Unanswered Questions Surrounding Terrorist Attacks - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Dilbert1234567 · 05-28-2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

My point is that the "conspiracy theories" are the result of official government ineptness, duplicity, insincerity, and or, criminality....not...in spite of them. They aroused suspicions, because their "handling" of the investigation....smells.

You may be freighted to learn that I agree, well all but the ‘handling of the investigation....smells’ part. The government does botch investigations, they are fallible, this investigation should have started from day one, not waited, and it should be closer to being finished by now, if not finished. This still does not mean there was a cover up, just a slow government. A bureaucracy is slow to act on everything, but just because they are slow does not mean they are covering something up. Official reports take a great deal of time; they have to be reviewed time and time again. Look at the Kennedy assassination, they lost his brain, how the hell some one looses that escapes me, but I still don’t think there was a conspiracy, just a dumb intern

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The problem with your theory, IMIO (in my ignorant opinion....) is that you have no way to measure how much of the energy that was generated from the fall of heavy debris from the upper reaches of the tall WTC 1 & 2 towers, was dissipated upon impact with the near ground surfaces, i.e., low buildings, multiple concrete decks and sub-surface structural levels that surrounded the towers' one acre footprints. Energy was also absorbed from upper floor debris, due to "pancaking" of floor upon floor....with floors undamaged by fire or impact from either "attacking airliner", offering the most energy absorbing resistance, since they were studier....harder to pancake.

Again your lack of physics, all the pan caking does not remove energy it only transforms the kinetic energy into a different form, in this case deformation, and heat (and a bit of sound, but that’s actually deformation), a great deal will go into heat, because there is no other place for it to go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

WTC 7 was less than half the height of the twin towers and was comprised of much lighter core steel support members. It is documented that there were hot fires burning in it's contained, seperate debris field, for some weeks after 9/11. It is documented that competent, credible witnesses observed "vaporization" of structural steel from that building. It is documented that WTC 7 is the only steel framed building in history to collapse from fire damage and heavy but localized structural damage. The combined circumstances of the WTC 7 collapse, coupled with the persistent, post collapse, hot fires in it's footprint, and throughout the 16 acre WTC site, the reports of glowing and molten steel encountered in the debris, are enough to arose suspicion in an allegedly ignorant individual, such as I appear to be.

Again the lack of scientific knowledge in this field. A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. And that is exactly what we have here, please read:
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformati...ing/steel.html

As for the source of the sulfur, there are plenty of sources inside of an office building.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

When you add the clumsy BS on the U.S. State Dept. <a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html">web page</a>...intended to rehabilitate WTC leaseholder Silverstein's video documented and unambiguous <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2059787&highlight=silverstein+pull#post2059787">statement of three years earlier....</a>

His statement meets the very definition of ambiguous, not unambiguous, by Saying ‘it’ his statement is ambiguous, he could be referring to anything, the building, the firefighting effort, his fly could be down

. He was referring to the firefighting effort, it was not worth it to continue, and it was hopeless. They watched it burn and eventually it collapsed, the video you show, splices the time so just after he said pull it, the building falls, blatantly misleading people.
Again I ask you to please read http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Call me ignorant...but something is going on that smacks of an official attempt to conceal the truth...the facts...about the WTC 7 collapse, from the American people.

Here are descriptions of the heat and the aftermath of energy absorbing impact of falling WTC debris: (Note the date....9 weeks after 9/11)

<b>Three "molten metal" references:</b>

Sorry this is anecdotal evidence, and we all know that the media spices things up to get ratings. Reporters know nothing about the structures and thus there report should hold no weight. For all intensive purposes there will be molten metal in any fire, what kind of metal is the important thing, it could have been copper (wires), lead (batteries), aluminum (everything), tin, nickel etc. As I already showed, the ‘evaporated steel’ is just the result of steel being heated in a sulfur rich environment that caused it to melt at a lower point than steel normally would.

MSD · 05-28-2006, 11:15 AM

I have posted and referenced this more than once, but have recieved no response. This is a paper I wrote and rewrote concerning the WTC attacks for a class in which my professor assigned us the book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. I have another paper addressing the Pentagon crash if anyone is interested.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/attachm...chmentid=14218
I address the issue of how jet fuel fires, even ones caused by fuel that burned off in a few seconds, were able to collapse the towers. For a bonus, I even throw in a bit on building 7 and how a pressurized fuel line feeding a fire in the middle of the building for several hours was able to collapse it neatly into its own foundation.

Willravel · 05-28-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

well no the fire did not get the temperatures that hot, but you forget about the collapse, we are talking about a 500,000 ton structure falling 400 meters my calculus is rusty, so if some one can check it for me great, potential energy is weight * height * gravity

I get the integral between 0 and 400 of (400-x)*(500000 tons) * (400-x)/400*9.8m/s^2

this gives me 2.37 x10^14 joules of potential energy, this has to go somewhere, some went into sound, and moving air out of the way, but most of it went into deformation and heat (both cause each other) this is why it was so hot inside. Besides that the pile of rubble would also insolate the heat as well keeping it hot weeks after. Further more, great heat can be generated with deformational forces, take a coat hanger and bend it in the same place allot and feel how it heats up. It does not take much to bend a coat hanger, but for objects that do take allot to bend, much more heat is generated; this is the source of the extreme heat in the rubble, besides the fire.

So friction, not fire, is what caused the great heat? What about the several pictures taken of yellow-to-white hot metal falling from the not yet fallen towers?

Yellow fire = moten steel; around 1000 degrees C. If aluminum from the plane or exterior had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 degrees C and therefore would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. However, the iron found in steel could reach the yellow-to-white hot temperatures. Again, I'm not going to try and explain it yet, BUT I will say that I have no reasonable (in following with the official story) explaination for this.

Dilbert1234567 · 05-28-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

So friction, not fire, is what caused the great heat? What about the several pictures taken of yellow-to-white hot metal falling from the not yet fallen towers?

Well kind of, the fire was a great source of heat, and the majority of the cause of the collapse, but the cause of the incredible heat in the rubble was the fire, and the collapse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Yellow fire = moten steel; around 1000 degrees C. If aluminum from the plane or exterior had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 degrees C and therefore would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. However, the iron found in steel could reach the yellow-to-white hot temperatures. Again, I'm not going to try and explain it yet, BUT I will say that I have no reasonable (in following with the official story) explaination for this.

Well first off, we don’t know if this is steel, copper, aluminum, it could be anything, and there are no reports of molten steel being found. I am unsure why you think the molten aluminum flows away from heat; it would pool and flow downhill, which ever way that is. But as for them being ‘cutter charges’ that just is ludicrous, if it were a shaped charge, the effect would be nearly instantaneous, and not leave a long trail, if it was thermite, thermite can only be used to cut down, and cutting a horizontal support on the edge of the building would be pointless, not damaging the structure in any real degree, and visible to everyone, the only important horizontal points are the trusses, but they are inside and would no be visible like this is. Further more, the fire was plenty to take the building down. it could be an exotic metal igniting, such as aluminum, magnesium, or the like.

Another great article on the collapse:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

As for MrSelfDestruct, sorry your post got buried;

As for your paper, it’s good and concise, I agree with it. Thanks for the input.

CB_Brooklyn · 03-19-2007, 02:09 AM

Jerry Leaphart speaks on evidence for directed-energy weapon usage at the World Trade Center on 9/11, and the government's probable plans to use these weapons in Iran.

Leaphart says the attack on Iran was delayed due to exposure of directed-energy weapon usage at the WTC.

Downloadable MP3s of Leaphart's interview:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/257

Leaphart also addressed NIST and NCST regarding the WTC:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/NCST.html

Scientific Paper on directed-energy weapon evidence at the WTC on 9/11:
Drs Judy Wood & Morgan Reynolds
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

host · 03-19-2007, 06:15 AM

To his credit....at the Dec., 2006 NIST meeting, Atty Jerry Leaphart does an impressive job, in his public comments, posted on the NIST website, of mocking NIST for it's still incomplete "study" and it's "findings and recommendations" with regard to the collapse of WTC towers 1 and 2, and he observes that NIST is avoiding citing it's own WTC 1 and 2 "progressive collapse" findings and recommendations:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/LeaphartStatementDec2006.pdf

NIST has "revised" the expected release date of it's report on the reasons for the collaps of WT7, from "early 2007", until "spring 2007". This report is two years behind what was issued in 2005, for public comments, as the "final report" on the collapse of the WTC towers.

IMO, the delays are becoming a "joke". Five years to issue a vital report, from the standpoint of potential remedial action with regard to existing and new tower design and construction?

....and we've heard every excuse for the delays imaginable, from NIST, even that they did not want to increase the size of their staff to do their investigation of the unprecedented collapse of steel high rise towers from fire, so they claim that they postponed an "in depth" analysis of the WTC 7 collapse, instead. No urgency here, and no NIST credibility.

I'm observing though, that newcomers here are posting new threads, and that is good, but they aren't following the posting guidelines in structuring their thread OP's in a way that would state their own positions and encourage comments....and this OP is another example of that shortcoming.

Can we chalk up the failure....the long delays and inconsistencies from NIST as more of that "can do" spirit in the US government of the current era...ala FEMA vs. Katrina, the Walter Reed hospital "mess", the lack of armor and equipment "for the troops", the failure of air defense response on the AM of 9/11, Scooter Libby....a man who was assigned....simultaneously.... the jobs of COS to the VP, National Security advisor to the VP, and special assistant to the POTUS, on National Security, but who had a memory that he paid his lawyers to describe as so faulty, that he could not even remember that the VP told him that Plame was CIA....yet he swore to a grand jury that "Russert told him".....

....or is this like the FBI....losing track of how many phony "national security letters" it issued, to do an end run around the 4th amendment requirement of search warrants, signed by a judge, or the DOJ, firing 8 US attorneys because of their "performance shortcomings".....no wait....it wasn't because of their performance.....it was....and on, and on, and on......

Would a "liberal press", let NIST "stonewall" "what happened on 9/11", with so little comment or coverage?

Seaver · 03-19-2007, 12:50 PM

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/forumdisplay.php?f=45

We have a 9/11 Conspiracy thread already.

Thanks for joining TFP.

Willravel · 03-19-2007, 01:34 PM

Actually, we have several.

This one is in Politics: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=104134

Dilbert1234567 · 03-19-2007, 04:22 PM

the directed energy crap belongs in paranoia.

Willravel · 03-19-2007, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

the directed energy crap belongs in paranoia.

...and if he can't make a case here, he's welcome to start or add on to a thread in paranoia.

host · 03-20-2007, 01:18 AM

Let's see...we have a building, WTC-7 that was reported to have been built with extra structural integrity designed into it:

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million
By MARK MCCAIN
Published: February 19, 1989

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space.

The work, which began last month at Seven World Trade Center, reflects both the adaptability of steel-framed towers and the extraordinary importance of fail-safe computer and telephone systems for the brokerage industry. According to many real estate experts, no company has ever made such extensive alterations to a new office building in Manhattan......

.......After studying more than 50 options throughout the New York region, Salomon signed a 20-year lease for 22 floors - each spanning nearly an acre - at Seven World Trade Center, an office tower that has been largely vacant since Silverstein Properties completed it two years ago.

''We really had a time constraint,'' explained Gedale B. Horowitz, a senior executive director of Salomon. ''And we were driven very much by technology. We had to find a building that could accommodate our needs, including major-sized trading floors.''

