impact of tower 1. Are you necessitating that the fuel tanks themselves be damaged in order for this to occur?

So, you think the experts at NIST misread the design drawings in 2004 but you accept everything they say now without question.

No christopher, I accept that the release which you continue cherry-picking was a work in progress, and that collection of pertinent information was incomplete at the time of its publication. I see no significant differences between the appendix L report, and the final release, aside from a verbally more concrete understanding of the data they had available to them. Unless your experts can offer more concrete information that such analysis is incorrect, then this is the best information available.

NIST has not released the design drawings or computer model input making verification impossible.

NIST_NCSTAR_1-9A: Chapter 2.3 (Page 10)

I'll also draw your attention to chapter 3.3.1 pages 20-21, and 22-32. which all detail connections used in the design.

Pages 36-48 show visual floor design specifications in the event you don't feel like reading the pertinent text explaining it.

Fema also released diagrammatic figures in chapter 5.2.1 through 5.2.4 of their report, of course their analysis explaining the specifics are not as thorough as they are in the NIST report.

 

[roundhead]

Christopher7...Very convincing beatdown

Nice job

 

[Christopher7]

The generators were found to have lost a significant portion of their payloads. It was unknown at the time what role the fuel played in the collapse etc. etc. etc.

Talk about beating a dead horse. You continue to ignore these facts:

There were NO reports of fire in the NE generator room at any time.

There was NO reason to think a diesel fuel fire in the north east generator room.

A fire in the north east generator room, if it existed, would burn out when it ran out of oxygen and would not be a factor in the collapse. This is self evident and NIST knew that in 2004.

 

[Baylor]

 

[Christopher7]

NIST_NCSTAR_1-9A: Chapter 2.3 (Page 10)

I'll also draw your attention to chapter 3.3.1 pages 20-21, and 22-32. which all detail connections used in the design.

Pages 36-48 show visual floor design specifications in the event you don't feel like reading the pertinent text explaining it.

Fema also released diagrammatic figures in chapter 5.2.1 through 5.2.4 of their report, of course their analysis explaining the specifics are not as thorough as they are in the NIST report.

You do not know what a design drawing is. Design drawings are the actual drawings used by the contractors who built the building. NIST did not release any of these. All the drawings in the NIST report are 'based on' the actual drawings. They are neither sufficient nor credible. "Take my word for it" does NOT qualify a science.

 

[GStan]