NIST Denies Access to WTC7 Data

[triforcharity]

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.

Would it have effected the model differently if it had been run for hours? Not likely.

 

[excaza]

my brain....

 

[cmatrix]

Strawman. This is not what NIST says happened. You know this, and have had this pointed out to you numerous times. Stop lying.



You need to look up the definition of negligable.



Not silently. Not without leaving physical signs on the steel. And not without having the many dogs that were there, not detect them.



wtc.nist.gov

You're welcome to prove it wrong. Feel free. Show your work and list any assumptions. JavaMan was attempting to do the same, but we have yet to hear back from him.

Will you be the first?

No there is no straw man except for the one you yourself created. I was responding to Grizzly Bear's ridiculous explanation for the free fall period not NIST's. You are attacking a position I did not present. That is, you are attacking a straw man you created.

Free fall means no resistance not negligible resistance. Negligible means some. Some resistance means no free fall. WTC 7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds not near free fall.

Was the WTC 7 steel examined for explosive damage? No. Why would criminals implicate themselves? How many dogs were in WTC 7?

NIST as never presented a sound technical analysis that fire brought down WTC 7. Their analysis is not sound because they have no scientific evidence whatsoever. You can't prove something wrong that doesn't exist. NIST however can prove their analysis is not crackpot pseudo-science garbage simply by releasing their evidence so it can be confirmed by independent researchers. They don't release it because it will in fact confirm that their analysis is crackpot pseudo-science garbage.

 

[cmatrix]

Read about it. Visualizing a load path means to understand how the weight of a floor or object is transferred to the ground. It's plainly obvious that while lecturing me of all people you've done absolutely no background research on it. Having joined in this kind of talk you have absolutely no excuse for not having studied it before jumping in. As far as I'm concerned the accusation that I'm posting big words to simply "discredit" you is nothing more than an excuse, you are genuinely unqualified to be telling other people they're wrong, having done nothing on your own time to study.

Instead of making completely unsupported pronouncements that I am wrong because I am not taking into account load paths in Dave's ridiculous "thought experiment", why don't you explain precisely why you think I'm wrong? You could start by explaining how falling structure with no support could even have a load path. Or alternatively, why the buildings load path has anything whatsoever to do with how much it accelerates after its support is removed.

 

[The Big Dog]

No there is no straw man except for the one you yourself created. I was responding to Grizzly Bear's ridiculous explanation for the free fall period not NIST's. You are attacking a position I did not present. That is, you are attacking a straw man you created.

Free fall means no resistance not negligible resistance. Negligible means some. Some resistance means no free fall. WTC 7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds not near free fall.

Was the WTC 7 steel examined for explosive damage? No. Why would criminals implicate themselves? How many dogs were in WTC 7?

NIST as never presented a sound technical analysis that fire brought down WTC 7. Their analysis is not sound because they have no scientific evidence whatsoever. You can't prove something wrong that doesn't exist. NIST however can prove their analysis is not crackpot pseudo-science garbage simply by releasing their evidence so it can be confirmed by independent researchers. They don't release it because it will in fact confirm that their analysis is crackpot pseudo-science garbage.

Hey, how ya doing on the judicial review action.

Just kidding, we know you won't file one, because it will in fact confirm that your analysis is crackpot pseudo-science garbage.

But hey, whining about it on the internet, good for you!

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

WTC 7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds not near free fall.

Can you prove that 2.25 seconds is enough for a 120 mph free fall? No you can't!

 

[cmatrix]

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



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.



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

I did not state that only simultaneous destruction of supports will result in free fall. I stated that simultaneous destruction of supports will result in free fall. You stated that I said "that it was the lack of lean that proves simultaneous destruction of the supports, not the freefall." You were bizarrely trying to claim that I made some sort of contradictory statement I guess. I responded that both properties (no lean and a free fall period) will actually apply to a building experiencing simultaneous destruction of its supports "Simultaneous destruction of a building's supports will result in no lean and a free fall period." Just another in a long line of ridiculous mistakes on your part.

"The charges are specified as sufficient to remove all resistance." What? A 100M high building brought down with charges in only three locations on each column removes all resistance? ROFL In order for a "thought experiment" to be valid it must be at least in some way consistent with reality. Can it be that you actually think the only possible resistance to a falling object is from what is holding it up? Shaped charges used in CD only cut columns where they are placed. They don't pulverize all the concrete and steel for 33M.

My scenario is not in any way impossible. If you blow all support vertical columns simultaneously on a floor you will get a free fall period. The more floors you blow the more free fall will be observed. It seems you have forgotten that you were trying to prove a building can have free fall without simultaneous removal of support columns. I am amazed some here think of you with such high regard.

Again your building will never attain free fall because all 33 M portions will be leaning and hitting the portion below or the ground slowing its acceleration.

This is one of the most entertaining cases of neurotic projection I've seen in a while.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

My scenario is not in any way impossible.

Actually if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth. So in other words, Dave Rogers is right & you're wrong!

 

[Justin39640]

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?

Not to mention that this all happened in New York City, with thousands of people in the street. What's the possibility one person (or one hundred people) noticed the building was moving, pointed and said "OMG LOOK!!!!"

 

[Justin39640]

Free fall means no resistance not negligible resistance. Negligible means some. Some resistance means no free fall. WTC 7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds not near free fall.

You should probably go to dictionary.com prior to posting a rant like this. I think some tried pointing it out. Most hoped you're not that stupid. 3rd graders understand this. I'm just hoping you were sick that day.

neg·li·gi·ble
   /ˈnɛglɪdʒəbəl/ Show Spelled[neg-li-juh-buhl]
–adjective
so small, trifling, or unimportant that it may safely be neglected or disregarded:

negligible resistance = no resistance.
Good day sir!