Much of the new electrical, air-conditioning and mechanical equipment will serve three double-height trading floors. To create the extra height, workers are removing most of three existing floors, using jackhammers to demolish concrete slabs and torches to remove steel decking and girders beneath the concrete.

After the girders are cut into sections small enough to fit into a construction elevator they will be sold as scrap for about 4 cents a pound.

In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.

''And there were many other ways that we designed as much adaptability as possible into the building because we knew that flexible layout is important to large space users.'' .....

...and from a NIST web page:

Quote:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

....3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition <b>since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires?</b> Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

......14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) <b>taking so long to complete?</b> Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, <b>it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7</b> and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

click here for the rest of the NIST response to question 14 click to show

In 1989, Larry Silverman boasted to the NY Times about the structural integrity and "redundancy" that was designed into WTC7....

....so, even though, by NIST's own admission, no high rise, steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fire, and WTC7 was not hit by an jet airliner, but collapsed anyway, NIST was not concerned enough about the WTC7 total collapse, neatly into it's own footprint, to commit to a timely and thorough investigation of how the total structure failure of that building happened.

...and, even though the collapse of WTC7 was unprecedented, the evidence of news reporting of CNN's Aaron Brown and BBC's Jane Standley, recently discovered....is that both reporters announced that WTC7 was expected to collapse, and they announced that it had collapsed, before it did....and a BBC editor tells us that the BBC "lost" the video tape of Jane Standley's relevant, 9/11 reporting.....

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...itroom.01.html
THE SITUATION ROOM

Americans Mark Five Year Anniversary of 9/11; New Public Opinion Poll on President Bush; Interview with Longtime Bush Adviser Karen Hughes; Rocket Fire Hits Afghanistan During 9/11 Commemoration

Aired September 11, 2006 - 16:00 ET

.....BLITZER: Abbi, thank you very much. And it's vows like these from Ayman al-Zawahiri that officials fear are inciting much of the recent violence in Iraq. Unfortunately today, the attacks continued: 13 Iraqis are dead after another suicide bomber strapped on a vest of explosives, boarded a bus in Baghdad and set off a blast. Officials say those killed were all Iraqi army recruits.

Meanwhile, American troops in Iraq mark the 9/11 anniversary. Among the observers at the Baghdad event, were the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad. And just about this time five years ago, building No. 7 on the World Trade Center complex was reported on fire.

Let's take a look at Pipeline on CNN.com which is carrying CNN's coverage on 9/11, 2001 in real time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: .. you, to be honest, can see these pictures a little bit more clearly than I, but Building Number Seven, one of the buildings in this very large complex of buildings that is the Trade Center, there were, and that is the right way to put it, there were the two towers, but then there are a number of support buildings around it, retail spaces, restaurants, office space, garages. The trains come in from New Jersey bringing commuters, taking commuters back, come into the complex that is the World Trade Center and now we are told that there is a fire there and that building may collapse as well, as can you see. We can see, as we look now back downtown, we can see the billowing smoke......

video and more information about identical, "pre WTC-7 collapse" news reporting by BBC is available here: http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736

BBC editor explains...on BBC website:

Quote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor...onspiracy.html
Part of the conspiracy?

* Richard Porter
* 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM

.......3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World

Read the 227 comments, on the page linked above, below Richard Porter's explanation....

Does anyone else reading this, think that NIST has seemed less than seriously committed to a timely investigation of the unprecedented collapse of WTC7?

highthief · 03-21-2007, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

the directed energy crap belongs in paranoia.

Oddly enough, preceded by:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

If he wasn't serious he wouldn't be posting his opinion as such.

Please keep the tone away from mocking one's opinion.

Which was protecting your opinion.

Dilbert1234567 · 03-21-2007, 06:39 PM

yup. and nearly a year... but mostly, yup.

threeblindmice · 04-10-2007, 03:11 PM

Amazing new 911 truth video.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...third+stage%22

Described as “a collection of short mainstream media and independent film clips on the evolution of 9/11 skepticism”, this is one of the best 911 truth videos I’m come across.

At twenty minutes it’s the perfect introduction to 911 truth.

It avoids all of the usual pitfalls; doesn’t engage in wild conjecture about what may or may not have happened, doesn’t dwell on dubious theories that sap legitimacy from the REAL questions surrounding the events of that day.

Best of all, it stresses the importance of activism and gives a voice to the family members of the victims who are demanding a new investigation.

Really compelling overview and highly recommended.

If you enjoy it please spread it around. This is a masterpiece of agitprop and DESERVES TO BE SEEN.

Thank you.

host · 07-19-2007, 11:44 PM

Read post #166 (above...) to put the following in it's proper context, and this...post #148 from the previous page of this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=148

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

(bump)

So is everyone satisfied with this now, everyone ok with the explanations for what happened. Any more questions willravel

I'll be satisfied when the U.S. government starts telling the truth. BS, like an incomplete, $20 million "sham" investigation, that contains statements like the following two, are not helping to convince me of anything:

Quote:

http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm
Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire
Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. <b>Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7,</b> a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.

Quote:

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire
Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
The final report “Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower” (NCSTAR 1) and the 42 companion reports. NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower

This is the final report on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, conducted under the National Construction Safety Team Act.

...........<b>Extensive details are found in the 42 companion reports. (The final report on the collapse of WTC 7 will appear in a separate report.) Also in this report is a description of how NIST reached its conclusions.</b>

I'm still waiting.....can anybody come up with a link to a "final" NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7?

The "reports_october05.htm" in the last link in the preceding quote box, references "October 5, 2005"......

When you read the latest from NIST, barely covered by the "liberal" press when it appeared 3 weeks ago....consider, from post #171, that NIST decided not to increase it's staff to investigate the total collapse of each of the three largest steel framed structures......ever to totally collapse....and in post #148, that NIST saved no steel samples from WTC 7, and that NIST has postponed release of it's final report on the collapse of WTC 7, since mid 2005, and now announces that the earliest report release will be in "late" 2007.....

The press does not even cover the NIST delays anymore.... and it is documented that NIST did note even begin it's physical investigation of the WTC 1 & 2 collapses until eight months after 9/11. The 6th anniversary of 9/11 is 53 days from now. NIST is the agency that was the premiere fire investigation unit in the world.....and now....because NIST has failed, there is a response:

Quote:

http://www.ae911truth.org/
<center> Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

<a href="http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php">126</a> architectural and engineering professionals and
190 "Others" including A/E Students
have joined us in calling on Congress for a new investigation.
Everyone may join AE911Truth.org!
We have several categories of folks that are concerned about the events of 9/11.
We will post your name after verifying your credentials and/or
information — which may take a few days.
Thank You!!

Mission Statement:

To research and to disseminate the truth
of the 9/11 “collapses” of all 3 WTC high-rise buildings
to every architect and engineer</center>

Quote:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...tc_062907.html
NIST Status Update on World Trade Center 7 Investigation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 29, 2007

CONTACT: Michael E. Newman
(301) 975-3025
michael.newman@nist.gov

A team of scientists and engineers at the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that is investigating the collapse of New York City's World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) building expects to release its draft report for public comment by the end of the year. WTC 7 was a 47-story office building adjacent to the WTC towers (WTC 1 and 2) that collapsed following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. WTC 7 collapsed later that afternoon.

NIST's investigation of WTC 7 includes an extremely complex analysis that incorporates detailed information about the building's structure and construction, as well as data about fires, damage sustained from falling WTC 1 debris and other technical factors to determine its probable collapse sequence.

"We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a wide range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible," said Shyam Sunder, WTC lead investigator for NIST. "The WTC 7 investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."

The NIST investigation team initially worked simultaneously on both the WTC towers and WTC 7 collapses. In June 2004, the team shifted to full-time study of the towers to develop needed simulation methods and other research tools and to expedite completion of the WTC towers report. Work resumed on the WTC 7 study in October 2005.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, as the large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. <h2>NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse.</h2> While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

Updated information with the specific date for the public release of the NIST team's draft report will be posted on the WTC investigation Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov.

host · 01-06-2008, 12:19 AM

<h3>No, You Don't Find ANY corporate owned media covering this story anymore, not in an election year....</h3>

This is "real life", as farce...these "weasels" didn't have the nerve to issue an actual press release on their latest "final" report "postponement" and WTC 7, fire investigation determination:

Quote:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTAC_December18(Sunder).pdf
Dr. S. Shyam Sunder
Director and Lead Investigator
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of
the World Trade Center Disaster
WTC Investigation Overview
December 18, 2007

• While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it is evaluating the
magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more
critical elements.
• The working hypothesis is <h3>based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires
from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.</h3>
• This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the • This
course of the continuing investigation.

....Projected Schedule Projected Schedule
1/08 Complete analysis of initiating event.
3/08 Complete analysis of global building response to initiating
event.
4/08 Identify leading collapse hypothesis.
5/08 Complete draft reports for NIST Team review.
6/08 Revised draft reports transmitted for NIST level and NCST
Advisory Committee Review.
7/08 Release draft reports for public comment.
8/08 Release final reports on WTC 7 Investigation.

If they don't postpone the release of the National Institure of Science's (NIST) "final report" of their investigation of the collapse of WTC 7, the only tall, steel framed building to collapse after a major structural fire, this coming August, as they are now predicting, <h3>the report's release will be within weeks of seven full years since the collapse occurred.....</h3>

....nothing to see here, folks, nothing unusual about a key, fire safety report's release being postponed for three full years....believe what we tell you, otherwise, you'll be considered on the "fringe".

When NIST released the "final report" on it's investigation of the collapse of the WTC towers, in summer, 2005, they told us they could now focus completely on determining the cause of the collapse of WTC 7, into it's own footprint.

Read the comments NIST released above, on December 18, 2007, and then, read this:
(Now, after more than six years, on December 18, NIST seems to have ruled out a diesel fuel fire....)

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A9679C8B63
November 29, 2001
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE; Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel
By JAMES GLANZ

Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire.

Engineers and other experts, who quickly came to understand how hurtling airplanes and burning jet fuel had helped bring down the main towers, were for weeks still stunned by what had happened to 7 World Trade Center. That building had housed, among other things, the mayor's emergency command bunker. It tumbled to its knees shortly after 5:20 on the ugly evening of Sept. 11.

The building had suffered mightily from the fire that raged in it, and it had been wounded by the flying beams falling off the towers. But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country.

As engineers and scientists struggle to explain the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, they have begun considering whether a type of fuel that was inside the building all along created intensely hot fires like those in the towers: diesel fuel, thousands of gallons of it, intended to run electricity generators in a power failure.

One tank holding 6,000 gallons of fuel was in the building to provide power to the command bunker on the 23rd floor. Another set of four tanks holding as much as 36,000 gallons were just below ground on the building's southwest side for generators that served some of the other tenants.

Engineers and other experts have already uncovered evidence at the collapse site suggesting that some type of fuel played a significant role in the building's demise, but they expect to spend months piecing together the picture of what remains a disturbing puzzle

. click to show

''Even though Building 7 didn't get much attention in the media immediately, within the structural engineering community, it's considered to be much more important to understand,'' said William F. Baker, a partner in charge of structural engineering at the architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. ''They say, 'We know what happened at 1 and 2, but why did 7 come down?' ''

Engineers said that here and across the country, diesel-powered generators are used in buildings like hospitals and trading houses, where avoiding power outages is crucial. Partly for that reason, Jonathan Barnett said, a definitive answer to the question of what happened in 7 World Trade Center is perhaps the most important question facing investigators.

''It's just like when you investigate a plane crash,'' said Dr. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. ''If we find a weakness in the building or a deficiency in the building that causes that collapse, we then want to find that weakness in other buildings and fix it.''

