NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

[kylebisme]

Not one person that has ever made this claim has ever defined what they think a building collapse should have looked like, or how they think the collapse should have progressed.

What a building collapse looks like and how it progresses depends on what happened to the building. As for WTC 7, were it only subjected to the impact damage and fires, it shouldn't have collapsed at all. That is why NIST had to make all sorts of absurdly unrealistic assumptions just to get their model to start to collapse as they've shown, and why they still can't show it actually come down anything like WTC 7 actually did.

 

[1337m4n]

As for WTC 7, were it only subjected to the impact damage and fires, it shouldn't have collapsed at all.

Prove it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What a building collapse looks like and how it progresses depends on what happened to the building. As for WTC 7, were it only subjected to the impact damage and fires, it shouldn't have collapsed at all.

I have absolutely no idea how you can already be jumping to a conclusion when you stopped at the very first step. Were you not advocating before following the proper methodology?

- Determine the problem
- Define the application
- Determine the type of material, its specifications, shape, & process technique.
- Determine the design parameters
- determine the service conditions
- research the maintainence history
- Determine the sequence of events preceding failure

Do you have any comment as to why you're skipping everything here? A clear definition of the problem important, otherwise an uninformed individual cannot make a contribution to solving a problem he does not understand. As it is, you very clearly fall into this category.

 

[kylebisme]

Prove it.

Get NIST to release the model they claim proves their claims, and I'll take out the ridiculously unrealistic assumptions they had to implement just to get it to come down as much as they did.

I have absolutely no idea how you can already be jumping to a conclusion when you stopped at the very first step.

You apparently have the weird idea that I'd never considered your question before you asked it, when that isn't the case at all.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You apparently have the weird idea that I'd never considered your question before you asked it, when that isn't the case at all.

You never addressed the question... so why would you consider it wierd?
EDIT: Look it's pretty simple question, what methodology did you undertake to arrive at this?

As for WTC 7, were it only subjected to the impact damage and fires, it shouldn't have collapsed at all.

Failure analysis doesn't work by handwaving, if you have thoughts which contradict the findings of another research item them you need to be able to outline it to offer a convincing case to someone who understands your answers to be insufficient. How do you expect people to be more skeptical if you're not willing to address the issue?

 

[beachnut]

OMG you're really onto something here. There is also no loud bang from a gun with a silencer. So I guess its not really a gun and therefore can't do any damage.

You invented the JREF debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber. Good for you, but you leave out the proof, the math, the physics and evidence.

You would be unable to use the NIST data, you can't do physics all you can do is call NIST names. 9 years and all you can do is say things you don't understand are ridiculous.

 

[Carlos]

That is why NIST had to make all sorts of absurdly unrealistic assumptions just to get their model to start to collapse as they've shown...

For example?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

As for WTC 7, were it only subjected to the impact damage and fires, it shouldn't have collapsed at all.

How have you come to this conclusion?

 

[Justin39640]

How have you come to this conclusion?

My guess would be: wishful thinking.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The idea that NIST might actually be imperfect, like all humans are apparently is enough to open a cascade of other "theories." A few major institutions disagree with some details put forward by the NIST but their end conclusions are about the same - no "controlled Demo."

 

[triforcharity]

So you proclaim, but the columns were obviously damaged enough for WTC 7 to come down.

Not proclaim. That is what the facts say. Contact ANY CD company and ask them how loud of a boom a HE charge would make.

I won't hold my breath though....

BTW, Fire will harm steel every single time. No if's ands or butts about it.

Again, a sequence of booms were picked up by the interview microphone, albeit very faintly. However, if not those booms, what do you figure caused everyone to turn toward WTC 7 right before it started coming down, a group premonition.

No, the booms are the echos of your delusions bounding around from tree to tree.

There are no loud distinguishable BOOMS in ANY of those videos.

Sorry, no matter how much you cry about it, doesn't mean it will magically be there.

As an aside, how did the hundreds of dogs that were in and around the WTC complex miss this?

Notably louder than the sound of the building coming down after it.

And yet, not picked up on the microphone. Amazing that stuff is.....

Again, NIST didn't even come close to proving fire could cause a building to come down anywhere near as quickly or completely WTC 7 did, having only shown their model just start to come down. Get back to me if NIST ever releases their model so everyone can see if it lives up to their claims. Until then, what you are claim as fact is really nothing more than faith.

So, you're still stuck on this argument from personal ignorance?

 

[1337m4n]

Get NIST to release the model they claim proves their claims, and I'll take out the ridiculously unrealistic assumptions they had to implement just to get it to come down as much as they did.

Nope, not an answer.

You said

As for WTC 7, were it only subjected to the impact damage and fires, it shouldn't have collapsed at all.

You did not say "it seems unlikely that it would have collapsed" or "based on what I know, I don't think it would have collapse". You stated, quite authoritatively, "it shouldn't have collapsed". This implies that you have some basis OTHER than disagreement with NIST for this conclusion.

What "ridiculously unrealistic assumptions" did NIST make? Cite exact quotes and page numbers.

 

[JackDaniels]

As for bangs in the final moments, there were bangs massive enough to get everyone four blocks away to whip their heads towards WTC 7 in this video:

You can't be serious. You really think people need loud bangs to notice a 47 story building collapsing a few blocks away, when they've already been warned it might, and when two 110 story skyscrapers had collapsed earlier that day?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Simultaneous destruction of a building's supports will result in no lean and a free fall period.

