Popular Mechanics: 500,000 scholars?

[RedIbis]

Got a title, or link?

I have the same authors listed for the WPI study, but their wording does not question where the steel came from.

 

[Oystein]

I have the same authors listed for the WPI study, but their wording does not question where the steel came from.

Got a title, or link?

Mine is "C Limited Metallurgical Examination" and can be downloaded from
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

 

[RedIbis]

Got a title, or link?

Mine is "C Limited Metallurgical Examination" and can be downloaded from
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

ETA: Yes, I see that it says the location could not be determined, but the begin by saying:

A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001.

 

[DGM]

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

ETA: Yes, I see that it says the location could not be determined, but the begin by saying:

So where does this leave your argument that NIST "disregarded" the physical evidence?

 

[RedIbis]

So where does this leave your argument that NIST "disregarded" the physical evidence?

Completely intact.

Your entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can you be so sure you know what happened?

In general, much less evidence existed for WTC 7 than for the two WTC towers. The steel for WTC 1 and WTC 2 contained distinguishing characteristics that enabled it to be identified once removed from the site during recovery efforts. However, the same was not true for the WTC 7 steel. Certainly, there is a lot less visual and audio evidence of the WTC 7 collapse compared to the collapses of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers, which were much more widely photographed.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

They make excuses but they don't deny it.

ETA: Make sure you're not confusing FEMA/WPI with NIST.

 

[DGM]

Completely intact.



http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

They make excuses but they don't deny it.

ETA: Make sure you're not confusing FEMA/WPI with NIST.

Deny what? That they wouldn't base their investigation on physical evidence they couldn't verify (Like FEMA & WPI)?

 

[Oystein]

The entire FEMA study, which this Appendix C by the WPI scholars is part of, was released in May 2002. So obviously, the WPI guys gained access to their samples well before May 2002. Here is a link to the full study - all chapters and nine appendices:
http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
Chapter 1 mentions that steel samples were retrieved from site and from salvage yards during the week of 10/7/2001. (I am not sure though whether this is also the time frame during which the WPI samples were retrieved).
According to your link, the WPI study was first published in 2001 already: "The following article appears in the journal JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 18."

On the other hand, "The overall NIST investigation began on Aug. 21, 2002". Maybe the 10 months delay between the beginnings of the two studies, during which clean-up at GZ was mostly finished, explain very well why the WPI guys could retrieve steel that NIST could not. However, as I found the WPI report at wtc.nist.gov, I take it that NIST did in fact take these pieces of physical evidence into account.

 

[RedIbis]

The entire FEMA study, which this Appendix C by the WPI scholars is part of, was released in May 2002. So obviously, the WPI guys gained access to their samples well before May 2002. Here is a link to the full study - all chapters and nine appendices:
http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
Chapter 1 mentions that steel samples were retrieved from site and from salvage yards during the week of 10/7/2001. (I am not sure though whether this is also the time frame during which the WPI samples were retrieved).
According to your link, the WPI study was first published in 2001 already: "The following article appears in the journal JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 18."

On the other hand, "The overall NIST investigation began on Aug. 21, 2002". Maybe the 10 months delay between the beginnings of the two studies, during which clean-up at GZ was mostly finished, explain very well why the WPI guys could retrieve steel that NIST could not. However, as I found the WPI report at wtc.nist.gov, I take it that NIST did in fact take these pieces of physical evidence into account.

Your explanation is reasonable, but how do you explain that NIST admits it did not use any physical evidence, FEMA/WPI steel or otherwise? See my post above for the full quote to their Q&A.

 

[Oystein]

Your explanation is reasonable, but how do you explain that NIST admits it did not use any physical evidence, FEMA/WPI steel or otherwise? See my post above for the full quote to their Q&A.

Hmmm maybe you haven't heard this before, but the steel samples that FEMA/WPI analysed could not be located in the building prior to collapse and were thus worthless in NIST's quest to find out the failure mode. Sounds reasonable to me to note the existence of the studies, but discard it as not conductive to NIST's objectives.

ETA: So pray tell: Which physical evidence was in fact available to NIST, identifiable, and discarded?

 

[RedIbis]

Hmmm maybe you haven't heard this before, but the steel samples that FEMA/WPI analysed could not be located in the building prior to collapse and were thus worthless in NIST's quest to find out the failure mode. Sounds reasonable to me to note the existence of the studies, but discard it as not conductive to NIST's objectives.