In many ways, 7 World Trade Center, built and owned by Silverstein Properties, was structurally similar to its towering cousins across Vesey Street to the south. The weight of the building was supported by a relatively tight cluster of steel columns around the center of each floor and a palisade of columns around the outside, in the building's facade.

Sprayed on the steel, almost like imitation snow in holiday decorations, was a layer of fireproofing material, generally less than an inch thick. Although the fireproofing was intended to withstand ordinary fires for at least two hours, experts said buildings the size of 7 World Trade Center that are treated with such coatings have never collapsed in a fire of any duration.

Most of three other buildings in the complex, 4, 5 and 6 World Trade, stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire.

Still, experts concede, in a hellish day, 7 World Trade might have sustained structural injuries never envisioned in fire codes. That day began with flaming pieces of steel and aluminum and, horribly, human bodies raining around the building.

With the collapse of both towers by 10:30 a.m., larger pieces of the twin towers had smashed parts of 7 World Trade and set whole clusters of floors ablaze. An hour later, the Fire Department was forced to abandon its last efforts to save the building as it burned like a giant torch. It fell in the late afternoon, hampering rescue efforts and hurling its beams into the ground like red-hot spears.

Within the building, the diesel tanks were surrounded by fireproofed enclosures. But some experts said that like the jet fuel in the twin towers, the diesel fuel could have played a role in the collapse of 7 World Trade.

''If the enclosures were damaged, then yes, this would be enough fuel to explain why the building collapsed,'' Dr. Barnett said.

Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks. If further studies of the debris confirm the findings of extremely high temperature, Dr. Barnett said, ''the smoking gun would be the fuel.''

Others experts agreed that the diesel fuel could have speeded the collapse, but said the building might have met the same fate simply because of how long it burned.

''The fuel absolutely could be a factor,'' said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, ''The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse.''

Because of those doubts, engineers hold open the possibility that the collapse had other explanations, like damage caused by falling debris or another source of heat.

The fuel tanks were not the only highly flammable materials in the building. But while some engineers have speculated that a high-pressure gas main ruptured and caught fire, there was none in the area, said David Davidowitz, vice president of gas engineering at Consolidated Edison. The building was served only by a four-inch, low-pressure line for the building's cafeteria, Mr. Davidowitz said.

The mayor's command bunker, built in 1998, included electrical generators on the seventh floor, where there was a small fuel tank, said Jerome M. Hauer, director of the mayor's Office of Emergency Management from 1996 to 2000. That tank was fed by a tank containing thousands of gallons of diesel fuel on a lower floor, he said.

Francis E. McCarton, a spokesman for the emergency management office, confirmed that assessment. ''We did have a diesel tank in the facility,'' he said. ''Yes, it was used for our generating system.''

The manager of the building when it collapsed, Walter Weems, said the larger tank sat on a steel-and-concrete pedestal on the second floor and held 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel. He said an even larger cache, four tanks containing a total of 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel, sat just below ground level in the loading dock near the southwest corner of the building.

''I'm sure that with enough heat it would have burned,'' Mr. Hauer said of the diesel. ''The question is whether the collapse caused the tank to rupture, or whether the material hitting the building caused the tank to rupture and enhance the fire.''

Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

''Any structure anywhere in the world, if you put it in these conditions, it will not stand,'' Mr. Marcus said. ''The buildings are not designed to be a torch.''

No diesel fuel involved in the WTC 7 fires, now according to NIST, no airliner hit the 47 stories tall, WTC 7, six years of investigation, and this:

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A96F948260
February 19, 1989
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million
By MARK MCCAIN

LEAD: BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space.

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space

. click to show

The work, which began last month at Seven World Trade Center, reflects both the adaptability of steel-framed towers and the extraordinary importance of fail-safe computer and telephone systems for the brokerage industry. According to many real estate experts, no company has ever made such extensive alterations to a new office building in Manhattan.

Salomon had tried to avoid the trouble and expense of alteration work by designing an office building, in partnership with a developer, from the ground up. But in late 1987, after the stock-market crash, Salomon withdrew as the co-owner and principal tenant of a project planned for Columbus Circle in midtown Manhattan.

The termination of that agreement left Salomon with an after-tax charge of $51 million and put the firm under intense pressure to find new headquarters space before its lease at One New York Plaza, in downtown Manhattan, expired in 1990. It no longer had time to shape the blueprints of a project; instead, it needed to find an existing building or one under construction that could be fitted for its high-technology operations in about two years.

After studying more than 50 options throughout the New York region, Salomon signed a 20-year lease for 22 floors - each spanning nearly an acre - at Seven World Trade Center, an office tower that has been largely vacant since Silverstein Properties completed it two years ago.

''We really had a time constraint,'' explained Gedale B. Horowitz, a senior executive director of Salomon. ''And we were driven very much by technology. We had to find a building that could accommodate our needs, including major-sized trading floors.''

Much of the new electrical, air-conditioning and mechanical equipment will serve three double-height trading floors. To create the extra height, workers are removing most of three existing floors, using jackhammers to demolish concrete slabs and torches to remove steel decking and girders beneath the concrete.

After the girders are cut into sections small enough to fit into a construction elevator they will be sold as scrap for about 4 cents a pound.

In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.

''And there were many other ways that we designed as much adaptability as possible into the building because we knew that flexible layout is important to large space users.''

Nearly 2,000 people will be working on the retrofit project during the peak period. The cost, which is estimated at $200 million - not including carpeting, furniture and other office equipment - will come out of Salomon's pocket.

''We made a landlord contribution to the work,'' Mr. Silverstein said, ''but Salomon's costs will go well beyond that contribution by many, many times.''

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

To help shuttle Salomon employees between floors, construction crews are adding two escalators and four elevators inside the tower. And to help adjust the floor layouts to Salomon's needs, workers are moving sections of the tower's ''core'' area, which includes pipes up to two feet in diameter and air-handling equipment the size of delivery trucks.

''This is the first time I've every seen such dramatic interior changes being made in a new building,'' said Irwin G. Cantor, structural engineer for the project. ''And the whole world is watching.''

Perhaps not the whole world, but certainly some very concerned parties. Consolidated Edison intends to protect its electrical substation stretched out beneath the 47-story tower. The only existing tenant, an accounting firm, intends to protect its services and security while construction crews work above and below its four floors. Silverstein Properties and the land owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, intend to protect their investments. And Salomon intends to move the work along at breakneck speed.

''THIS is a massive project with a tight time frame,'' said Rudy M. Pavesi, a senior vice president of Morse/Diesel, construction manager of the Salomon project. ''I cannot think of any retrofit project in the city where anyone has spent more than $5 million a month. But at our peak time, we'll be spending more than $10 million a month.''

By next July, Salomon intends to move about 2,000 employees into the World Trade Center tower, and 1,000 more employees by the end of the year.

But given the magnitude and complexity of the construction work, that schedule may be unrealistic.

''Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building - and it's an occupied building, which complicates the situation,'' said John D. Spassoff, a district manager of Silverstein Properties.

Elsewhere in Manhattan, other financial-services firms designing new headquarters from the ground up have not suffered setbacks like Salomon's aborted plans for the Columbus Circle site.

Morgan Guaranty Trust Company is building itself a 1.6-million-square-foot tower at 60 Wall Street that will be ready for occupancy and bristling with high-technology equipment later this year. United States Trust Company of New York will be moving in less than a year to a tower under construction at 114 West 47th Street, where it will be the major tenant.

''If a company can get together with a developer in an early stage, that's the best possible timing,'' said Richard Joynes, president of Hunter & Partners, a construction consulting firm in Manhattan. ''First of all, a 500,000- to million-square-foot user can effectively make a developer's speculative office project work financially, so the tenant is in a much stronger position to dictate terms of the lease. And the tenant can have features built into the space at minimal cost -rather than ripping out floors and making other changes after the steel and concrete is in place.''

Willravel · 01-06-2008, 12:31 AM

They know people aren't listening anymore.

host · 01-06-2008, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

They know people aren't listening anymore.

NIST should suggest to the State Dept. that they revise the propaganda posted on their website:

Quote:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archiv...16-241966.html
You Are In: USINFO > Resource Tools > Identifying Misinformation
9/11 Revealed?
New book repeats false conspiracy theories
The Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.

9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein’s suggestion to “pull it” is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.

Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, “NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition,” in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6). NIST’s working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to “fire and/or debris induced structural damage.” There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. <h3>Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.</h3>

The NIST meeting was held on Dec. 18, and everyone, including all journalists, tv, radio, and independent news hounds were too busy with their near final, pre-holiday preparations, to bother to report on what transpired at the meeting.

Or, they did take notice, but their editors and news directors did not regard any of the reporting that was filed, as "newsworthy". NIST itself didn't bother to release a statement about the meeting or postponement of their WTC 7 report, or their new theory that the structural fires fed only on building materials and the contents strewn about, on each of the 47 floors.

There is this, for you to "chew" on:
http://missingsteel.blogspot.com/

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...2&postcount=58

It will be at least, just shy of seven years after the fact, officially confirmed now, (quietly...) ,by NIST, before we can expect a "final report" on what NIST determines has most likely caused WTC 7, to collapse. I'm wondering if they'll even bother to disclose the next postponement.....

How many years, minimum, will have to pass, with no official plausible answer, as to what caused WTC 7 to collapse, before skeptics will begin to even suspect that our concerns were squarely rooted?

The "missing metal" documentation, is the tale of a "circle jerk". "Real" journalist, who are in the business of speaking truth to power, would at least sit the two "2008" democratic senators down, after asking them or a key staff member to review only what is contained on this page of this thread, and then ask them to react to this information, on camera.

Before you even reply....I know....what the fuck could I be thinking, to post such gibberish? Maybe it is time ti move on, maybe it's been time, since 12/12/00, to look for another country to reside in?

samcol · 01-06-2008, 06:33 AM

I love how it's now mainstream news how the US government funded and radicalized the Mujahideen which is killing our troops today. Charlie Wilson is basically regarded as a hero on the history channel. I guess having 10 manhattans a day and engaging in treasonous activities is something to be applauded.

Anyone who talked about this days or even years after 9/11 would of been considered a conspiracy kook. Why is that different today?

The NIST stuff is pretty amazing in the fact that they are finally talking about what many of us have known about the subject for years. Thanks to Rudy and other war mongers people can't even stand hearing the word 9/11 anymore. There is a total media blackout about this.

host · 01-07-2008, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

.....Anyone who talked about this days or even years after 9/11 would of been considered a conspiracy kook. Why is that different today?

The NIST stuff is pretty amazing in the fact that they are finally talking about what many of us have known about the subject for years. Thanks to Rudy and other war mongers people can't even stand hearing the word 9/11 anymore. There is a total media blackout about this.

They have a of work to ignore.....I mean....to DO....if they plan to publish their whitewash.....I mean their final report on the WTC 7 collapse, before the 7th anniversary, this coming september:

(From the first NY Times quote box displayed in post #176- <h3>"But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country.")</h3>

FROM THE OFFICIAL ONGOING WTC 7 COLLAPSE INVESTIGATION, JUST 75 MONTHS AND ONE WEEK, AFTER 9/11:

NIST audio/slide visuals presentation at 12/18/07 "progress" meeting:

Quote:

http://www.stage6.com/user/ISIS2001/...ember-18,-2007
NCST Advisory Committee Meeting, December 18, 2007

s. shyam sunder

0:19:25

Working Hypothesis not tested preliminary

Normal Building fires not fires from leaking pressurized fuel tanks

0:21:25

Combustibles normal buiding contents

...no fuel ...from day tanks or large tanks

0:22:50

Ventilation somewhat limited

0:46:00

No working sprinklers= Burnout without collapse...nothing in building codes that gurantees that...large floor spans and less redundancy varies how buildings will perform...