 

[beachnut]

It seems much of the removal of WTC 7's redundant support was done earlier in the day, starting as early as before the towers came down, when Barry Jennings first reported being blasted back on the staircase around the eighth floor. 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:



Albeit they're very faint on the recording from the interview mic, and the last bang is caught more clearly in the same video I used for upper middle postion:



As for flashes related to those bangs, I haven't found any video of the lower part of the building where such flashes might be seen durring the final moments.


I wasn't able to find a CD example that had an interior in the same sense WTC 7 did, so I went with the Landmark because it had the most comprable height from what I've found.


I did that to exemplify the fact that WTC 7 collapsed much like a traditional controlled demolition, and the fact that NIST didn't even come close to proving fire could cause a building to come down anywhere near as quickly or completely as that.

Fire caused WTC7, and your engineering skills failed you. You can't prove fire did not do it and you posted proof of no explosives, no sounds of explosives.

You posted silent gravity collapses, the only noise was the building falling. You are self-debunking. Good job. Did you mean to prove no explosives?

 

[cmatrix]

You should probably go to dictionary.com prior to posting a rant like this. I think some tried pointing it out. Most hoped you're not that stupid. 3rd graders understand this. I'm just hoping you were sick that day.

negligible resistance = no resistance.
Good day sir!

So all 58 perimeter columns buckled simultaneously over eight entire stories and this process involved no resistance?

stu·pid
–adjective
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.

 

[tsig]

Read about it. Visualizing a load path means to understand how the weight of a floor or object is transferred to the ground. It's plainly obvious that while lecturing me of all people you've done absolutely no background research on it. Having joined in this kind of talk you have absolutely no excuse for not having studied it before jumping in. As far as I'm concerned the accusation that I'm posting big words to simply "discredit" you is nothing more than an excuse, you are genuinely unqualified to be telling other people they're wrong, having done nothing on your own time to study.

You used too many big words just to make me look bad. Oh wait...you succeeded.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Instead of making completely unsupported pronouncements that I am wrong...

It's relevant because your specious simultaneous failure relies on the idea that the structure has the same capacity to support the weight above it when it's buckled (laymen terms "bent") as when it's normal (straight).

You could start by explaining how falling structure with no support could even have a load path. Or alternatively, why the buildings load path has anything whatsoever to do with how much it accelerates after its support is removed.

See above. Better yet, to illustrate the point better hold a 20 pound weight above you. Fairly easy right? Try holding the same weight with your arm extended out. What do you think the difference is that makes the latter harder?

 

[kylebisme]

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?

The way it starts with applying gravity load over the course of 4.5 seconds is arguably reasonable, but giving only 2 seconds to allow for redistribution of load after applying the impact damage, hammering the model with hours of temperature increases crammed into the next 2 seconds, and then applying all the fire damage estimated over those hours instantly is completely unrealistic.

Would it have effected the model differently if it had been run for hours? Not likely.

Of course applying the effects in a realistic time frame would have affected the model very differently, which is why in reality steel frame hire-rises don't react to fires anything like NIST's models, the one with impact damage or otherwise.

 

[Justin39640]

The way it starts with applying gravity load over the course of 4.5 seconds is arguably reasonable, but giving only 2 seconds to allow for redistribution of load after applying the impact damage, hammering the model with hours of temperature increases crammed into the next 2 seconds, and then applying all the fire damage estimated over those hours instantly is completely unrealistic.

This here shows your inability to percieve the difference between the real world and a virtual computer model. The benefit of computer aided design like this is that you CAN load the building like that and it does come out like it burned and fell apart for hours.

Why do you think cars and machines are tested virtually? You think you have to wait for an engine to warm up in a computer program before it will overheat???? lol

Of course applying the effects in a realistic time frame would have affected the model very differently, which is why in reality steel frame hire-rises don't react to fires anything like NIST's models, the one with impact damage or otherwise.

tee hee

 

[cmatrix]

It's relevant because your specious simultaneous failure relies on the idea that the structure has the same capacity to support the weight above it when it's buckled (laymen terms "bent") as when it's normal (straight).


See above. Better yet, to illustrate the point better hold a 20 pound weight above you. Fairly easy right? Try holding the same weight with your arm extended out. What do you think the difference is that makes the latter harder?

Oh but we're not talking about buckling in this discussion that you blindly stumbled into. We're talking about Dave's wacky "thought experiment" involving support columns cut non-simultaneously and still attaining free fall. So what's really specious is your following of the discussion. You want to try again? You could start by explaining how falling structure with no support could even have a load path. Or alternatively, why the buildings load path has anything whatsoever to do with how much it accelerates after its support is removed. Or are you as I suspect, completely full of crap?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Oh but we're not talking about buckling in this discussion that you blindly stumbled into. We're talking about Dave's wacky "thought experiment" involving support columns cut non-simultaneously and still attaining free fall.

Columns provide neglible support once they've started buckling. They have neglible capacity when the load is off-center at a moment which is not designed to withstand moment forces.

 

[kylebisme]

The benefit of computer aided design like this is that you CAN load the building like that and it does come out like it burned and fell apart for hours.

No it really doesn't work like that, which again is why in reality steel frame hire-rises don't react to fires anything like NIST's models, the one with impact damage or otherwise.

 

[excaza]

No it really doesn't work like that

Yes, it really does.

which again is why in reality steel frame hire-rises don't react to fires anything like NIST's models, the one with impact damage or otherwise.

You repeating it doesn't make it true.