CD = Free Fall?

[triforcharity]

Kurt, I'll address a few of the points that you bring up.

If, as the NIST report stated, there were only enough burnable materials to sustain a fire for 20-30 minutes in any given area, how is it that fires burned long enough to initiate collapse? According to their computer model, global collapse didn't manifest until the raging fires had burned continuously for 4 hours.

Any given area is not the entire building as a whole. It is referring to a singluar office, or a small designated area such as that. 20-30 minutes is based on an estimated fuel load, that can vary from one room to the next.

2) Regarding the thermal expansion that allegedly initiated the girder unseating from Column 79, did the NIST report exhibit scientific integrity by excluding thermal conductivity from their simulation?

Citation needed.

4) Doesn't the NIST report acknowledge that steel and concrete have virtually the same coefficient of thermal expansion?

Well, are you talking linear or are you talking volumetric? And, since neither have virtually the same CoTE, i'll ask again for a citation.

5) The NIST report stated that they tested no actual steel from WTC 7. Does this exhibit scientific integrity?

Kinda hard to test something that you have very little of, and what they did have, was not saved.

6) The NIST stated that they did not test for explosives. Does this exhibit scientific integrity in an impartial investigation into the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes. No evidence was ever found, to this day, to even warrant any kind of investigation into explosives.

7) Does the verifiable evidence that the NIST report presents show that the fires burned long and hot enough to meet the four hire fire requirement exhibited by their computer model?

Well, considering the fire burned untill it collapsed, I would assume yes.

8) Do we know which way the 58 perimeter columns allegedly buckled, or is that an unknown?

Down. Since really, that is just about the only way it could go....

9) What was the cause of the alleged buckling of the 58 perimeter columns? Were they significantly weakened by the fires?

Gravity. Possibly, but since the exterior columns were not the main support of vertical loads, it's really irrelevant.

10) If floors disconnected from the interior columns due to thermal expansion, what caused the interior columns collapse? Were the interior columns significantly weakened by fires?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you haven't read much of the NIST report on 7WTC, and what you did read, you didn't understand.

We've seen these same kind of questions that only arise due to personal ignorance.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Kurt, just a friendly piece of advise. You're outnumbered by like 50 to one on this board. For every post you make, you will recieve at least 15 responses. If I were you, I would pick one or two members (in this case, Oystein) and respond to them...otherwise you will be totally overwhelmed.

Edit: for the record Triforcharity is a firefighter that was on the scene during clean up at ground zero.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Yeah...we're not falling for the ole banana in the tailpipe trick.

Whatever! You know you like gettin' the ole banana in the tailp...

... er

... wait. This suddenly went somewhere I didn't expect it to.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Whatever! You know you like gettin' the ole banana in the tailp...

... er

... wait. This suddenly went somewhere I didn't expect it to.

Hehe..that's why you're one of my favorite members Elmondo...you go there!

 

[triforcharity]

According to FEMA, there was a WTC solid steel girder that had been turned into 'swiss cheese'. That is potentially evidence of some sort of incendiary or explosive involved in the collapse of WTC 7,

No it is not, considering the steel that FEMA and also WPI tested never reached a temperature about 1800 deg. F (IIRC) Which means, it is not therm*te or any kind of explosive. An explosive would have fractured the steel, not eroded it.

as I'm not aware of a way in which burning papers and desks in WTC 7 would have cause that. Are you?

Argument from personal ignorance noted.

Please feel free to google "eutectic reactions" and study up on it.

I also recommend a read of WPI's Dr. Sisson, who did a paper on the 7WTC steel. I forget exactly what it is called.

However, since the NIST investigation refused to test for any such materials, we have no way of knowing without a proper investigation---which is what I'm calling for.

More like dismissed because of a complete lack of any kind of evidence of any explosive in 7WTC.

Thermite, no matter what you or anyone else claim, is NOT an explosive.

Do you have any objection to a new investigation with full public transparency and peer review of all data?

Sure. Feel free to pay for it yourself. Get all the "Truth" groups together, and pool your money, and pay for it your damn self.

99.9% of the people with relevant training worldwide accept the NIST reports.

What would you do if you finally get your precious investigation, and the results are the same?

