'What about building 7'?

[cantonear1968]

One advantage I do have over you all is that I have actually read the report.

Once again a truther changing reality to fit whatever arguement they are having at the time.

If you have read the report then you would be capable of answering the question I have posed to you three times already and you have conveniently ignored:

What specifically, scientifically do you find incorrect with conclusions of the NIST report?

 

[Bullwinkle2009]

Hi, I read the report and it says there were no blast events. It states fire caused the collapse.

 

[aggle-rithm]

And? I am not disputing it was a large fire, but you agree it was an office fire. Nothing more.

Mount St. Helen's was a volcano. Nothing more.

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was an ordinary, run-of the mill atomic bomb. Nothing more.

 

[Bullwinkle2009]

fire

Hi, It says thermal expansion nothing about melting or warping or failure of the steel. The steel in the floors expanded and broke their connections to the vertical causing floors to collapse/removing the support from the verticals causing their collapse causing the building to fall. All this began around your column 79
Seems pretty cut and dried. Although you played a little fast and loose with the verb-age. The report says other factors do not matter given that the fire would have caused the building to collapse. More then once it says the other damage was not considered because other then letting in the fires in the first place and cutting the water supply the damage did not lead to the collapse. Being simple minded I still feel like that was a major cause for the building falling down. Also the fuel did not melt the steel but it might have helped the fires spread. (seems like it was involved) Although they did recover 23,000 out of the 42,000 gal. By not causing the collapse the report means (I think) did not produce temps high enough/long enough to cause steel to fail.
OK so like they used to say "Wheres the beef"? what don't you like in the report. The mechanics are not what I expected but the end state "fire caused the collapse" remains unchanged

OH and the report states where something was not observed it was assumed not to have occured. Meaning it could have been hotter and damage from debris might have occured but since it was not observed and documented it was not factored in but still the building collapsed and the reasons understood. They looked for blast evidence but a blast was not required. (I think they covered all the bases)

 

[T.A.M.]

You know the answer to this

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4047514&postcount=45

AH, so the cronies over at AE are using evidence and analysis provided BY NIST, to show NIST that they are wrong...wow...just wow!!!

You think the fires burned for 7 hours in one location? Once the ordinary building content is burned up the fire moves on. It will only spemd 20 minutes in any one location.

The fires were ordinary office fires.

The fire on floor 12 was burned out well before it is meant to have caused the initiating event anyway.

20 minutes? really, so not 21, not 19, not 15, no 25...20 minutes.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Frank Greening has already sent his concerns about the wtc7 report to NIST and they were ignored.

I have no expertise in building collapses but neither do most of the people here. One advantage I do have over you all is that I have actually read the report.

Frank Greening, while a very intelligent man, is A CHEMIST. He is not a structural engineer, he is not a firefighter, he is not a fire safety engineer.

HE IS A CHEMIST. While his concerns may or may not be valid, don't parading him in here like he is the expert on the matter...by a stretch. The people who actually wrote the NIST report have VASTLY SUPERIOR qualifications in the particular field of interest.

TAM

 

[Bullwinkle2009]

Hi, A chemist? Then he must know more about detecting and analyzing mysterious compounds. (you know, the stuff you do not find after ORDINARY office fires)

 

[T.A.M.]

Hi, A chemist? Then he must know more about detecting and analyzing mysterious compounds. (you know, the stuff you do not find after ORDINARY office fires)

1. Why do you always start every post with Hi?

2. You mean like thermite? Curious you are. Gonna keep an eye on your posts.

TAM

 

[Bullwinkle2009]

Hi, (Don't really know just seems like the polite way to start I am not an internet person) I think I understand what the point of all this thread has been all along now. Why does it always take so long to get where they want us to go? I think we are going to find out why Franks ignored concerns are pertinent. It seems not to be relevant that WTC7 collapsed becaused of normal office fire.

 

[tsig]

AH, so the cronies over at AE are using evidence and analysis provided BY NIST, to show NIST that they are wrong...wow...just wow!!!





