'What about building 7'?

[Sabretooth]

Try and keep up AE.

All bulges are not created equal.

A bulge may be a global symptom. That is not under dispute.

No evidence was ever presented to support the contention that the observed bulge in the damaged southeast corner of WTC7
was indeed a global symptom.

Supposedly the FDNY had the transit results.

I'm sure they would have provided the NIST with any damning information.

The NIST reported nothing other than the fact that a bulge was reported and a transit used.

MM

Please refer back to Post #836

Stop trying to change the context of why I brought up the bulging. All I point out was that this disproves CD. You are spinning my statements into me claiming the bulging is what caused the collapse. That's rather disingenuous of you.

 

[alienentity]

Funny thing is, in the world of Truthers, where 'there is no such thing as coincidence™'

A bulge developing in a burning hirise is coincidental to the eventual collapse!!

Wow.Just.Wow.

 

[BigAl]

Try and keep up AE.

All bulges are not created equal.

A bulge may be a global symptom. That is not under dispute.

Why do you add unnecessary and imprecise words like "lean" and "global"?

There was a bulge.

By the the afternoon of 9/11 WTC awash in engineers with all the relevant expertise necessary to understand what the bulge meant. They declared the building a loss and prepared for it to collapse.

Why do you doubt the professional opinions of the many eyewitness that have relevant expertise and first-hand knowledge of how WTC7 collapsed? These people say it was fire. There are no eyewitnesses that say that anything but unfought fire was the reason for the collapse.

 

[alienentity]

Burden of proof is on Truthers to prove that the bulge wasn't a symptom of structural degradation of the building, and was not related to the eventual collapse.

Get to work, Truthers, and provide the evidence to support your specific claims (if you have any).

...sound of crickets....

 

[BigAl]

WTC7 - How badly damaged was it.

Pages 299-304 of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 has a good description of the decision process that led up to the conclusion that WTC7 was doomed. This includes who was involved and what they knew about the condition of the building.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1.pdf

 

[BigAl]

I'm sure they [FDNY] would have provided the NIST with any damning information.

The NIST reported nothing other than the fact that a bulge was reported and a transit used.

MM

FDNY did provide lots of damning information about the condition of WTC7.

Read Pages 299-304 of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm

 

[Miragememories]

"Since it was never shown that the bulge was a global identifier than you have no point to make.

If you exclude the NIST, than you had better proffer a new theory and admit you disagree with theirs."

"You're trying to spin this into something it isn't. This isn't about NIST right now.

- I said the bulging disproves CD.
- You say the bulging isn't a global identifier for the NIST collapse sim.

Apples and Horses. You are attempting to change the subject to fit your answer. Bottom line is that a bulge disproves CD. You have not addressed my statement in any qualifying context."

Unless you have a new theory, it is always about the NIST theory, or
controlled demolition. How could it be otherwise?

You did claim that the bulge disproves controlled demolition.

What you made no attempt to do is explain your reasoning.

I'm certainly not going to agree with anyone making an unsubstantiated claim.

My point about the bulge not being a global symptom is quite relevant. Unless
it has a global influence, a bulge has no more significance than a few missing bricks.

If the transit results had proved that WTC 7 had a lean, then you would have
proof that the bulge had a global effect.

But, it still would not prove that the final collapse did not involve controlled demolition.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

Do you have any idea how long it takes to prepare and run a simulation of that
magnitude?

Without proper funding, independent professionals are unlikely to test the NIST simulation results.

MM

AE911T could band together with all the other "Truth" groups and pool their money.....but then Gage et al would have to find real jobs.....

 

[T.A.M.]

AE911T could band together with all the other "Truth" groups and pool their money.....but then Gage et al would have to find real jobs.....

for that matter, between Asner's Mary Tyler Moore Royalties, and A Days Pay for Charlie Sheen, they could get enough money together to have their own independent investigation...

Guess Charlie has got better things to spend his money on.

Same with Alex Jones, who I am guessing isn't hurtin either.

TAM

 

[alienentity]

I'm sure they could tap some wealthy Saudis who would like to prove 'it wasn't us'. I hear the Bin Laden family is well off....

 

[BigAl]

Unless you have a new theory, it is always about the NIST theory, or
controlled demolition. How could it be otherwise?

You did claim that the bulge disproves controlled demolition.

What you made no attempt to do is explain your reasoning.

I'm certainly not going to agree with anyone making an unsubstantiated claim.

My point about the bulge not being a global symptom is quite relevant. Unless
it has a global influence, a bulge has no more significance than a few missing bricks.

If the transit results had proved that WTC 7 had a lean, then you would have
proof that the bulge had a global effect.

But, it still would not prove that the final collapse did not involve controlled demolition.

MM

Nonsense

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Do you have any idea how long it takes to prepare and run a simulation of that magnitude?

No, but NIST does...

A typical fire simulation for a single floor of the building took up to two days with a state-of-the-art cluster of Linux computers. The structural model of the building components used to predict the subsequent fire-induced progressive collapse included more than 3 million separate elements and took about 7 to 8 months to complete a single run on some very powerful computers.

Opening Statement / Press Briefing—August 21, 2008 / Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

But your excuse makes me wonder about truthers' insistence on NIST releasing the data used in this simulation, and then energetically pointing their finger and saying, "See?! See?! They're hiding something," when refused.