Which is not the point in dispute; your claim is that only simultaneous destruction of supports will result in free fall.

Hmmm 'there are no "massive pieces of unbroken structure"' despite the fact that the building is broken up into three massive 33M chunks?

Look, if you're too lazy or too stupid to read the thought experiment proposed, that's fine, but please stop making up your own thought experiment and pretending it's mine. The charges are specified as sufficient to remove all resistance. If it's not possible for charges to break up the building enough to provide no resistance, then your entire scenario is impossible, so you've just debunked yourself; if explosives can't break the structure enough to let the upper part drop in freefall, then something other than explosives must have created that effect in WTC7.

9 columns blown 1/4 second from each other. Do the math. Each block will hit the other block or ground before it can ever attain free fall. Another epic debunkster fail.

I see you haven't done the math.

Try again. The building has the same kind of charges as you think were i WTC7, that can destroy the structure enough to make the top fall at freefall, but they go off at 0.25s intervals and they're set over 100m. After the last one's gone off, the top of the building is at least 80m up, and according to your own theory there's nothing to stop it dropping at freefall. Yet, according to your own argument, it can't. Why not?

This is one of the most entertaining cases of the Dunning-Kroeger effect I've seen in a while.

Dave

 

[dc1971]

Is threats of violence allowed by the forum rules if the threatened isn't a forum member?

It's pretty darn sick either way.

What's worse are the people who threaten with violence and brag about it to their buddies!

 

[kylebisme]

You never addressed the question... so why would you consider it wierd?
EDIT: Look it's pretty simple question, what methodology did you undertake to arrive at this?

Your question was how I "think the collapse should have progressed," and I answered that question directly. You hadn't asked me to recount my reasoning for that opinion before now, and it's weird that you imagine you did. As for how I arrived that that answer, I'm not going to bother detailing it, as I'm not claiming to have done a thorough enough analysis to have proven as much, but I did answer your original question of how I "think the collapse should have progressed."

For example?

Probably the most unrealistic assumption in their model is the way they applied all their assumed temperature and damage, as can be found in NCSTAR 1-9, 12.3.2. I'd quote if it wasn't for NIST locking their PDFs, but here is a graph from that section detailing as much which I'd found uploaded elsewhere:

Put simply, they took their estimate of what happened to the building over the course of hours and applied it in a matter of seconds, with all the fire damage kicking in at once just to get the model to come down as quickly as it did in what little they've shown of it actually collapsing.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Your question was how I "think the collapse should have progressed," and I answered that question directly. You hadn't asked me to recount my reasoning for that opinion before now, and it's weird that you imagine you did. As for how I arrived that that answer, I'm not going to bother detailing it, as I'm not claiming to have done a thorough enough analysis to have proven as much, but I did answer your original question of how I "think the collapse should have progressed.""

And now that I've seen your answer you have some explaining to do.

What a building collapse looks like and how it progresses depends on what happened to the building.

It's obvious to anyone reading that you started here, and then skipped the remainder of the analysis. I want to know what your justification is for stopping at the first step.

Are we going to be like Mr. Richard Gage who decides that comparisons are so trivial that the difference between a concrete framed building is exactly the same as steel? That level of quality? :rolleyes

 

[kylebisme]

It's obvious to anyone reading that you started here, and then skipped the remainder of the analysis.

You've jumped to that false conclusion on your own, and you seem to revel in doing as much, so I doubt I'll bother responding to you again.

 

[DGM]

Your question was how I "think the collapse should have progressed," and I answered that question directly. You hadn't asked me to recount my reasoning for that opinion before now, and it's weird that you imagine you did. As for how I arrived that that answer, I'm not going to bother detailing it, as I'm not claiming to have done a thorough enough analysis to have proven as much, but I did answer your original question of how I "think the collapse should have progressed."


Probably the most unrealistic assumption in their model is the way they applied all their assumed temperature and damage, as can be found in NCSTAR 1-9, 12.3.2. I'd quote if it wasn't for NIST locking their PDFs, but here is a graph from that section detailing as much which I'd found uploaded elsewhere:

[qimg]http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/9919/43690010.jpg[/qimg]

Put simply, they took their estimate of what happened to the building over the course of hours and applied it in a matter of seconds, with all the fire damage kicking in at once just to get the model to come down as quickly as it did in what little they've shown of it actually collapsing.

They applied the damage allowed the model to stabilize then applied the temperature effects as the initiating event. What's wrong with that? How else would you start the model?

 

[Reactor drone]

Your question was how I "think the collapse should have progressed," and I answered that question directly. You hadn't asked me to recount my reasoning for that opinion before now, and it's weird that you imagine you did. As for how I arrived that that answer, I'm not going to bother detailing it, as I'm not claiming to have done a thorough enough analysis to have proven as much, but I did answer your original question of how I "think the collapse should have progressed."


Probably the most unrealistic assumption in their model is the way they applied all their assumed temperature and damage, as can be found in NCSTAR 1-9, 12.3.2. I'd quote if it wasn't for NIST locking their PDFs, but here is a graph from that section detailing as much which I'd found uploaded elsewhere:

[qimg]http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/9919/43690010.jpg[/qimg]

Put simply, they took their estimate of what happened to the building over the course of hours and applied it in a matter of seconds, with all the fire damage kicking in at once just to get the model to come down as quickly as it did in what little they've shown of it actually collapsing.

Did you want the model to be loaded in real time? How long do you think loading the model with its gravity inputs should take, years?