Will you finally admit that this whole 7WTC CD bull ***** was just an argument from your own personal ignorance? Or will you handwave it away and call it a sham?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

12) (In lieu of the redundancy of #10 & #12) Does the false claim made by the NIST---after their sole control of the investigation for nearly six years---that WTC 7 did not enter freefall exhibit incompetence or intentional deception?

Neither. They were correct in their assertion. The Chandler finding is limited to only a portion of the building for a portion of the collapse. Their assertion applied to the entire collapse, and is demonstrably correct.

BTW, loaded language, like the term "the false claim", really tips your hand. If you're going to play the skeptic, you need to learn to use less leading terms. It makes your goal blatantly obvious.

Just some friendly advice.

Or, is there another option that is more likely, and if so, what evidence is there to support this third option?

It is not that there's another option that's more likely. It's that it's been demonstrated that the collapse did not exhibit free fall. Only a portion of it did. Further reading:

• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188089
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188089

There are more threads that can be discovered via searches.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Hehe..that's why you're one of my favorite members Elmondo...you go there!

I resent that. I have never approached your tailpipe with a banana!

 

[triforcharity]

As a whole, you are correct. Relative to the issue of a solid steel girder , the NIST report ignored this piece of evidence.

No, it most certainly did not. They determined that this piece of steel became eroded over a long period of time (more than 8 hours) and as such, had no effect on the collapse of 7WTC. They then defaulted that to a university that would be more interested in this piece of steel.

Perhaps you should become a little more educated, before jumping to conclusions.

 

[beachnut]

12) (In lieu of the redundancy of #10 & #12) Does the false claim made by the NIST---after their sole control of the investigation for nearly six years---that WTC 7 did not enter freefall exhibit incompetence or intentional deception? Or, is there another option that is more likely, and if so, what evidence is there to support this third option?

Can you provide a citation for the "claim made by NIST...that WTC 7 did not enter freefall"?

Please. Pretty please. We want the 1,000 bucks now...

You don't read or comprehend posts people took time to guide you! Why? Why are you open-loop posting, with no intention of learning, or responding to rational posts. Which means you don't have to respond to this post, you need to respond to post like this in the other thread where you are leaving a trail of ignorance and woo you picked up from nuts in 911 truth.

You're mistaken in just about every way possible.

First, Dr. Griffin has no theory. He actually discourages people from coming up with them.

Second, I did not state his claims were wrong based on such a simplistic "free-fall" comparison. Read my paper if you want to know what's in it, since you apparently don't.

Third, both Dr. Griffin's nonsense and my response to it precluded NIST's formal report on the subject.

Fourth, WTC 7 did not come down at "free-fall speed." A portion of the roofline, for a brief period, during the perimeter collapse, descended at approximately 1 g. But this doesn't really mean anything of significance.

Fifth, NIST's website (I assume you mean the NCSTAR1A and 1-9 reports) charts this rate accurately, and has since the initial draft; it furthermore provides a more adequate timeline describing far more important features of WTC 7's collapse of which you seem to be totally ignorant.

Sixth, this whole argument is a complete non sequitur. Large-scale buckling phenomena can indeed lead to a "free fall" or even a "faster than free fall" event. Thus, this tiny, isolated observation never has and never will be indicative of whatever Truther fairy story is in vogue at this particular moment.

My whitepaper is on line. If you want to know what's in it, give it a read. Thanks.

What say you to the posts you ignore? Why do you ignore posts? Do you need help understanding the post? Remember, if you are serious, ignore my post, and get the more substantive ones. Good luck.

WTC 7 fell due to fire, fires not fought. The simple no math, no physics version. You owe me 1,000 dollars. Was that you making the offer? Pay up please.
WTC 7 on fire. Proof!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

No, it most certainly did not. They determined that this piece of steel became eroded over a long period of time (more than 8 hours) and as such, had no effect on the collapse of 7WTC. They then defaulted that to a university that would be more interested in this piece of steel.

Yes, what Tri said. The university is Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and the reasearcher's names are Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson (with much good work being contributed by then graduate assistant - now obviously a full academic - Erin Sullivan). Do a forum lookup for the terms "eutectic", "sulfidation", "WPI", and the researchers names.

