'What about building 7'?

[T.A.M.]

I am looking at the "Gas Temperature" Figure, 3-6 on page 34 of THE FINAL REPORT on WTC7. In that diagram, at 400PM there are extremely hight temps around Column 79 (upper right), and at 500PM, while not as hot directly on column 79, the temps there are in access of 400C and nearby are in access of 600C...for floor 12.

So, based on that, and based on the fact that they admit, and any normal person would accept, that the photographic and video evidence IS LIMITED to what can be seen via the window, and what is actually at the exterior walls, where did NIST, in their FINAL REPORT of WTC7, lie???

Cooperman, you may want to read the FINAL REPORT, as your argument here is being made based on 2004 report diagrams, and also being made from AE911 images...not a good start.

TAM

Edit: in fact, if you consider the likely premise that the yellow and orange areas on the diagrams represent the fires, the hotter areas, you can see why near 5PM they might not have seen a blazing inferno in that area on floor 12...

 

[triforcharity]

I am looking at the "Gas Temperature" Figure, 3-6 on page 34 of THE FINAL REPORT on WTC7. In that diagram, at 400PM there are extremely hight temps around Column 79 (upper right), and at 500PM, while not as hot directly on column 79, the temps there are in access of 400C and nearby are in access of 600C...for floor 12.

So, based on that, and based on the fact that they admit, and any normal person would accept, that the photographic and video evidence IS LIMITED to what can be seen via the window, and what is actually at the exterior walls, where did NIST, in their FINAL REPORT of WTC7, lie???

Cooperman, you may want to read the FINAL REPORT, as your argument here is being made based on 2004 report diagrams, and also being made from AE911 images...not a good start.

TAM

Edit: in fact, if you consider the likely premise that the yellow and orange areas on the diagrams represent the fires, the hotter areas, you can see why near 5PM they might not have seen a blazing inferno in that area on floor 12...

Good point TAM. Also, not to mention, as I already have, the floors around that area were open floors. They were not walled off areas, so the heat that is radiating from the seat of the fire, is still heating the column and beams in the vacinity.

 

[T.A.M.]

Good point TAM. Also, not to mention, as I already have, the floors around that area were open floors. They were not walled off areas, so the heat that is radiating from the seat of the fire, is still heating the column and beams in the vacinity.

Exactly. On or near 5PM, that entire half of WTC7, at least from floor 8 to 12, was incredibly hot.

TAM

 

[Sabretooth]

So why did NIST pretend there was fire at the area of the initiating event?

I responded to you...twice...#636 and #648. Others have supplied answers as well.

Despite the fact you're using data from 2004 which NIST has since updated, I still find your interpretation of the data woefully flawed, and I explained why.

Are you going to review them? Because if you're going to take the usual truther route and ignore the inconvenient evidence that discounts your theory, then you really don't have any business asking questions and wasting everyone's time. If you want to do that, go hang out at LCF and drink the koolaid with them.

 

[George 152]

So why did NIST pretend there was fire at the area of the initiating event?

Pretend ?
Do yopu have any factual base for that claim ?
Seeing that any and all experts in the associated fields have no problem with the overall NIST Report

 

[T.A.M.]

His entire argument is based on the comment on a photo of the North face, that says that the "fires had burned up" on floor 12's North East Corner by 4PM, and that they lied because their gas temp diagrams, from 2004, say different. He also contends, that if the comment on the photo is correct, that this means the girder of floor 13, could not have been weakened to the point of expansion and subsequent failure, and hence the NIST theory is incorrect.

Of course, this all based on the 2004 draft report, and it does not take into account that you can have very, VERY high temps in the area in question, without there actually being flame.

The 2008 FINAL REPORT on WTC7 explains all this...but alas.

TAM

 

[Andy_Ross]

As for flames. why is my BBQ hottest when the flames have died down?

