NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

[dc1971]

I've mentioned it elsewhere before, as have many others, but notably:

The swiss cheese steel reported by FEMA, the iron rich microspheres in the USGS particle atlas, and the thematic nanocomposite found by Harrit et al....

And these are issues that have been addressed many times and have been explained many times!

What is it YOU bring to the table that is any different the peerless-reviewed journal written by Harrit et al??

 

[GlennB]

Any chance we will ever see an experiment showing a building like WTC 7 being brought down with fire and having a period of free fall?

None whatsoever. It would cost hundreds of millions to build.

 

[cmatrix]

WTC 7 sustained heavy damage.

THAT, along with the fires on SEVERAL FLOORS is what eventually led to it's collapse! Any building put to these circumstances will collapse!

So again, I have yet to see a building brought down with thermite! Any takers on this experiment?

NIST stated that the minor damage to WTC 7 was in no way responsible for its collapse. You have no evidence whatsoever that fires caused WTC 7 to collapse. There have been absolutely no experiments undertaken that suggest fires could cause a building like WTC 7 to collapse with a period of free fall. You have no evidence to support the crackpot theory you believe in. All you have is faith and crackpot pseudo-science.

OTOH experiments have been conducted that show thermate could easily have caused the WTC 7 collapse:

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-11-10/911-experiments-great-thermate-debate

Epic debunkster fail.

 

[carlitos]

Now, if a steel claw grabbed hold of "molten" steel, do you think that claw would operate for any length of time?

Yeah, I'd bet it was just fine, the rubber and such being fairly far away from the hotest parts.

 

[dc1971]

NIST stated that the minor damage to WTC 7 was in no way responsible for its collapse. You have no evidence whatsoever that fires caused WTC 7 to collapse. There have been absolutely no experiments undertaken that suggest fires could cause a building like WTC 7 to collapse with a period of free fall. You have no evidence to support the crackpot theory you believe in. All you have is faith and crackpot pseudo-science.

OTOH experiments have been conducted that show thermate could easily have caused the WTC 7 collapse:

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-11-10/911-experiments-great-thermate-debate

Epic debunkster fail.

Ummm, no... epic misuse of an Internet meme my friend!!

Read pages 53 - 55 of Debunking 9/11 Myths (now I know you're going to say they're paid off by the government but they're NOT)... I'll briefly explain some of the juicy stuff to you...

The collapse of WTC 7 was initially puzzling to investigators, but they now believe the building failed from a combination of long-burning fires in it's interior and damage caused by debris from the North Tower's collapse.

Exactly what I just stated to you yet you had to make your nefarious "Epic fail" comment...

MORE from the book...

However, with the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris...

...which I just stated to you, cmatrix...

...than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells Popular Mechanics. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom - approximately 10 stories - about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

Still thinking "epic fail"??

 

[cmatrix]

Ummm, no... epic misuse of an Internet meme my friend!!

Read pages 53 - 55 of Debunking 9/11 Myths (now I know you're going to say they're paid off by the government but they're NOT)... I'll briefly explain some of the juicy stuff to you...



Exactly what I just stated to you yet you had to make your nefarious "Epic fail" comment...

MORE from the book...



...which I just stated to you, cmatrix...



Still thinking "epic fail"??

A crackpot book sways me as much as the crackpot NIST reports.

How did this minimal damage to WTC 7 cause eight stories of resisting structure to be removed to allow the 2.25 s free fall period?

Yeah, still an epic debunkster fail.

 

[dc1971]

How did this minimal damage to WTC 7...

...And once again, it wasn't minimal damage... "25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

Does that sound like "minimal" to you??

 

[kylebisme]

But the beam itself melting is not the only possibility. Perhaps one end was resting in a small pool of melted aluminum, which we know has a much lower melting point than steel.