 

[triforcharity]

12) (In lieu of the redundancy of #10 & #12) Does the false claim made by the NIST---after their sole control of the investigation for nearly six years---that WTC 7 did not enter freefall exhibit incompetence or intentional deception?

False choice logical fallacy. Go back and try again.

Or, is there another option that is more likely, and if so, what evidence is there to support this third option?

Yes, please feel free to see above.

You're not fooling anyone here. We've seen this little tricks before.

Have you stopped beating you wife?

 

[Macgyver1968]

I kinda feel sorry for Kurt...it's been so long since we had us a new truther...it's like he's wearing prime rib underwear in a den full of hungry wolves.

 

[ozeco41]

I kinda feel sorry for Kurt...it's been so long since we had us a new truther...it's like he's wearing prime rib underwear in a den full of hungry wolves.

BUT joining this forum with the two trademark identifiers of a truther:

1 Claiming to be a sceptic but not behaving like one; AND

2 "JAQing" with a string of loaded questions - every one of them pure trutherese..

....well - it is called "asking for it"

 

[Macgyver1968]

BUT joining this forum with the two trademark identifiers of a truther:

1 Claiming to be a sceptic but not behaving like one; AND

2 "JAQing" with a string of loaded questions - every one of them pure trutherese..

....well - it is called "asking for it"

Kinda like me wearing a "Romo" jersey in a bar in Philadelphia.

 

[triforcharity]

Kinda like me wearing a "Romo" jersey in a bar in Philadelphia.

More like wearing a Johnny Damon jersey in Boston......

 

[femr2]

I think AW Smith replied to a question about perimeter not being (laterally) supported in his first sentence by alluding to the failure of the core during 7s +/- before release, and in his second sentence talked about a different topic, namely the 1s +/- after release and before appox g was reached (boundaries of this phase are up for grabs, of course).

That may be what he intended, but it's far from clear, and why I asked "what 7s?" earlier.

Rather than clarifying what he intended, or confirming that he forgot his head for a mo, we get old-style "I never suggested that. Are you having a problem reading English??? Go back and read it again or forever be known a dunce."

Rather poor.

As requested earlier I may place a list of graph links up somewhere for reference.

 

[Macgyver1968]

BUT joining this forum with the two trademark identifiers of a truther:

1 Claiming to be a sceptic but not behaving like one; AND

2 "JAQing" with a string of loaded questions - every one of them pure trutherese..

....well - it is called "asking for it"

Well...at least he's been cordial so far...I have to give that to him. I just hope he sticks around long enough before the "meltdown"...like we seen in so many truthers before him.

 

[ozeco41]

Kinda like me wearing a "Romo" jersey in a bar in Philadelphia.

More like wearing a Johnny Damon jersey in Boston......

I get the idea -- won't bore you with the Aussie equivalents. "Swans' jerseys" in Melbourne etc.....

Interestingly enough we seem to have lost a lot of the "between states; between regions; between cities" type of rivalry/animosity over the last thirty years or so.

You can drink VB* in a Sydney pub without getting laughed out of the place. Couldn't do that years back. Couldn't get the "other state's beer" interstate back then but you'll get the idea.

And no beer causes free fall ----- just so I can stay "On Topic"


* "Victoria Bitter" - a beer originally from the state of Victoria but now available anywhere

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Kinda like me wearing a "Romo" jersey in a bar in Philadelphia.

And you wonder why you get bananas in your tailpipe.

Well...at least he's been cordial so far...I have to give that to him. I just hope he sticks around long enough before the "meltdown"...like we seen in so many truthers before him.

Yes, that helps a ton. That's a good thing.

 

[A W Smith]

That may be what he intended, but it's far from clear, and why I asked "what 7s?" earlier.

Rather than clarifying what he intended, or confirming that he forgot his head for a mo, we get old-style "I never suggested that. Are you having a problem reading English??? Go back and read it again or forever be known a dunce."

Rather poor.

As requested earlier I may place a list of graph links up somewhere for reference.

Oystein understands me perfectly but you simply cannot. I didn't forget my head for a moment. I never implied a seven second roof line movement previous to freefall. There was much going on inside that building during those seven seconds indicated by the initial penthouse collapse. Know what? stick to graphs and shut the hell up if you don't understand language.