 

[Miragememories]

"After many years of investigation, the NIST released a final draft of their WTC 7 collapse report. In the this draft, they amazingly still did not admit to any evidence of free fall.

They were forced to change this conclusion after receiving much publicized feedback pointing out this dramatic error.

In their final revised report, they deliberately choose wording designed to create the illusion that only the north face facade was involved in free fall."

"ahhh...so now the truthers are going to say that NIST purposely said the Northern Face, not because it was factual, but to hide the fact that it was the entire structure that fell in free fall."

Your spin.

I said illusion. The NIST were forced to admit the existence of free fall but they were coaching the language in the most evasive way possible.

"So now you are (no room for argument here) accusing NIST of LYING and FABRICATING conclusions to hide the purposeful controlled demolition of WTC7.

Glad to finally see where you stand MM. Takes some balls to accuse a collection of Americans you do not know of covering up mass murder."

August 21st, 2008, approximately 7 years after 9/11

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol2 cs for Public Comment
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

"The theoretical time for free fall (i.e., neglecting air friction), was computed from,

where t is the descent time (s), h is the distance fallen (ft), and g is the gravitational acceleration constant, 32.2 ft/s2 (9.81 m/s2). Upon substitution of h = 242 ft. in the above equation, the estimated free fall time for the top of the north face to fall 18 stories was approximately 3.9 s. The uncertainty in this value was also less than 0.1 s.

Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles. The actual collapse time of the upper 18 floors of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. This was consistent with physical principles."

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

"The collapse time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. This is consistent with physical rinciples."

BUT, maybe after 7 years, the analysis wasn't very detailed. After all what is 7 years.

Well, this collection of Americans as you put it, apparently did a more detailed analysis and amazingly discovered that somehow, in spite of all their video analysis, computations and simulations, they overlooked 8 stories of free fall.

Well gosh darn go figure.

NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A Report 1-29-09_FINALREV
SUMMARY

"The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time.

A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below."

It takes balls T.A.M. to find entertainment in such gross negligence.

MM

 

[beachnut]

So why did NIST pretend there was fire at the area of the initiating event?

You are using Chris Sarns failed work. He modeled flames instead of fire; he failed.

Proof Chris Sarns failed:
He failed to publish his made up idiotic claptrap in a real journal because it is delusional nonsense.

Gage uses it, it has to be wrong, Gage can't get anything about 911, save the date.

You come and repeat what failed 2 years ago; Miragememories, Tin Foil Timothy, ULTIMA1, Heiwa, Homeland Insurgency, roundhead, and more have supported the same failed claptrap; all of you have failed to publish it after 2 years. Why do you in 911 truth insist on failing.

Is Chris Sarns going to publish this after two years? Anytime soon?

 

[DGM]

Wow.....
You guys are still falling for this ****

 

[beachnut]

... It takes balls T.A.M. to find entertainment in such gross negligence.

MM

Prove it. Publish your claptrap in a real journal and save your delusions of CD. Got evidence yet? Why did Chris Sarns fail to publish his failed work for over 2 years? Why have you failed to publish your analysis?

 

[Miragememories]

"In the approximately 7 seconds from the start of the east penthouse collapse to the observed global collapse of WTC7, you suggest that the internal structure is collapsing floor-by-floor but at a speed less than free fall.

Yet miraculously, in spite of all this internal structural devastation, only a few windows appear to have broken on the upper northeast face.

Here we have the NIST proposing that collapse initiation started with column 79, at its floor 13 location, after a heat induced loss of all lateral support over 5 floors.

This buckling failure supposedly continued from floor 13 upwards to a point below the east penthouse and supposedly accounted for the failure there.

In the 7 seconds before global collapse was observable, floors structurally anchored to the core and perimeter columns supposedly began falling inwards placing great torque on their perimeter column connections, yet the only physical effect observed on the north face of WTC 7 was a few broken windows."

"ahhh...so now the truthers are going to say that NIST purposely said the Northern Face, not because it was factual, but to hide the fact that it was the entire structure that fell in free fall.