ETA: So pray tell: Which physical evidence was in fact available to NIST, identifiable, and discarded?

You're changing your story. You just said that you think NIST did take these steel samples into consideration. Now you're saying that it would have been worthless to study them.

 

[Oystein]

You're changing your story. You just said that you think NIST did take these steel samples into consideration. Now you're saying that it would have been worthless to study them.

No.

They considered them and found them to be worthless. There's no contradiction.
(Of course I am speculating here; I know that NIST stores a copy of the report on their site, so we know they are more than aware of it. It seems like the specimen played no role in the WTC7 report. I don't know specifically why they did not include it in the report, but the reasons I gave are entirely in line with the explantions given by NIST.)

So again, Red: Which physical evidence that was sufficiently identifyable to be included in a report on collapse mechanism was in fact available to NIST after they started their work in august 2002? Which particular physical evidence did they dismiss, Red? You suggested that NIST ought to have been able to do what WPI did; you learned in the meantime that WPI/FEMA was on the scene at least 10 months before NIST even git started. You probably know what happened in those 10 months with the crime scene. Do you still maintain that there is no explanation for NIST not using physical evidence when WPI/FEMA did?

 

[RedIbis]

Do you still maintain that there is no explanation for NIST not using physical evidence when WPI/FEMA did?

They have explanations, they're simply specious at best. You accept their excuse for using no physical evidence in their hypothetical collapse scenario. I don't.

Like I said above, I don't buy they had no access to any of it. You do.

In my opinion, this lack of evidence weakens, considerably, their highly unlikely collapse scenario. The case is by far not closed.
It's simply a difference of opinion at this point. You do seem to have the genuine intellectual integrity to not make this a pissing match, so I think you might chalk this up to a difference of opinion.

I just find it ironic that the so-called skeptics on this forum seem to believe these theories have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, without a shred of physical evidence to back them up.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I just find it ironic that the so-called skeptics on this forum seem to believe these theories have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, without a shred of physical evidence to back them up.

9 years of nothing from the 9/11 Un-Truth Movement, why the hell ain't we surprised?

You have nothing to back yourself up Red. It's always the same stupid retarded **** with you, isn't it?

Truthers:

Blah, blah, blah, blah, 9/11's an Inside Job. You have no evidence, we have MOUNTAINS of evidence. Look at me, I'm smarter than you!

Paranoid jackaces!

If we want comedic relief, we know where to find you Red.

 

[Seymour Butz]

In reality there was the off chance that people would be pulled alive from the rubble, there was the problem of getting the city up and running again(roads, electrical distribution, communications cableing, water) that all required that the rubble be cleared asap. Then there was the problem of the underground fires which could only be addressed if the top burden of rubble was taken away.

They also needed to clear off everything in order to fix the 'bathtub'.

 

[AZCat]

No.

They considered them and found them to be worthless. There's no contradiction.
(Of course I am speculating here; I know that NIST stores a copy of the report on their site, so we know they are more than aware of it. It seems like the specimen played no role in the WTC7 report. I don't know specifically why they did not include it in the report, but the reasons I gave are entirely in line with the explantions given by NIST.)

NIST mentions the FEMA WTC7 samples at least once IIRC. It's in NCSTAR 1-3C, Section 6.3.4, where they talk about the corroded steel.

 

[Oystein]

They have explanations, they're simply specious at best. You accept their excuse for using no physical evidence in their hypothetical collapse scenario. I don't.

Like I said above, I don't buy they had no access to any of it. You do.

With what reasons don't you buy it?
I gave my reasons: By the time, the NIST started its investigation, the physical evidence was already mostly removed from site and tampered, and it was known that structural steel elements could not be identified. Do you doubt my reasons? Then please state specifically which part you don't agree with!
So what is your reason? What evidence do you have that there should have been identifyable and useful physical evidence left?

In my opinion, this lack of evidence weakens, considerably, their highly unlikely collapse scenario. The case is by far not closed.

This is now your wishful thinking. You wish things were the way you imagine so you don't have to leave your by now untenable position.

It's simply a difference of opinion at this point. You do seem to have the genuine intellectual integrity to not make this a pissing match, so I think you might chalk this up to a difference of opinion.