Burnout without collapse code change not approved, will be resubmitted

0:49:40

Movement of fires in building one, every 20 minutes..... Building 7 assumption is fuel (furnishings, office paper...) loading 4 lbs.per square feet, uncertainty exists, analysis accounts for that....

0:55:45

Progression of fires observed from video, east, west, north face, provided basis of analysis, increased and decreased gas yemps in models by 10 percent....model runs from floor 4 to 16, and ls-dyna dynamic analysis from bottom to penthouse...beyond 16 stories, weight of the structure is included....

COMMITTEE ASKS QUESTIONS:

0:59:35

Still true that fire initiated in WTC 7 when North tower collapsed, and fire alarm condition was recored in WTC 7 when dust from south tower collapse reached WTC 7, but alarm system was set on "test", and recorded but not heard. Fire may have initiated in WTC 7 when north tower collape

1:01:40

You said fire in WTC 1 and 2 moved every 20 minutes....in any given locations...fire front....fuels feeding fire were consumed, and moved every 20 minutes...fires on multipile floors on WTC 7 were recorded, fires were actually moving at that rate, about every rule of thumb, 10 lbs. fuel per sq ft. one hour 40 min., and 4 lbs. per sq. ft., lasts 20 min. The height of the temp reached and not the duration, is the factor.....

01:05:45

Heat elements in large spans has the effect of sagging.....

01:07:30

Once fire front passes, still much heat and temperatures may not cool down....

01:08:30

Model is more like a series of burners coming on every 20 minutes, all of the heat on the backside of the fireproofing, fire dynamics models, thermal, and gas temps, fireproofing thickness, all taken into account in the models.... maybe fireproofing doesn't work? I'll hold off until all analysis is concluded before a statement will be made about design practices...

( I stopped listening at 01:12:30 out of 01:38:33 total time.)

They'll have to ignore all of this, because it sure doesn't jive with any of the fire damage modeling that they claim they are doing, does it?

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=3
A Search for Clues In Towers' Collapse; Engineers Volunteer to Examine Steel Debris Taken to Scrapyards

By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON
Published: February 2, 2002

...Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.

A preliminary analysis of the steel at Worcester Polytechnic Institute using electron microscopes suggests that sulfur released during the fires -- no one knows from where -- may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures. .....

Quote:

http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah
Volume VI- Issue II October 2001

On October 5, 2001 only
three weeks since the
tragedy of September 11, I
attended the National Council of
Structural Engineers Associations 9th
Annual Conference. The Keynote
Address was to be presented by
Leslie Robertson, the structural
engineer responsible for the design
of theWorld Trade Center (WTC).

changed to, “The Design,
Construction and Collapse of the
World Trade Center.” Needless to
say, the presentation was a very
emotional one.

(Page 3, left side)

....As of 21 days after the attack, the
fires were still burning and molten
steel was still running......

Quote:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-86420025.html
Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero.(Knight Ridder Newspapers)

Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service

May 28, 2002
Lin, Jennifer

Towering floodlights filled Ground Zero with an electric glow last Friday as Joe "Toolie" O'Toole |

NEW YORK _ Towering floodlights filled Ground Zero with an electric glow last Friday as Joe "Toolie" O'Toole, a Bronx firefighter, descended into the 16-acre pit for his overnight shift.

For five months, O'Toole has worked with a crew of 100 firefighters, combing every shovelful of debris at the World Trade Center site for the remains of the dead.

O'Toole said he would not leave until the last mound of dirt is upended and sifted for fragments of bones.

"I'm here till the end," O'Toole said. "How can I leave?"

But that time has come. Thursday, O'Toole will join other recovery workers and the families of victims to mark a ceremonial end to the recovery effort....

....Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.....

Nothing to see, (or think about...) here, folks.....just a normal, 75 months long investigation into an unprecedented skyscraper collapse, with no indication that it will ever explain what and how, it happened....judging by the briefing of Dec., 18, totally ignored by the journalist community in the U.S.

fastom · 01-08-2008, 12:36 AM

How did i not see this post before? Great find on that Salomon Bros renovation! Pretty damning evidence there if somebody was trying to think how it actually could collapse rather just try to make the official lie fit.

There is so much false information out there and so many things that can be disproved and so few than can be proved that every aspect needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I have seen the same shots of the Pentagon in much larger and clearer size and not only is the computer monitor unscathed but there's a stack of papers that aren't burnt or blown all over. C'mon, this melted the stainless and titanium aircraft parts a few yards away?

host · 01-20-2008, 01:01 PM

Over on the http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...85#post2384285 thread, in post #993,

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

There is no evidence to suggest a "directed energy weapon". That damages the case to get questions answered more than any other single theory, including the Loose Change "Die Hard with a Vengeance" theory.

I thought it best to fully reply to willravel's comments on this thread. I want to stess that it is not neccessary or required, it is actually detrimental, when challenging the governments official account of what happened on 9/11 at the WTC complex in lower Manhattan, <h3>to offer any alternative opinion as to what did cause the collapse. Simply let the government prove its case....it's done a curiously insufficient job of doing it, so far....</h3>

It is best to simply point out, at least so far, that "the facts", or lack of them, compared to the government's account, simply speak for themselves. It is charitable, given the conflicting statements, lack of action, oft repeated postponement of findings, status of evidence, and in the case of structural steel debris from WTC 7, if there even is any, to say after nearly 6-1/2 years, that it is best to continue to wait for NIST to issue it's report on the WTC 7 collapse.

Waiting and watching are the best responses. It is up to the government to back it's assertions, and, as of today, it does not seem that they are doing a credible or competent job of it, does it?

Remember the government's investigative response to the mid-air explosion and crash into the ocean, south of the LI shore, of TWA Flt 800, in June, 1996. The debris from the airliner was recovered from the ocean, painstakingly reassembled in an LI aircraft hanger, studied for possible clues to the cause of the explosion and crash, and a report was issued, 18 months later:

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9707/twa.800/reports/
NTSB releases TWA Flight 800 crash report
TWA/NTSB graphic

December 8, 1997

(CNN) -- The National Transportation Safety Board on Sunday released documents detailing its extensive, 17-month investigation into the crash of TWA Flight 800. The documents will serve as evidence for the week-long NTSB public hearing on the investigation which started Monday. CNN Interactive will provide a live Webcast of the hearing.

The documents include airplane maintenance records, reports on how the plane came apart, diagrams of where parts of the plane were found and information on the reconstruction of the wreckage. Select documents are available here. The remaining documents are available for download from CNN Interactive or the NTSB Web site......

Contrast the TWA Flt 800 investigation, the hurdles faced in recovering the airliner debris from the bottom of near shore ocean, the timeliness of the investigation and issuance of a report determining what happened, and the NIST investigation of the collapse of 47 story, WTC 7.

<h3>It was supposed to be important to engineers, to determine ASAP, what brought down WTC 7, the only "modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire".... declared a news report, six years ago:</h3>

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A9679C8B63
November 29, 2001
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE; Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel
By JAMES GLANZ

Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire.

Engineers and other experts, who quickly came to understand how hurtling airplanes and burning jet fuel had helped bring down the main towers, were for weeks still stunned by what had happened to 7 World Trade Center. That building had housed, among other things, the mayor's emergency command bunker. It tumbled to its knees shortly after 5:20 on the ugly evening of Sept. 11.

The building had suffered mightily from the fire that raged in it, and it had been wounded by the flying beams falling off the towers. <h3>But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country.</h3>

As engineers and scientists struggle to explain the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, they have begun considering whether a type of fuel that was inside the building all along created intensely hot fires like those in the towers: diesel fuel, thousands of gallons of it, intended to run electricity generators in a power failure.....

Quote:

http://www.construction.com/NewsCent.../20021209g.asp
NIST Not Ruling Anything Out on WTC Probe

enr.construction.com - 12/09/02

By Tom Ichniowski

About three months into a two-year investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, officials at the National Institute of Standards and Technology say it's too early to rule out any possible scenarios for what caused the buildings to fall.

At a Dec. 9 briefing, NIST Director Arden Bement said NIST feels more study is needed to determine which of the various hypotheses about the WTC collapses is "most probable." Bement adds, "We have concluded that it's too early to exclude any potential sequence of events between the aircrafts' impact and the collapse of the WTC towers."......

...........Bement made a request to the public and the media for photos or video images that could aid NIST's probe. More specifically, NIST is seeking images of WTC 7 and views from the south and west sides of the two WTC towers. Bement says, "In particular, there is a dearth of photos of the south side of WTC 7." That side, some have said, was hit by debris from WTC 1, which may have started the fires that led to WTC 7's collapse."....

Quote:

<a href="http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:Z6PqgHiSJQAJ:wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%2520Part%2520IIC%2520-%2520WTC%25207%2520Collapse%2520Final.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1">html link</a> or: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%...se%20Final.pdf

NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of
the World Trade Center Disaster
Part IIC – WTC 7 Collapse

Page 4

Schedule for Completion of Investigation
•
Major focus is on writing the Investigation reports; technical work is nearly complete.
•
The time required to write and review the comprehensive set of draft documents that
constitute final WTC investigation findings and recommendations is driving the release date of
the report.
•
The NIST reports include the overall investigation report for the WTC towers, 8 project
separate project reports, and 34 supporting technical reports, totaling some 10,000 pages.
This enormous task has taken NIST longer to accomplish than originally anticipated.
•
NIST is committed to putting accuracy, quality, and completeness ahead of schedule, taking
whatever time is required to do the job right.
•
NIST plans to release a draft of the final report for public comment in June 2005; public
comment period of about 6 weeks after release of the draft reports; NIST plans to release final
Investigation report in September 2005.
•
<h3>WTC 7 report will be issued as a supplement to the main report: draft planned for October
2005; final for December 2005.</h3>
•
Decoupling of WTC 7 report necessary to accommodate overlapping staffing demands for work
on WTC towers.
•
This change affects mainly the collapse analysis; other WTC 7 work will be reported with the
other Investigation reports.
•
WTC Conference: Putting Recommendations into Practice, September 2005....

Quote:

http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm
Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire
Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. <b>Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7,</b> a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.

Quote:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions...

...14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

<h3>When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation.</h3>
After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, <h3>the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers.</h3> With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses.
<h3>It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.....</h3>/

<h3>Maybe NIST could have "borrowed" some WTC 7 steel, from these guys:</h3>

Quote:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...rman-0112.html
An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.

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. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AB0894DA404482
A Search for Clues In Towers' Collapse
Engineers Volunteer to Examine Steel Debris Taken to Scrapyards
New York Times, The (NY)
February 2, 2002
Author: JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON

....... Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright. A preliminary analysis of the steel at Worcester Polytechnic Institute using electron microscopes suggests that sulfur released during the fires -- no one knows from where -- may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures.............

Quote:

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformati...ing/steel.html
The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel

There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes...........

<h3>Or, maybe this guy still has some WTC 7 structural steel for NIST to examine:</h3>

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A9679C8B63
Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies
New York Times, The (NY)
October 2, 2001
Author: KENNETH CHANG

....Two Wednesdays ago, on his first night in the city to collect scientific data on the

collapsed World Trade Center buildings, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl looked out the window of his

room at the Tribeca Grand Hotel and saw a flatbed truck parked outside.