There could be some aluminum in that among other things, but the color alone shows the molten material temperature is far beyond the melting point of aluminum, and the even the cooler part of the beam is sagging like putty, so it's obviously at least in part molten steel.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

...And once again, it wasn't minimal damage... "25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

Does that sound like "minimal" to you??

Just to clarify - and not to downplay the damage - it played more a role in sparking the fires and allowing them to breathe better, but there was no significant role beyond that in the collapse itself. The collapse initiated elsewhere via a critical column, and it instigated a progressive collapse.

 

[cmatrix]

...And once again, it wasn't minimal damage... "25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

Does that sound like "minimal" to you??

Yes it does sound minimal. The damage you are referring to was right between two undamaged perimeter columns. Major damage is damage to support columns. Any evidence of that? No of course not.

Once again, how did this minimal damage to WTC 7 cause eight stories of resisting structure to be removed to allow the 2.25 s free fall period?

 

[dc1971]

Just to clarify - and not to downplay the damage - it played more a role in sparking the fires and allowing them to breathe better, but there was no significant role beyond that in the collapse itself. The collapse initiated elsewhere via a critical column, and it instigated a progressive collapse.

That's right. There were many key factors in the collapse of Building 7 however Truthers don't bother to look up this information.

 

[dc1971]

Yes it does sound minimal. The damage you are referring to was right between two undamaged perimeter columns. Major damage is damage to support columns. Any evidence of that? No of course not.

Once again, how did this minimal damage to WTC 7 cause eight stories of resisting structure to be removed to allow the 2.25 s free fall period?

Did you miss the point about many key factors?

 

[cmatrix]

The collapse initiated elsewhere via a critical column, and it instigated a progressive collapse.

Just to clarify - progressive collapses requires GPE. A free falling building has no GPE available to do such work because all available GPE has been converted to kinetic energy. The crackpot theory you believe in violates the laws of physics since it requires far more energy than could possibly have been available.

 

[cmatrix]

Did you miss the point about many key factors?

Yeah I often miss things that aren't there.

Once again, how did this minimal damage to WTC 7 cause eight stories of resisting structure to be removed to allow the 2.25 s free fall period?

 

[dc1971]

Just to clarify - progressive collapses requires GPE. A free falling building has no GPE available to do such work because all available GPE has been converted to kinetic energy. The crackpot theory you believe in violates the laws of physics since it requires far more energy than could possibly have been available.

You like to mention "defying the laws of physics" as do most Truthers. If such a phenomenon occurred, gravity would have no part in the destruction of the towers. We would have seen the building fall apart and float away if it "defied the laws of physics"!

 

[dc1971]

Yeah I often miss things that aren't there.

Once again, how did this minimal damage to WTC 7 cause eight stories of resisting structure to be removed to allow the 2.25 s free fall period?

It wasn't 2.25 seconds!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Just to clarify - progressive collapses requires GPE. A free falling building has no GPE available to do such work because all available GPE has been converted to kinetic energy. The crackpot theory you believe in violates the laws of physics since it requires far more energy than could possibly have been available.

ROTFLOL so now we know you know nothing about physics.....was that what you were trying to prove?

 

[cmatrix]

You like to mention "defying the laws of physics" as do most Truthers. If such a phenomenon occurred, gravity would have no part in the destruction of the towers. We would have seen the building fall apart and float away if it "defied the laws of physics"!

ROFL I'm not saying the collapse violated the laws of physics I'm saying the crackpot theory you believe in violates the laws of physics.

 

[cmatrix]

It wasn't 2.25 seconds!

That's what NIST says. You believe they're lying?

Anyway, how did this minimal damage to WTC 7 cause eight stories of resisting structure to be removed to allow any period of free fall?

 

[cmatrix]

ROTFLOL so now we know you know nothing about physics.....was that what you were trying to prove?

If you knew more about physics than I do you would be able to explain what and why what I said was incorrect. The fact that you can only muster issuing pompous unsupported pronouncements instead of sound criticism suggests that you are the one who is severely deficient.