I just find it ironic that the so-called skeptics on this forum seem to believe these theories have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, without a shred of physical evidence to back them up.

I think I am not alone in thinking that the case for NIST's WTC7 collapse scenario is weaker than the cases for the Twin Towers. I believe we are all aware that, overall, there is much less evidence to base any theory for WTC7 on (much less video, photographic and witness evidence, too, as few people focussed much attention on it). However, the NIST case is the very likely the best we'll ever get, even if the TM got its "new investigation" and a billion dollar budget, because you have not a single shred of evidence for any other theory. At worst, another plausible scenario started by fires and possibly structural damage will come about as a contender.

 

[twinstead]

However, the NIST case is the very likely the best we'll ever get, even if the TM got its "new investigation" and a billion dollar budget, because you have not a single shred of evidence for any other theory. At worst, another plausible scenario started by fires and possibly structural damage will come about as a contender.

Which means to me I'll be damned if my tax money is going to be wasted on it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

And so I reread the thread, and the only OT response that really came about from a 9/11 "official story" skeptic was:

This is the same fallacy that is used on this sub forum all the time. There are X amount of structural engineers. Only Y have signed a petition for a new investigation; therefore, the remainder do not support the petition.

Which isn't really a problematic response. But then:

This fallacious thinking does not take into consideration that the remainded have not investigated the details or are even aware of any such petition.

Sounds more like an attempt to rationalize using the same fallacious thinking since he knows that by calling the OP fallacious, he has to also accept that the reverse is also true; that the number of architects and engineers that support an alternative theory is absolutely irrelevant to the veracity of the research. I call it a "rationalization" because while it's easy to assert that a lack of publicity for a theory means that other professionals are either ignorant of the reports and of the alternative theories, or fear retaliation from contractors; actually proving it is another story.

One more thing to bring up:

Deny what? That they wouldn't base their investigation on physical evidence they couldn't verify (Like FEMA & WPI)?

That's what's golden. They demand using physical evidence, even if it means choosing random samples that they can't identify. It's like saying you need to look at the arm when a guy fell down after snapping his femur bone in two.

 

[jaydeehess]

I think I am not alone in thinking that the case for NIST's WTC7 collapse scenario is weaker than the cases for the Twin Towers. I believe we are all aware that, overall, there is much less evidence to base any theory for WTC7 on (much less video, photographic and witness evidence, too, as few people focussed much attention on it). However, the NIST case is the very likely the best we'll ever get, even if the TM got its "new investigation" and a billion dollar budget, because you have not a single shred of evidence for any other theory. At worst, another plausible scenario started by fires and possibly structural damage will come about as a contender.

I agree and there is one other important consideration bewteen the towers and #7. That is that it was relatively easy to determine the initial state of damage to the towers given the video evidence of the aircraft hitting them. So you start off knowing where speed and mass of the aircraft(within a fairly close error margin) and knowing on what floors the jet fuel was spilled out. You then have a lot of photographic and video of the tower's fires including shots from the police copter. You do not have this with WTC 7 to the same degree.

After collapse you have positively identifiable steel members from the towers except where the steel is so badly damaged that identifiers have been destroyed. In WTC 7 you have no identifiers in the first place.

My only point of contention with the NIST WTC 7 report would be that they did not investigate a possible pulling off the trusss seat of the girder due to thermal contraction as the contorted beams cooled, as opposed to the beams expansion pushing the girder off.

It is pretty obvious that the idea that column 79's failure was what turned a local collapse into one that could progress to a global collapse. It is pretty obvious that the entire collapse took about 16 seconds(as opposed to 9/11 conspiracy sites putting it at 7 seconds). It is pretty obvious that no explosives of the power required to sever large steel columns are heard being detonated.
There is no evidence at all (docuementary or physical) that any explosives or incindiaries were used in the structure.
There is docuementary evidence of large office fires in many locations including near that where NIST concludes the initial loacl collapse occured. There is a huge amount of docuementary evidence compiled by a century of fire engineering and investigation that shows how steel expands, sags, creeps and fails in common office fires.

The preponderance of the evidence then points to NIST's treatment as being one based in science and available evidence as opposed to the treatment by 9/11 conspiracists based on supposition, suspicion, and a political world view.