By chance, trucks hauling steel from the trade center site paused there for an hour or two

before proceeding to the docks, where the steel was loaded onto barges.
Dr. Astaneh-Asl, a professor of structural engineering at the University of California at

Berkeley, changed out of his nightclothes and went downstairs for a closer look. Over the next

few nights, he cataloged 30 to 40 of the mighty beams and columns as trucks stopped in front of

the hotel.

"I've found quite a number of interesting items," he said......

...Dr. Astaneh-Asl's project is one of eight financed by the National Science Foundation to study

the World Trade Center disaster. He is also a member of a team assembled by the American Society

of Civil Engineers to investigate the trade center site, and the society is dispatching a team

to examine damage to the Pentagon.

<b>One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a

47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named

because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures.

Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.</b>

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of

burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse,

which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had

buckled outward.

"This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column," not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl

said, adding, "It had burned first, then buckled."........

Quote:

WRECKAGE YIELDS CLUES FOR THE FUTURE OF HIGH-RISES ENGINEERS EXAMINE TWISTED STEEL DEBRIS

FROM THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS TO SAFETY AND CONSTRUCTION QUESTIONS TO GUIDE

PLANS FOR FUTURE BUILDINGS.
San Jose Mercury News (CA)
October 9, 2001
Author: GLENNDA CHUI, Mercury News

....The evidence was on the brink of being destroyed -- cut up for scrap and melted down to make

cars, appliances and the skeletons of more high-rises -- when he and others intervened last week

to save at least some of it......

''This is the first high-rise building I'm aware of, other than the towers themselves, that

collapsed as a result of fire,'' said Ronald Hamburger, a structural engineer with ABS

Consulting in Oakland who is on the team.

One of the support beams from Building 7 had been heated to such high temperatures that some of

the steel vaporized, said Astaneh-Asl. ''My interest, believe it or not, is higher for Building

7 than for the towers,'' he said, because it was a much more common design, used in perhaps a

dozen buildings in San Francisco and 200 nationwide. So any lessons that come out of its

collapse should be widely applicable......

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5AC0A9679C8B63
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE
At the Site, Little Hope Of Uncovering Survivors
New York Times, The (NY)
September 19, 2001
Author: SUSAN SACHS

....Two buildings, 5 and 6 World Trade Center, have essentially been gutted by fire, said Peter

J. Davoren, a senior vice president of Turner Construction Company. <b>The rubble that once was 7

World Trade Center, a building believed to have been evacuated before it was hit by debris from

the collapse, is still burning.</b> By late yesterday, crews working from baskets suspended by

cranes over 7 World Trade Center were cutting lengths of twisted steel to be removed.....

Quote:

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE
Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel
New York Times, The (NY)
November 29, 2001
Author: JAMES GLANZ

.....A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to

bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the

debris pile that appear to have been <b>partly evaporated</b> in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr.

Barnett said.....

Quote:

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire
Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
The final report “Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower” (NCSTAR 1) and the 42 companion reports. NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower

This is the final report on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, conducted under the National Construction Safety Team Act.

...........<b>Extensive details are found in the 42 companion reports. (The final report on the collapse of WTC 7 will appear in a separate report.) Also in this report is a description of how NIST reached its conclusions.</b>

Quote:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixf.pdf

From page 39 of 68:

At present, there are seven samples from WTC 5, all in the GZ-series (see Attachment 1.2.9). These are
coupons that were removed at the WTC site and held by GMS, LLP. They were subsequently sent to
NIST once the Investigation officially began.
<b>No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7.</b> However, the columns were fabricated from conventional 36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi steel that complied with ASTM specifications.
F.5 STRUCTURAL STEEL ELEMENTS OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE
Of the 41 exterior column panels and 12 core columns positively identified, many were considered
especially important to this Investigation. Two major categories of steel are considered to be of special
value:
• Samples located in or around the floors impacted by the airplane
• Samples that can represent 1 of 14 grades of steel specified for the exterior columns, 1 of 4
grades of steel specified for the core columns, and 1 of the 2 grades of steel for the floor
trusses

from page 42 of 68:

F.6 SUMMARY
<b>NIST has 236 samples from the WTC buildings, the majority belonging to WTC 1 and WTC 2.</b> These
samples represent roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the
construction of the two towers. NIST believes the collection of steel from the WTC towers is sufficient
for the Investigation. This assertion is drawn from the following two statements. First, recovery of
material from locations in or near the impact and fire damaged regions of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was
remarkably good, including four exterior panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns
located within these areas. Second, sufficient representative samples exist for all 14 grades of exterior
panel material, 2 grades of the core column material (which represents 99 percent, by total number, of
columns), and both grades for the floor truss material.
This report identifies the structural steel elements recovered from the WTC towers. Later reports will
determine the physical and mechanical properties of the steels and weld metal and the characteristics of
the metal, weldments, and connections from WTC buildings. Additionally, a damage assessment/failures
mode examination of the recovered structural steel elements will be performed. This information will be
utilized in an effort to determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impact
of the aircraft.

Quote:

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index6.html
March 27, 2006

<b>I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report?

This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year.

NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.”

Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”</b>

....and here we are today: See Post # 176 Link:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=176

NIST claims still not knowing what caused WTC 7 to collapse, their working hypothesis has been revised to exclude building fires fueled by diesel or other petroleum based fuel...to a "working hypothesis of normal building fires"...these would be fires fueled solely on room contents, approx. 4 lbs. of coumbustible materials per square foot, with these combustibles exhausted at any given spot, after just 20 minutes of intense buring, at the "head of the fire", before the fire moves on.

NIST has again postponed release of their final, WTC 7 collapse report until August, 2008, fully seven years after WTC 7 collapsed, if NIST can meet this new deadline:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACmeetingDec18_2007.htm

Willravel · 01-20-2008, 01:25 PM

They won't make a real case because there is no real case. There's too much evidence to contradict any of the official stories.

It should be this:
1) Government makes it's case
2) The case is disproved by facts.
3) We ask for the real story.

We aren't responsible for figuring out what happened, it is their responsibility to tell us.

host · 01-20-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

They won't make a real case because there is no real case. There's too much evidence to contradict any of the official stories.

It should be this:
1) Government makes it's case
2) The case is disproved by facts.
3) We ask for the real story.

We aren't responsible for figuring out what happened, it is their responsibility to tell us.

The December 18, 2007 NIST meeting was a "bombshell" of disclosure and further postponement....now the minutes of the meeting are available, I posted the link in the bottom of my last post. No diesel fuel fire says, NIST, just 20 minutes long, roving fired, feeding on room contents at an estimated 4 lbs. of combustible material per square foot of floor area, with ventilation limited....and this was a big story in the months after 9/11....now NIST doesn't even link the meeting on it's main WTC page http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ or anything else since 2005, and the media provides NO COVERAGE of the 12/18/07 meeting, or of it's disclosures.

<h2>Where is the media coverage? Isn't one major political party's platform totally invested in "9/11", aren't we told we are at war, because 9/11 changed everything? What happened on 9/11, why isn't a major revision to the theory behind the collapse of 47 story tall WTC 7...diesel fuel fed fires, NEWS????</h2>

roachboy · 01-20-2008, 02:17 PM

ok so because i have things to avoid in 3-d, i read this thread pretty carefully through and am interested by it but also a bit confused. the interesting elements are in the proliferation of interpretations of the available evidence--but i find myself wondering the extent to which the problem lay in the nature of the evidence in relation to what it is supposed to "explain"...there are a variety of what i think are frame-generated interpretive differends here. one of the main disputes, dispensed with early on in a way, concerned a political choice--how close one chooses to be to the official ad hoc "narrative" that was in place by the 13th of september 2001, the ur-moments of the idiotic "war on terror" (and all that has followed from that)--which appeared to shape whether the questions about what exactly caused the collapses are or are not material--for....well what?

problem no. 1 then: it seems self-evident that the "explanation" cooked up immediately after the attacks was not based on much of anything beyond the political need to generate a coherent-seeming response.
so it follows that there would by myriad problems created for this coherent-seeming response by subsequent investigations--simply because the narrative was based on nothing, on the loops of video footage--and the political choice was made that a Response was required because, in conservative-land, the absence of a Response was apparently understood as an indication of Weakness, and so there was no time to await any rational conclusions about what might have in fact happened.

from there, the politics surrounding the investigations, their results etc. follows in a straight line.

earlier in here, i think host noted that the ineptness and internal inconsistencies of the various reports on this topic were in themselves problematic--the process "stinks"---the problem with this is that it seems to make of the question of why the wtc buildings collapsed a kind of device for delegitimating the administration's entire "war on terror" etc.---now to be clear i think that the "war on terror" was illegitimate from the beginning, its motives transparent, its inconsistencies with the material world obvious simply because it was based on so little and could not have been otherwise.

that said:
a. could someone who has been engaged in tracking this issue explain to me exactly why the question of how the wtc buildings collapsed is the focus of the thread? in other words, what exactly do you see as at stake here, in this particular dimension of the retro-narrative?

another way of asking the same basic question:

based on this, what scenario do you think better explains not just the building collapse, but the events themselves? i understand that this would be a speculative exercise, but i am curious about the logic that extends the implications of the events at the center of the thread beyond themselves.

anyone?

host · 01-20-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

.....earlier in here, i think host noted that the ineptness and internal inconsistencies of the various reports on this topic were in themselves problematic--the process "stinks"---the problem with this is that it seems to make of the question of why the wtc buildings collapsed a kind of device for delegitimating the administration's entire "war on terror" etc.---now to be clear i think that the "war on terror" was illegitimate from the beginning, its motives transparent, its inconsistencies with the material world obvious simply because it was based on so little and could not have been otherwise.

that said:
a. could someone who has been engaged in tracking this issue explain to me exactly why the question of how the wtc buildings collapsed is the focus of the thread? in other words, what exactly do you see as at stake here, in this particular dimension of the retro-narrative?

another way of asking the same basic question:

based on this, what scenario do you think better explains not just the building collapse, but the events themselves? i understand that this would be a speculative exercise, but i am curious about the logic that extends the implications of the events at the center of the thread beyond themselves.

anyone?

I think that what is at stake is the reliability of the official "narrative". The weakest point in the official "story" is the collapse of WTC 7. It was not hit by an jumbo airliner,laden with jet fuel, travelling at 500 plus mph. It was 47 stories tall, there is documentation provided above as to it's superior structural strength, it is the only structure of it's construct to collapse at a near "free fall" rate....or to collapse at all....as a result of persistant structural fire.

There was a reported interest and urgency, after the collapse, to pinpoint why it collapsed. There is much evidence that it's collapse was predicted and expected, after the twin towers collapsed, but almost now real evidence as to why this was expected, especially since such a collapse was, and is, unprecedented.

That's about all we know, and now, we wait. WTC 7 also housed NYC CIA, FBI, and Secret Service offices, and there were reports that the SEC office in the building housed incriminating evidence that ongoing stock market abuse investigations and prosecutions depended on.

It seemed that there was and is indifference in aggressively investigating why WTC 7 collapsed. There is the added curiousity that the Popular Mechanics magazine analysis of the WTC 7 collapse, intended to debunk the speculation resulting from the initial and incomplete FEMA examination and report of the collapse, turned out to have as it's lead author, a fact not disclosed when Popular Mechanics published it's "findings", one Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of DHS head, Michael Chertoff.