If you believe a well-funded and well-resourced department of a prestigious university can't find the motivation and funding to run their own simulations, then what's the truthers' agenda in requesting the data? What could they possible do with it? Do you believe they would have more motivation, more money, and better resources? Pssh...

And people have pulled together funding to study much more mundane things.

 

[lapman]

I'm certainly not going to agree with anyone making an unsubstantiated claim.

Yet you make the unsubstantiated CD claim and you expect us to agree with it.

My point about the bulge not being a global symptom is quite relevant. Unless
it has a global influence, a bulge has no more significance than a few missing bricks.

If the bulge was on one small section of wall, then you would be correct. However, it was a 3 story bulge. That is significant. It shows that the internal structures are starting to fail in that area.

But, it still would not prove that the final collapse did not involve controlled demolition.

MM

Yes it would. Why would they plant explosives in a building that was going to collapse? Then you would have to add the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of a controlled demo. No sound of explosives, No det chord, blasting cap pieces, etc.

 

[JackDaniels]

I have been able to convert the NIST NCSTAR 1A pdf into a raw text file. It's unformatted, but if you're following along in the pdf and want to copy and paste a passage, this should make it easier. I've stored it at MediaFire. Here is the URL:

http://www.mediafire.com/?5m8u8si5mmd12ms

 

[Thunder]

why should I care about Building 7-11?

 

[jaydeehess]

why should I care about Building 7-11?

Why would I care about you not caring?

 

[jaydeehess]

NCSTAR 1-9
August 2008
page 245
Describes the observed fires on floors 12 and 13

col 79 was several dozen feet south of the north face windows. The fire on 12 began at the south end of the east face, skipped past rooms on its way to the north side and west along the north side, only to have some of them ignite later.
On 13 the fire did not skip past rooms in this fashion and instead followed the east side to the north and then west along the north side.
Intense fires also raged in the eastern end of the north side at floors 7 and 8.
All of this would contribute to heating the beams in question as would the especially intense fire around columns 47/48 that really took of at about 4 pm.

While the fires AT col 44 seem to have died down by 5 pm, (picture 5-150 on page 235, shows intense fire still burning east of col46 at 4:40 though) we cannot tell what is going on 50 feet south of the window where col 79 is but what we do know is that the fires on 12 did not move systematically from south to north and east to west.

Cooperman...your delusion that NIST says "fire" instead of "gas temps" is wrong...period.

See attached for an image of NIST figure 3-6.

Pay special note to the text. Here, let me type it out for you:

"Progression of simulated fire on Floor 12 of WTC 7 showing gas temperatures near the ceiling."

Are you sure you want to carry on with your BS "NIST says fire" assumption?

The coop has flown?

 

[jaydeehess]

If the transit results had proved that WTC 7 had a lean, then you would have
proof that the bulge had a global effect.

MM

Since we are picking nits,,,,,,,,,
That's backwards MM. If there was a lean and a bulge then the lean is more likely causing the bulge, than the bulge causing the lean.

 

[leftysergeant]

There is a great difference between a few knocked-out bricks and a bulge in a steel skeleton in a building fifty-or-so floors tall. If you apply a shattering force to an area of bricks, those bricks will fail and leave a hole in the wall. The broken bricks will randomly remove or leave mortar around the margins of the hole. Those that remain will not be much effected, unless the walll was bearing a lot of weight on discrete points, and the hole is directly under one of those points. Then collapse is possible.

Not all the bricks in a wall are holding up anything other than the wall. They do not, by and large, depend on the integrity of bricks more than three or four places to either side of themselves.

Everything in WTC 7 was, in some way, coupled with everything else.

Thus, when you notice a bulge in the side of a steel-framed building, you can assume some wierd stresses are being applied to the whole structure. In a tradintionally-built structure, this would be a major problem, but still not that lethal. There are, usually, many more columns to take the load. This is why there was no global collapse of the other, lower buildings, even through they were totally staved in where debris hit their roofs.

In the case of the towers and WTC, nearly all load-bearing capacity was distributed around the margins. Thus, anything that compromised columns around the margins was potentially lethal. We may never know exactly which columns bulged. They were a bit preoccupied with other things at the time and had no real need to know anything other than that they had to pull the crews from the area for reasons of safety and most efficient allocation of resources.

We do know, however, that structural integrity was compromised, anmd that the buildong could not possibly respnd optimally to the increased and now somewhat randomized effects of heat.

Knowing, as we do, that steel frames do fail when left alone in fires of long duration have a history of failure, the most rational first conclusion that one could reach is that the building was destroyed by the thermal creep which is known to work on the steel of any steel-framed structure.

It is only logical to assume that collapse was due to some other cause ONLY if evidence for such other causes is observed.

None were.

No CD.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Knowing, as we do, that steel frames do fail when left alone in fires of long duration have a history of failure, the most rational first conclusion that one could reach is that the building was destroyed by the thermal creep which is known to work on the steel of any steel-framed structure.

It is only logical to assume that collapse was due to some other cause ONLY if evidence for such other causes is observed.

None were.

No CD.

To be fair to some of the truthers here who are attempting to hide behind the "no-claimer" stance, the real issue in their minds is that NIST's conclusions can't be true because of contradictions in the report.

I have read through the report and saw no such contradictions.

What I did see was that NIST described their conclusion as the "leading hypothesis", and discussed several other possible scenarios, including controlled demolition. CD is clearly a weaker hypothesis because so many unknown and, frankly, outrageous entities must be plugged in for it to work.