1. ...How did NIST ever land on "The first APPEARED to be...." (re: WTC 7 steel (so FEMA stated but NIST now denies) sample in FEMA App C)? Explain this please.
If you look at the list of steel recovered from ground zero in the NIST report it appears they had trouble identifying which building the some of pieces belonged to. I'm not sure why, maybe they had no markings or if they did they were obscured by damage.
Maybe NIST first thought this steel came from building 7 and later decided to err on the side of caution when they couldn't tell conclusively.
With WTC 7 a distance of a football field to the north, I'm sure the authorities have good, rational and believable reasons for this confusion. Happens all the time. Maybe the
"cover up" "clean up" authorities got rid of every ounce of WTC 7. Just like NIST claims here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-3index.htm
In a letter dated June 24, 2010, from Michael E. Newman, Senior Communications Officer, NIST, he states, "Finally, it should be noted that origins of the samples were not definitively known. …Thus, it was not possible to conclusively link the first sample to WTC 7
nor was there other evidence to suggest that such failures occurred in WTC 7 leading to its collapse. Since this phenomenon was observed in isolated instances, it was not studied further."
Nice circular. Love it. But my all-time favorite quote is from Bloomberg:
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm
But New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg insisted there are better ways to study the tragedy of September 11.
"If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do," said Bloomberg, a former engineering major. "Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything."
You see JREFers, when you have computers, you don't need evidence. Evidence is for Baosteel's smelters in China. Got it?
Are you really an engineer? Rephrase the question so it's understandable and I'll answer it.
Are you really a 9-11 twoof debunker?
2a. How did no energy dissipate from the WTC 7 columns? Explain this in terms of the Lagrangian energy theory. Tell me all about the dissipation term, please don't forget that ol' serpent in the garden.
2b. What were the critical buckling loads of the 24 interior WTC 7 columns? Assume w14x730 without built up, and then with the built up sections.
2c. Will this handle with the 8th floor gravity loads? Answer with and without respect to the built up sections, please.
2d. What were the critical buckling loads of the 57 exterior WTC 7 columns?
2e. Will this handle with the 8th floor gravity loads?
3. ...How did those WTC 7 floor 13 framing beams both buckle and push the intersecting 79 to 44 girder (with or without shear studs, depending on which NIST report you read) off its seat @ column 79? How exactly?
I'm not sure, nobody is, NIST states this several times, experts that have far more credibility than you did the best they could with the information at hand to help improve building safety. Would you not agree buildings are now built more safely because of NIST?
That's exactly right. You're not sure. You have no idea, because this makes absolutely no sense. How can the "thermally expanding" beams both buckle and push? Which is it? Pick one, you can't have both. Are you saying f=ma does not apply here or what?! You put your blind 9-11 truth debunking faith in "experts" all why denying the basic laws of solid mechanics.
Does your mommy know you're playing with her computer?
4. ...Help me to understand why NIST is withholding the WTC 7 contract and ancillary construction docs from Ron Brookman S.E., and is denying his FOIA attempts to procure 3,370 files that include: 1. Remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS (FEA) 16-story Case B collapse initiation model. 2. Break element source code, 3. ANSYS scripts files for the break elements, 4. Custom executable ANSYS file, 5. All spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities, and 6. Connection models....why withhold all this?
NIST has already given you the answer and it seems plausible to me, if you're not happy with it I believe someone has posted a remedy for you and Ron via the U.S. judicial system.
After reading your response, anything and everything would seem plausible to you.
Let me quote Dr. Sunder's response to Brookmans plea for release:
"The decision to withhold the data was based on the fact that the capabilities of the WTC 7 collapse initiation and global collapse models are unprecedented, in that they provide validated models that can predict collapse of typical tall buildings. If released, these models would provide a powerful tool to groups and individuals interested in simulating building collapses and devising ways to destroy buildings."
...and Brookman's response:
"This response from NIST is an insult to building design and construction professionals who are committed to ensuring public safety with high-quality construction. As a structural engineer I have a professional interest in understanding the collapse, and it has nothing to do with ''devising ways to destroy buildings." If the WTC 7 models actually predict the complete collapse of typical tall buildings subjected to office fires, then withholding this information is not in the interest of public safety.
Independent verification is an integral part of science, so I strongly encourage the NIST Director to reconsider his decision to withhold analysis data. Only independent verification will enable these complex models to be validated.”
So who is trying to protect public safety? And who is keeping information guarded under the guise of keeping people from ''devising ways to destroy buildings" with their worthless models. Do you believe that? Ryan claimed it was ITAR controlled. Ryan? Still clinging to that old chestnut?
Yeah those models are powerful indeed. They can make beams float in thin air off to the right. They can make steel framing break through lower floors without getting impeded or slowed by the 5+ inch think steel reinforced concrete decks. With those models, the bogeymen could probably think they could do anything, being able to make models with six degrees of freedom and forgetting about gravity (see the collapse initiation
woo video, please.) must give the "building destroying devisers" a lot of false confidence.
Why not just plainly state what the models look like:
crap..nothing like the videoed collapse.
But through your rose colored eyes, those models look like the collapse, yes or no?
Tell me, how can engineers learn from this event and stay in compliance with their professional obligation if they can’t see the substantiation for the reported root cause of WTC 7 and learn how to arm themselves and their careers with the WTC 7 “lessons learned” to protect the safety, health and welfare of the public?
I'd say the large majority of the "metal" was steel, though the building was also comprised of other material such as drywall, glass, etc.
Try again, fractions please.
5. What were the fractions of WTC 7 metal (example 96% Steel, 2% Aluminum, 1% Copper and so forth)? Doesn't have to be precise, ballpark will make my point very well, thank you.