I think we are nearing the time when we can conclude that the government has no credible explanation as to how and why WTC 7 collapsed. When we get there, either by NIST further postponing or by walking away from it's "report", we will see what happens next. I think that the 9/11 attack is too big an event for the current news media balckout to be justified. I think the problem for the news media is that they do not know how to report the NIST delays and revisions.

Bush era apologists will always be there to disparage even reasonable and measured discussions like this one. This is unprecedented, the event and the indifferent and oft delayed investigation. It should have been handled as any other criminal investigation, but with much more intensity and diligence, but, so should the response to it have been handled.

We are left, for now, to share observations of interest:
"City officials" moved incredibly quickly, under the circumstances....during the time when the debris at the WTC site was still handled gingerly, as rescue hopes died hard, and only after many days....no steel was recovered from WTC 7,

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...sq=scrap+yards
September 29, 2001
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE; Engineers Seek to Test Steel Before It Is Melted for Reuse
By JAMES GLANZ AND KENNETH CHANG
The huge steel columns and beams of the World Trade Center are being hauled off to be melted and recycled before engineers can inspect the twisted metal, which they say could hold important clues on how to build safer skyscrapers in the future.

The city has signed a contract that allows two New Jersey firms to recycle the estimated 310,000 tons of steel from the trade center site, including some 90,000 tons from each tower.

Kenneth Holden, commissioner of the department of design and construction, <h3>said the deal would help to recoup at least a tiny part of the original value of the towers and to dispose of the wreckage in an environmentally responsible way. He could not provide an estimate for the value of the steel.</h3> Ultimately the money would probably go to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the buildings.

But some engineers, including a team assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers, say that examination of the steel could allow them to piece together the precise chain of events that led to the collapse of the buildings.

''If we don't collect the unbelievably valuable data, it will be a second tragedy,'' said Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, professor of structural engineering at the University of California at Berkeley and a member of the engineering society's team. Dr. Astaneh-Asl is also the recipient of one of eight grants awarded yesterday by the National Science Foundation to investigate the disaster.

Commissioner Holden said that while agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the office of the city medical examiner did inspect the steel for crime scene clues and human remains, no engineering examinations were taking place.

Mr. Holden said that while he would probably not object to allowing engineers to perform such examinations, his first priority was clearing the site so that human remains might be recovered.

''Our focus right now is moving steel out to see if we can find bodies alive or dead,'' Mr. Holden said.

Some of the steel is already being cut up for recycling at the two firms that were awarded contracts: Hugo Neu Schnitzer East in Jersey City and Metal Management of Newark.

''We thought they were going to be held for at least a while until we could get to them,'' said Dr. W. Gene Corley, senior vice president of Construction Technologies Laboratories in Skokie, Ill., and the leader of a 12-member team from the civil engineering society that would like to study the wreckage. ''If they're recycling all of it, that would make it more difficult.''

Dr. Corley said it was most important to set aside the parts of buildings that were near the spots where the airplanes slammed into them

. click to show

How the girders bent could tell the engineers which part of the buildings failed first. Microscopic analysis of the steel could tell them how hot the fires burned. Taken together, such information could yield insights on how to construct buildings that are more resistant to attack.

''These failures occurred very quickly, and some of the evidence for this is contained in those columns and beams,'' said Dr. Richard J. Fragaszy, program director in civil and mechanical systems at the National Science Foundation.

The two recycling firms said that they would be willing to accommodate the inspections if they could be done quickly, but that they were not aware of the project.

''If they want representative samples, I think that's fine,'' said Bob Kelman, senior vice president and general manager of Hugo Neu Schnitzer. ''We'd be happy to assist.''

The trade center steel has attracted interest in other quarters. Yesterday Police Commissioner Bernard B. Kerik confirmed a report in The New York Post that investigators were looking into accusations that organized crime figures, in the confusion after the attack, had carted away as much as 250 tons of scrap metal to yards in New Jersey and on Long Island. Mr. Kerik said the metal had been recovered. In any case, such small amounts of steel are unlikely to have a significant impact on the recycling operation or on any engineering inspections, should they eventually take place.

James A. Rossberg, director of the civil engineering society's Structural Engineering Institute, said he had tried to contact the city this week about the possibility of doing the inspections.

But Mr. Holden said he had not received that request. In the aftermath of the attack, phone lines running to the city's command center near ground zero were often not working properly and city officials had to deal with more immediate crises. Mr. Rossberg said he faxed the request again yesterday.

''We're trying not to be intrusive, certainly,'' he said, adding that there were ''a number of issues that are taking much greater priority.''

Still, some engineers said that the analysis effort should not hamper recovery work and that if it were not undertaken soon, important information would be destroyed.

Late yesterday, Mr. Holden said that the request from the society had finally reached him. ''I just got handed a letter literally 60 seconds ago,'' Mr. Holden said at 5:40 p.m. He said he would consider the request over the weekend.

NIST reported that "no steel was recovered from WTC 7".... I linked the quote from a NIST web page, in my last post.

I'm just a guy...I have more modest means and less resources at my beck and call, than NIST, or City of NY and other federal agencies. On 9/11, I lived "uptown" in Manhattan.

Less than two months later, I was able to do a short term sublet of an apartment near ground zero....no one who had a choice, wanted to live there. This was my front window view....of the river and WTC debris on it's way in a NY Sani Dept. barge, to Freshkills Land Fill on Staten Island:
<center><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/index/4001119b.JPG"><br><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/4001119.JPG"><br><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/index/4001119a.JPG"></center>
<p><br>
...and this was the rear view, from the roof of the apartment building:
<center><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/index/MVC-006F.JPG"><"><br><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/index/mvc-009f.jpg"></center>
<p><br>
....the point being....it didn't take deep pockets to get a "presence" near ground zero, and I took all of the above pictures in mid-november, 2001, more than 45 days after the above article was published in the NY Times. I think the photos support a contention that the Sept. 29 NY Times article was a "wake up" call, for serious investigators to answer a call to gather structural evidence at the WTC site. My photos show that there was still much debris available, if anyone wanted to look, even 45 days after the report of the rush to remove and melt the evidence, allegedly to recover a relatively tiny amount of money from the scrap salvage proceeds.

I've documented that there was available transport, the dock where the barges received WTC debris was 3 blocks from ground zero, a straightline on West Way, no turns for trucks, except to turn in to unload under a huge rail mounted marine crane. It is known that there was unlimited storage for the structural steel debris at the destination of the transport barges, Freshkills landfill on Staten Island. It was also much less costly and cumbersome to take the steel out via barge, than via truck, over surrounding vehicle bridges to scrap yards, in less than 30 ton individual truck loads, than on the high capacity barges.

I am saying that NIST doesn't have steel samples, cannot make a timely determination, and the structural steel was immediately "disappeared", because it seems that is the way that TPTB wanted things to turn out.

Where we are today, with the non-status of the WTC 7 collapse investigation
is the result of official decisions taken six years ago. <h3>It is for each of us to decide, if some of the official story of what happened on 9/11, say a portion of the story as large as how and why WTC 7 collapsed, and why the investigation of the collapse was so inadequate, that the entire official account will become increasingly less accepted. It follows that the justification for endless war on terror is also increasingly inadequate to sustain the commitment to it.

Ustwo · 01-20-2008, 03:21 PM

Lets get people with internet engineering degrees to tell us how things work.

roachboy · 01-20-2008, 03:36 PM

wrong move, ustwo.

this nonsense contributes nothing to the space and functions mostly to create noise----one-dimensional bickering in the place of debate or even conversations.

do you it because you know there'll be a reaction.
and generally, there is from host....
this time there is a reaction as well, but it's coming from another direction.

if you do not find a topic worth your consideration, you have a back button on your browser (think of it as in the same relation to you as the caps lock is to me).
use it.
it's easy.

the dynamic between you and host changes.
that change starts now.
and the change will come from both sides.
i only chose to intervene in modmode here situationally.

we are done with this bickering.
it either changes because you make it change or it will change because we change your relation to the community as a whole for you.
period.

consider your next move carefully.

Ustwo · 01-20-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

wrong move, ustwo.

this nonsense contributes nothing to the space and functions mostly to create noise----one-dimensional bickering in the place of debate or even conversations.

do you it because you know there'll be a reaction.
and generally, there is from host....
this time there is a reaction as well, but it's coming from another direction.

if you do not find a topic worth your consideration, you have a back button on your browser (think of it as in the same relation to you as the caps lock is to me).
use it.
it's easy.

the dynamic between you and host changes.
that change starts now.
and the change will come from both sides.
i only chose to intervene in modmode here situationally.

we are done with this bickering.
it either changes because you make it change or it will change because we change your relation to the community as a whole for you.
period.

consider your next move carefully.

Keep this crap in paranoia where it belongs then, its a mockery to keep it in politics, and allowing it began the downfall of this forum in the first place.

Edit: And Ill add I had a friend who died that day there, I had not seen him in close to 10 years but he was a good guy and this type of idiocy is vexing. If you want to ban me for it fine, I'll be done with this forum, but nothing will satisfy your conspiracy people here, ever.

MSD · 01-20-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

No diesel fuel involved in the WTC 7 fires, now according to NIST

How do you get "no diesel fuel involved" from that?

Quote:

''The fuel absolutely could be a factor,'' said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, ''The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse.''

host · 01-20-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSD

How do you get "no diesel fuel involved" from that?

The disclosure by the chief NIST WTC 7 investigator at the 12/18/07 meeting, that NIST's "working hypothesis" does not currently include diesel oil fueled fires, only fires that are "normal building fires".....

The transcript of the minutes of the 12/18/07 meeting were apparently not available until two days ago. In this post, #180, I posted a link to the recording of the meeting and a log of the time points in the recording, where relevant points, highlighted below, were discussed:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=180

Quote:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Appro...ec07-Final.pdf

Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
WTC 7 Technical Approach and Status Summary
December 18, 2007

Therese McAllister, Ph.D., P.E.Building and Fire Research LaboratoryNational Institute of Standards and Technology U.S. Department of Commerce

....<h3>The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.</h3>
•This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation.

page 6 of 9

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeet...utes121807.pdf

1/18/2008
Meeting of the National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee
December 18, 2007
Minutes

....Shyam Sunder, Director, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, and WTC Lead
Investigator
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTAC_December18(Sunder).pdf
Dr. Sunder presented an overview on the progress of the implementation of the recommendations
that resulted from the investigation of the World Trade Center......