20 minutes? really, so not 21, not 19, not 15, no 25...20 minutes.

TAM

It's NYC so the fire had strict union rules.

 

[thecritta]

Yes.

What else were they fuelled by, if not office contents?

thermite maybe lol

 

[JackDaniels]

what is so hard to understand about the fact that building 7 fell because of structural damage and fires caused by the collapsing Twin Towers? How and why can Truthers be so blind to the obvious?

Structural damage played a negligible role according to NIST. The NIST report says the collapse of 7 was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. They refer to it as an "extraordinary event". It is not so simple as you are making it out to be.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The OP is very deceptive in claiming that damage caused by the towers collapse contributed to 7's collapse.

Show me exactly how and where the OP makes that claim, please.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Structural damage played a negligible role according to NIST.

Well, no. They do point out that, although the building would still have collapsed absent the structural damage, details of the collapse would have been significantly different.

But, in any case, citing NIST as a rebuttal to the claim that structural damage was a significant factor in the collapse is to acknowledge NIST's authority to comment on the cause of the collapse, in which case it implies that their findings have merit. Their findings are that the collapse was caused by the fires in the building which were started by the debris from WTC1, and that alternative theories for the cause of the collapse are wildly implausible. If you reject that conclusion, then you must also reject the conclusion that the structural damage was not a major causal factor.

So the only choice for truthers is, which way do you want to lose this argument?

Dave

 

[Andy_Ross]

Wow. Way to hijack an OP.

Might as well join in myself

What if NIST got the detail wrong? What if it was column 88 that failed first?
Would it mean that fires didn't cause the collapse?

If it wasn't fire that caused the collapse what was it?

Why is WTC7 important in the big picture?

Was it one of the targets of the attackers?

 

[Dave Rogers]

What if NIST got the detail wrong? What if it was column 88 that failed first?
Would it mean that fires didn't cause the collapse?

No, it would mean it was a different building that collapsed. WTC7 only had 81 columns.

Dave

 

[leftysergeant]

Problem is, there was no fire around column 79 on floor 12 at the time of the initiating event. That is a major setback for NIST's theory.

(Bolding mine.)

Wrong. Where exactly the fires were in the building no longer matters once the fire goes into flashover, because the fire then spreads along the cieling, up stairways, out through gaping holes in the wall punched out by falling debris that delivers the energy of a large artillery round.

You can only count on this: The heat was never uniformly applied, which would make the steel expand and contract very unevenly. All of the cructures that collapsed were designed to sway in the wind, but in such a way that everything would sway in unison, thus supporting all other members in returning to the original shape. But to move the parts randomly places a bit of strain on connections, making them more likely to fail at a critical point.

 

[T.A.M.]

thermite maybe lol

You are right about one thing, the idea of thermite FUELING THE FIRES of WTC7 is Laugh Out Loudable.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Structural damage played a negligible role according to NIST. The NIST report says the collapse of 7 was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. They refer to it as an "extraordinary event". It is not so simple as you are making it out to be.

To be more accurate, structural damage DUE TO FALLING DEBRIS FROM WTC1, played little role (except for fire initiation) in the collapse of WTC7.

Who is making it out to be simple?

TAM

 

[leftysergeant]

There is another video where a rescue worker says "The building is about to blow up". Is he lying or just getting it wrong?

The indivudal you cite is NYPD. NYPD was informed by FDNY that they expected WTC 7 to come down soon. I doubt that they gave NYPD all of the technical details as to what they saw occurring, as far as apparent loss of structural integrity. It was not neccessary that they do so. What did matter was that the area was unsafe and that they totally did not want anybody within the collpase zone.

So here is a cop who knew that two buildings had already comer down. He probably had not had time to do a lot of thinking about what had caused the failuire of the towers, nore had it been explained in any detail in the news broadcasts. The closest thing he could have thought of to that dust plume was an explosion of some sort.

Do learn how the human mind works.