So now you are (no room for argument here) accusing NIST of LYING and FABRICATING conclusions to hide the purposeful controlled demolition of WTC7."

Since you seem to think the NIST theory has all the answers T.A.M., maybe you might want to explain how this;

Managed to hide this;

MM

 

[BigAl]

Since you seem to think the NIST theory has all the answers T.A.M., maybe you might want to explain how this;

[qimg]http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2839/wtc7preglob1.jpg[/qimg]

Managed to hide this;

[qimg]http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/447/column79failure1.jpg[/qimg]

MM

I dunno, probably because it was on the South side where the fire was.

The only video the "Truth Movement" has is the one shot from the North which shows none of the fire and damage visible on the south side.

 

[cooperman]

Cooperman,

I have readthe report. The last time i read in full was well over a year ago. I am honestly trying to get my head around the theory you are proposing....you should refrain from your caustic behavior. I am re-reading many of the important parts (to your theory) but i am at work on my ipad now, in between patients, so you will have to bare with me.

Now from what i have reread, your claim is based on photographic evidence of that corner of the exterior of the building, and the windows in that area. Correct?

Others here, more qualified then i have shown you that the temperatures in that area could have still been well hot enough to have caused the expansion and subsequent failure of that girder.

So either (a) you dont believe them, or (b) you are now arguing minutia that does not effect the overall collapse initiation.

TAM

Firstly, I am not proposing a theory. I am simply demonstrating, with ample evidence, that the NIST fire simulation is a fabrication.

You accuse me of caustic behaviour. Could you elaborate? I have only received oone infraction since joining here and that was for hotlinking an image.

I would appreciate evidence to support the claim of caustic behaviour or a retraction.

 

[cooperman]

As for flames. why is my BBQ hottest when the flames have died down?

Well, your barbecue must be different to mine. I can put my hand above the coals. I am not so keen to do it when it is flaming.

I am struggling to determine if you are being serious. We are talking about floor beams reaching 600 degrees EIGHTY minutes after the fire was extinguished in that area.

 

[triforcharity]

Firstly, I am not proposing a theory. I am simply demonstrating, with ample evidence, that the NIST fire simulation is a fabrication.

So, when do you plan on submitting your "scientific" findings to a respectable journal?

Do you need help with the format of the paper?

Do you need help contacting a journal? I know quite a few that discuss the topic of fire and fire science. I have published in many of them.

When do you plan on starting?

 

[triforcharity]

Well, your barbecue must be different to mine. I can put my hand above the coals. I am not so keen to do it when it is flaming.

I am struggling to determine if you are being serious. We are talking about floor beams reaching 600 degrees EIGHTY minutes after the fire was extinguished in that moved to another area.

FTFY. The fire was NOT extinguished. Not untill days later.

Did you ever google "Heat Soak"? How about "radiation" or "convection"? Need help working google?

 

[cooperman]

So, when do you plan on submitting your "scientific" findings to a respectable journal?

Do you need help with the format of the paper?

Do you need help contacting a journal? I know quite a few that discuss the topic of fire and fire science. I have published in many of them.

When do you plan on starting?

Why would I need a journal in order to point out a simple fact that the fire simulation is a fabrication?

Greening, a respected scientist, has been completely ignored by NIST when he sent them legitimate concerns. What chance do I have?

 

[cooperman]

FTFY. The fire was NOT extinguished. Not untill days later.

Did you ever google "Heat Soak"? How about "radiation" or "convection"? Need help working google?

Heat soak and radiation is not what NIST claim happened. Will you please address why they have simulations showing fire around column 79 at 5pm?

 

[HyJinX]

Well, your barbecue must be different to mine. I can put my hand above the coals. I am not so keen to do it when it is flaming.

You sure you want to stick with this part of the post? Fear and heat are very different things. I would just Edit this part out if I were you. Really.