.....Dr. Sunder provided the committee with a brief overview of the status of the investigation of
WTC 7. The overview included a review of the working hypothesis. He stressed that the
working hypothesis is based on scientific/engineering judgment and simple analysis models, but
has not yet been fully evaluated through rigorous analysis. The working collapse hypothesis has
not changed since first reported in June 2004. <h3>NIST has developed additional detail on the
initiating event sequence based on fire-induced failures resulting from normal building fires
occurring in the tenant floors.</h3>
Dr. Sunder concluded his remarks with an update on the schedule for completing the
investigation. He noted that the global analysis is anticipated to be completed by March and that

NIST anticipates releasing the draft reports for public comment in July of 2008.
Following these remarks, the following questions were posed by Committee members and
answered by Dr. Sunder.
Q: What do you mean by normal building fires?
A: These are fires in spaces where the combustibles are normal building contents, ventilation is
the normal building ventilation, <h3>and there are no exceptional combustibles such as diesel fuel in
day tanks or in large tanks at the base of the building.</h3> In the case of the towers, the jet fuel was
unusual, but even there we talked about normal building fires since the jet fuel burned within a
matter of a few minutes. What burned over the next hour to hour-and-a-half were normal fires
where the combustibles were building contents plus the airplane contents.
Q: But they were ventilated fires?
A: In both cases the ventilation was probably somewhat limited. Typically, when flames
extend out from windows, there is excess fuel looking for air with which to react......

page 2

....Q: The time that the fires will burn is influenced by the fuel loading, so it is not just a question
of building design, but it is also a question of building contents. If the objective is to design a
building for burnout without collapse, then there should also be some restrictions on the fuel
loading that could be put into the building after it is constructed. Has thought been given to that?
A: Yes, decades of thought and research have been devoted to that issue. Fuel (combustible)
loading by itself does not tell the whole story; the rate of heat release in a fire is the most
important factor. This is recognized worldwide and is beginning to appear in regulations and fire
codes. Since the technology exists to manufacture low flammability products, there is the
potential for additional requirements on families of building contents.
C: So, for WTC 7, 4 lb/ ft2 is an assumption that is closest to the observations, but in fact there
was considerable uncertainty as to what the fuel loading actually was on the various floors of the
building.
A: Yes. Remember that this value of 4 lb/ft2 is the mass consumed in the fire. The actual fuel
loading would be higher if much of the combustible mass was contained in file cabinets. The 4
lb/ft2 was the result of an estimate for the WTC towers, based on the combustible mass of typical
workstations and other flammable products and the density of these on the tenant floors. An
estimate for the tenant floors in WTC 7 reached was the same value. There is definitely a
degree of uncertainty in using these values and applying them to all the fire floors in the

page 3

buildings. Our sensitivity analyses indicated that significantly higher fuel loading led to greater
disagreement of the fire simulations with the photographic evidence.
C: That certainly is true; on the other hand, there could be residual burning.
A: Absolutely.

C: Not all buildings are expected to remain standing after burnout. The building codes allow for
“frangible buildings”. That is why we limit the heights and areas of certain types of occupancies
and structures -- so that there is not a catastrophe associated with those kinds of events and so
that we can address the needs of the occupants within a reasonable amount of time should those
structures eventually fail. Most of the codes today assume that there is going to be some
measure of intervention for fire protection of a facility if it is going to remain viable. If that does
not happen, then there is some evidence of structures that have had burnout scenarios but even
some of those had intervention either by mechanical means or by fire department response.
Structures are lost on a daily basis. Residences are a primary example of that kind of structure,
and it is not likely that the codes will mandate that there should be a complete burnout of those
kinds of buildings without failure of the structure.
Q: In your remarks, on page 9, you talk about Case A, B, and C temperatures to be completed
for the 16 story analysis, and then in the next bullet you talk about temperature files for a 47-
story model. Could you describe how the 16-story and 47-story models are interconnected?
A: Yes, there is a four-step sequence of computational simulation, each involving a different
model. We recreated the fires using the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) combined with our best
information about the contents and layouts on each of those floors where significant fires were
observed, which were floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. FDS generated moving fires that gave a
good match to the observed progression of fire available from photos and videos on the east,
west, and north faces. This provided our base analysis, Case A. <h3>Given that there are
uncertainties in the exact amount of fuel and in the layouts, that there are gaps in the
photographic evidence, and that something may have been happening farther inside the building
that could not be seen from the exterior, we decided to bound this fire by increasing the rise in
gas temperature by 10% (Case B) and decreasing the gas temperatures by 10% (Case C). These
changes are within the possible variability of the fires.</h3>
In the second step, the Fire-Structure Interface (FSI) was used to superimpose these gas
temperatures on the structural components for each of the three Cases.
In the third step, ANSYS is being used to determine possible initiating events based on the three
fire cases. The ANSYS model is focused on identifying what local failures occurred within the
structure. This model includes detailed renditions of the lower 16 floors (which encompass those
floors that could have been heated by the fires) so that we can account for the thermal and
structural response. Above sixteen stories, the weight of the rest of the structure is included.
Nothing is ignored in terms of the forces on that structure.

page 4

samcol · 01-21-2008, 09:13 AM

I'm glad we use the mainstream media to guage what is political in nature and what is paranoid discussion.

Willravel · 01-21-2008, 10:27 AM

*MESSAGE FROM THE THREAD STARTER*

This thread is for evidence and scientific discussions only. No supposition, no "why did they do it?", and especially no bullshit pictures intended to derail the thread. Present verifiable evidence or refute it with science. If you can't do that, you will go find another thread.

Ustwo, you're not welcome to post whatever you want in threads. There are rules on TFP and not following them along with disrespecting people tends to bring consequences.

So anyway, getting back on topic:
Let's take a closer look at WTC 7.
47 stories tall, trapezoidal shape from above, 610'H x 330'L x 140'W, steel frame, storage tanks containing diesel fuel, 12 transformers, an emergency bunker for Rudy, 1,868,000 sq ft of office space

Official collapse:
According to the official story, after the North WTC tower was hit it rained debris down on WTC 7 which caused substantial damage to the south face, particularly the bottom of the south face. There was also some damage to the southwest corner. Loss of power to an inadequate fire suppression system prevented sprinklers from putting out the small fires caused by the debris in the far south side of WTC 7.

After the North Tower collapsed, firefighters moved into WTC 7 in an attempt to put out the small fires. A fire was reported burning for several hours. At 5:20 the building collapsed completely, falling into it's footprint due to "weakening caused by fires".

Questions:
One must consider several facts when looking at the official story of FEMA and the NIST:
1) A steel framed building has never collapsed due to fire before 9/11. In 1991, One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia had a 4 alarm fire which burned for 18 hours and literally destroyed everything but the frame across 8 floors did not cause any structural failures. WTC 7 fires were not 4 alarm and burned for around 7 hours. As a matter of fact, scientific experiments which use fires that burn hotter than any known building fire in history used on steel frames without fire protection cannot cause any level of damage to the steel frame.
Conclusion: fire alone is not likely to have caused a collapse at all, let alone...
2) A steel framed building falling at free fall speeds into it's footprint?

Please watch this gif very carefully. Please note that this has not been sped up at all. The middle of the building falls slightly faster than the edges (instead of the south, where the damage was reported) and the collapse happens only at the bottom, totally evenly.

Notice the break point?

Now look at the rubble:

The collapse was centered around the vertical axis, it's less than 2 stories high, and it's almost entirely in the footprint of the building.
3) The physical evidence was destroyed. Without being investigated as rubble, the steel from WTC 7 was sold off and was melted down. This is one of the 3 steel framed buildings in history to collapse due to fires, but it wasn't studied?

These are unanswered questions.

fastom · 01-23-2008, 12:46 AM

The WTC 7 fires were not diesel fuel, that is very obvious from the available videos. The fires would have had to have been much more intense to harm the structure.

Maybe i need to throw my barbeque argument in here again. Some people just can't grasp the effect of fire on metals.

MSD · 01-24-2008, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

The WTC 7 fires were not diesel fuel, that is very obvious from the available videos. The fires would have had to have been much more intense to harm the structure.

Maybe i need to throw my barbeque argument in here again. Some people just can't grasp the effect of fire on metals.

On a large scale, uneven heat on opposite sides of a steel beam can warp it with a temperature difference of only 100°F. With enough warping on a large scale, a building whose supports are brackets on a center column and on the cage exoskeleton can pull loose from those, transfer load to smaller supports that weren't intended to bear so much weight, and suffer a domino effect of support failures.

Of course, if people are presenting evidence of energy weapons, I must counter with evidence that Stealth Jews planted tactical nuclear weapons in the towers. Not only odes it explain the collapse, it explains the health problems suffered by workers at ground zero.
http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/new...yasensou.e.htm

Ustwo · 01-24-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSD

Of course, if people are presenting evidence of energy weapons, I must counter with evidence that Stealth Jews planted tactical nuclear weapons in the towers. Not only odes it explain the collapse, it explains the health problems suffered by workers at ground zero.
http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/new...yasensou.e.htm

اود ان اعرف المزيد من هذه... اليهود الخفي

fastom · 01-25-2008, 01:17 AM

I won't bother quoting all that BS...
"On a large scale, uneven heat on opposite sides of a steel beam can warp it with a temperature difference of only 100°F. "

No it won't. It will with much more heat ... LOTS more. 100 degrees would be like a beam exposed to the winter cold on one side and room temperature on the other. I don't believe many buildings collapse from that.

Again, car exhaustt systems and barbeques are made from this mysterious substance with butterlike qualities you people read about but evidently have never seen or touched.

Sure it's January but go out on the deck and fire up the barbeque and experiment with trying to melt or warp it. Get that sucker to collapse, i'll wait.

MSD · 01-25-2008, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

I won't bother quoting all that BS...
"On a large scale, uneven heat on opposite sides of a steel beam can warp it with a temperature difference of only 100°F. "

No it won't. It will with much more heat ... LOTS more. 100 degrees would be like a beam exposed to the winter cold on one side and room temperature on the other. I don't believe many buildings collapse from that.

Again, car exhaustt systems and barbeques are made from this mysterious substance with butterlike qualities you people read about but evidently have never seen or touched.

Sure it's January but go out on the deck and fire up the barbeque and experiment with trying to melt or warp it. Get that sucker to collapse, i'll wait.

Double checked, it was 300, not 100. And fortunately, no part of my grill that heats up is responsible for bearing the weight of more than ten or twenty pounds. the idea that a difference of a few hundred degrees from one side of a beam to another could warp it enough to cause a collapse isn't mine, it's from a professor of materials engineering at MIT, whose job it is to know about that kind of thing.

And if the difference between winter cold and room temperature is 100 degrees, I'd hate to live where you do.

Seaver · 02-02-2008, 07:29 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9Jh...IDLink=3368785

Bill-owned

Sun Tzu · 02-03-2008, 09:13 AM

05-28-2006, 11:15 AM	#162 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I have posted and referenced this more than once, but have recieved no response. This is a paper I wrote and rewrote concerning the WTC attacks for a class in which my professor assigned us the book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. I have another paper addressing the Pentagon crash if anyone is interested. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/attachm...chmentid=14218 I address the issue of how jet fuel fires, even ones caused by fuel that burned off in a few seconds, were able to collapse the towers. For a bonus, I even throw in a bit on building 7 and how a pressurized fuel line feeding a fire in the middle of the building for several hours was able to collapse it neatly into its own foundation. Last edited by MSD; 05-28-2006 at 11:17 AM..

03-19-2007, 02:09 AM	#165 (permalink)
CB_Brooklyn Banned Location: New York City	Attorney Jerry Leaphart on Directed-Energy Weapons, Iran, & 9/11 Jerry Leaphart speaks on evidence for directed-energy weapon usage at the World Trade Center on 9/11, and the government's probable plans to use these weapons in Iran. Leaphart says the attack on Iran was delayed due to exposure of directed-energy weapon usage at the WTC. Downloadable MP3s of Leaphart's interview: http://www.911researchers.com/node/257 Leaphart also addressed NIST and NCST regarding the WTC: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/NCST.html Scientific Paper on directed-energy weapon evidence at the WTC on 9/11: Drs Judy Wood & Morgan Reynolds http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

03-19-2007, 12:50 PM	#167 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/forumdisplay.php?f=45 We have a 9/11 Conspiracy thread already. Thanks for joining TFP. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

03-19-2007, 04:22 PM	#169 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	the directed energy crap belongs in paranoia. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

03-21-2007, 06:39 PM	#173 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	yup. and nearly a year... but mostly, yup. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

03-19-2007, 06:15 AM	#166 (permalink)
host Banned	To his credit....at the Dec., 2006 NIST meeting, Atty Jerry Leaphart does an impressive job, in his public comments, posted on the NIST website, of mocking NIST for it's still incomplete "study" and it's "findings and recommendations" with regard to the collapse of WTC towers 1 and 2, and he observes that NIST is avoiding citing it's own WTC 1 and 2 "progressive collapse" findings and recommendations: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/LeaphartStatementDec2006.pdf NIST has "revised" the expected release date of it's report on the reasons for the collaps of WT7, from "early 2007", until "spring 2007". This report is two years behind what was issued in 2005, for public comments, as the "final report" on the collapse of the WTC towers. IMO, the delays are becoming a "joke". Five years to issue a vital report, from the standpoint of potential remedial action with regard to existing and new tower design and construction? ....and we've heard every excuse for the delays imaginable, from NIST, even that they did not want to increase the size of their staff to do their investigation of the unprecedented collapse of steel high rise towers from fire, so they claim that they postponed an "in depth" analysis of the WTC 7 collapse, instead. No urgency here, and no NIST credibility. I'm observing though, that newcomers here are posting new threads, and that is good, but they aren't following the posting guidelines in structuring their thread OP's in a way that would state their own positions and encourage comments....and this OP is another example of that shortcoming. Can we chalk up the failure....the long delays and inconsistencies from NIST as more of that "can do" spirit in the US government of the current era...ala FEMA vs. Katrina, the Walter Reed hospital "mess", the lack of armor and equipment "for the troops", the failure of air defense response on the AM of 9/11, Scooter Libby....a man who was assigned....simultaneously.... the jobs of COS to the VP, National Security advisor to the VP, and special assistant to the POTUS, on National Security, but who had a memory that he paid his lawyers to describe as so faulty, that he could not even remember that the VP told him that Plame was CIA....yet he swore to a grand jury that "Russert told him"..... ....or is this like the FBI....losing track of how many phony "national security letters" it issued, to do an end run around the 4th amendment requirement of search warrants, signed by a judge, or the DOJ, firing 8 US attorneys because of their "performance shortcomings".....no wait....it wasn't because of their performance.....it was....and on, and on, and on...... Would a "liberal press", let NIST "stonewall" "what happened on 9/11", with so little comment or coverage?

03-19-2007, 01:34 PM	#168 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Actually, we have several. This one is in Politics: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=104134

04-10-2007, 03:11 PM	#174 (permalink)
threeblindmice Upright	Amazing new 911 truth video. Amazing new 911 truth video. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...third+stage%22 Described as “a collection of short mainstream media and independent film clips on the evolution of 9/11 skepticism”, this is one of the best 911 truth videos I’m come across. At twenty minutes it’s the perfect introduction to 911 truth. It avoids all of the usual pitfalls; doesn’t engage in wild conjecture about what may or may not have happened, doesn’t dwell on dubious theories that sap legitimacy from the REAL questions surrounding the events of that day. Best of all, it stresses the importance of activism and gives a voice to the family members of the victims who are demanding a new investigation. Really compelling overview and highly recommended. If you enjoy it please spread it around. This is a masterpiece of agitprop and DESERVES TO BE SEEN. Thank you.

01-06-2008, 12:31 AM	#177 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	They know people aren't listening anymore.

01-06-2008, 06:33 AM	#179 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I love how it's now mainstream news how the US government funded and radicalized the Mujahideen which is killing our troops today. Charlie Wilson is basically regarded as a hero on the history channel. I guess having 10 manhattans a day and engaging in treasonous activities is something to be applauded. Anyone who talked about this days or even years after 9/11 would of been considered a conspiracy kook. Why is that different today? The NIST stuff is pretty amazing in the fact that they are finally talking about what many of us have known about the subject for years. Thanks to Rudy and other war mongers people can't even stand hearing the word 9/11 anymore. There is a total media blackout about this. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

01-08-2008, 12:36 AM	#181 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	How did i not see this post before? Great find on that Salomon Bros renovation! Pretty damning evidence there if somebody was trying to think how it actually could collapse rather just try to make the official lie fit. There is so much false information out there and so many things that can be disproved and so few than can be proved that every aspect needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I have seen the same shots of the Pentagon in much larger and clearer size and not only is the computer monitor unscathed but there's a stack of papers that aren't burnt or blown all over. C'mon, this melted the stainless and titanium aircraft parts a few yards away?

01-20-2008, 01:25 PM	#183 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	They won't make a real case because there is no real case. There's too much evidence to contradict any of the official stories. It should be this: 1) Government makes it's case 2) The case is disproved by facts. 3) We ask for the real story. We aren't responsible for figuring out what happened, it is their responsibility to tell us.

01-20-2008, 02:17 PM	#185 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ok so because i have things to avoid in 3-d, i read this thread pretty carefully through and am interested by it but also a bit confused. the interesting elements are in the proliferation of interpretations of the available evidence--but i find myself wondering the extent to which the problem lay in the nature of the evidence in relation to what it is supposed to "explain"...there are a variety of what i think are frame-generated interpretive differends here. one of the main disputes, dispensed with early on in a way, concerned a political choice--how close one chooses to be to the official ad hoc "narrative" that was in place by the 13th of september 2001, the ur-moments of the idiotic "war on terror" (and all that has followed from that)--which appeared to shape whether the questions about what exactly caused the collapses are or are not material--for....well what? problem no. 1 then: it seems self-evident that the "explanation" cooked up immediately after the attacks was not based on much of anything beyond the political need to generate a coherent-seeming response. so it follows that there would by myriad problems created for this coherent-seeming response by subsequent investigations--simply because the narrative was based on nothing, on the loops of video footage--and the political choice was made that a Response was required because, in conservative-land, the absence of a Response was apparently understood as an indication of Weakness, and so there was no time to await any rational conclusions about what might have in fact happened. from there, the politics surrounding the investigations, their results etc. follows in a straight line. earlier in here, i think host noted that the ineptness and internal inconsistencies of the various reports on this topic were in themselves problematic--the process "stinks"---the problem with this is that it seems to make of the question of why the wtc buildings collapsed a kind of device for delegitimating the administration's entire "war on terror" etc.---now to be clear i think that the "war on terror" was illegitimate from the beginning, its motives transparent, its inconsistencies with the material world obvious simply because it was based on so little and could not have been otherwise. that said: a. could someone who has been engaged in tracking this issue explain to me exactly why the question of how the wtc buildings collapsed is the focus of the thread? in other words, what exactly do you see as at stake here, in this particular dimension of the retro-narrative? another way of asking the same basic question: based on this, what scenario do you think better explains not just the building collapse, but the events themselves? i understand that this would be a speculative exercise, but i am curious about the logic that extends the implications of the events at the center of the thread beyond themselves. anyone? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-20-2008, 03:21 PM	#187 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Lets get people with internet engineering degrees to tell us how things work. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

01-20-2008, 03:36 PM	#188 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	wrong move, ustwo. this nonsense contributes nothing to the space and functions mostly to create noise----one-dimensional bickering in the place of debate or even conversations. do you it because you know there'll be a reaction. and generally, there is from host.... this time there is a reaction as well, but it's coming from another direction. if you do not find a topic worth your consideration, you have a back button on your browser (think of it as in the same relation to you as the caps lock is to me). use it. it's easy. the dynamic between you and host changes. that change starts now. and the change will come from both sides. i only chose to intervene in modmode here situationally. we are done with this bickering. it either changes because you make it change or it will change because we change your relation to the community as a whole for you. period. consider your next move carefully. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-21-2008, 09:13 AM	#192 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	I'm glad we use the mainstream media to guage what is political in nature and what is paranoid discussion. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

01-21-2008, 10:27 AM	#193 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	MESSAGE FROM THE THREAD STARTER This thread is for evidence and scientific discussions only. No supposition, no "why did they do it?", and especially no bullshit pictures intended to derail the thread. Present verifiable evidence or refute it with science. If you can't do that, you will go find another thread. Ustwo, you're not welcome to post whatever you want in threads. There are rules on TFP and not following them along with disrespecting people tends to bring consequences. So anyway, getting back on topic: Let's take a closer look at WTC 7. 47 stories tall, trapezoidal shape from above, 610'H x 330'L x 140'W, steel frame, storage tanks containing diesel fuel, 12 transformers, an emergency bunker for Rudy, 1,868,000 sq ft of office space Official collapse: According to the official story, after the North WTC tower was hit it rained debris down on WTC 7 which caused substantial damage to the south face, particularly the bottom of the south face. There was also some damage to the southwest corner. Loss of power to an inadequate fire suppression system prevented sprinklers from putting out the small fires caused by the debris in the far south side of WTC 7. After the North Tower collapsed, firefighters moved into WTC 7 in an attempt to put out the small fires. A fire was reported burning for several hours. At 5:20 the building collapsed completely, falling into it's footprint due to "weakening caused by fires". Questions: One must consider several facts when looking at the official story of FEMA and the NIST: 1) A steel framed building has never collapsed due to fire before 9/11. In 1991, One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia had a 4 alarm fire which burned for 18 hours and literally destroyed everything but the frame across 8 floors did not cause any structural failures. WTC 7 fires were not 4 alarm and burned for around 7 hours. As a matter of fact, scientific experiments which use fires that burn hotter than any known building fire in history used on steel frames without fire protection cannot cause any level of damage to the steel frame. Conclusion: fire alone is not likely to have caused a collapse at all, let alone... 2) A steel framed building falling at free fall speeds into it's footprint? Please watch this gif very carefully. Please note that this has not been sped up at all. The middle of the building falls slightly faster than the edges (instead of the south, where the damage was reported) and the collapse happens only at the bottom, totally evenly. Notice the break point? Now look at the rubble: The collapse was centered around the vertical axis, it's less than 2 stories high, and it's almost entirely in the footprint of the building. 3) The physical evidence was destroyed. Without being investigated as rubble, the steel from WTC 7 was sold off and was melted down. This is one of the 3 steel framed buildings in history to collapse due to fires, but it wasn't studied? These are unanswered questions. Last edited by Willravel; 01-21-2008 at 11:55 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

01-23-2008, 12:46 AM	#194 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	The WTC 7 fires were not diesel fuel, that is very obvious from the available videos. The fires would have had to have been much more intense to harm the structure. Maybe i need to throw my barbeque argument in here again. Some people just can't grasp the effect of fire on metals.

01-25-2008, 01:17 AM	#197 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	I won't bother quoting all that BS... "On a large scale, uneven heat on opposite sides of a steel beam can warp it with a temperature difference of only 100°F. " No it won't. It will with much more heat ... LOTS more. 100 degrees would be like a beam exposed to the winter cold on one side and room temperature on the other. I don't believe many buildings collapse from that. Again, car exhaustt systems and barbeques are made from this mysterious substance with butterlike qualities you people read about but evidently have never seen or touched. Sure it's January but go out on the deck and fire up the barbeque and experiment with trying to melt or warp it. Get that sucker to collapse, i'll wait.

02-02-2008, 07:29 PM	#199 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9Jh...IDLink=3368785 Bill-owned __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

02-03-2008, 09:13 AM	#200 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BUXglJU2w6U&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BUXglJU2w6U&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> Bill does nothing to address "inside job" theory of having information and doing nothing about it. He does address this theory, but then again- he should with all the stock his wife owns. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/74LRpnnRm20&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/74LRpnnRm20&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking* Last edited by Sun Tzu; 02-03-2008 at 09:17 AM..