Slashdot Mirror
NIST Releases Report On WTC 7 Collapse
photonic writes "After three years of study, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) finally released its report on the collapse of World Trade Center building 7. The main conclusion is that the building came down due to fire, not due to debris damage or some conspiracy demolition team. The fire started pretty small after the collapse of WTC 1, but was left to burn several floors out completely. The important finding is that the collapse was triggered by thermal expansion of beams, which could detach asymmetrically loaded girders from the main columns. Some limited pancaking of floors then caused a lack of lateral support and buckling of a single column. This triggered the failure of the entire core of the building, which finally fell down as a single piece. Crackpot theories can be discussed elsewhere; please limit the discussion to the science here. All documents can be found at NIST's WTC page, which read like a porn magazine for finite element junkies. Simulation movies are also available. And yes, they used Beowulf clusters to do the simulations, some of which lasted for several months."
The sheer ignorance of the American populace astounds me.
Yes, you have several PhDs in the related subjects do you? Thought not. Blame the media and those that control what the masses get to see. There are plenty of people in the US that are not accepting the given "facts". You have no technical skills, you have no science background, you think you're "kewl" because you download pirate software and know what sites give you keys and no-CD patches. But you are a wuss, you are a faggot, you don't even link to the scientific papers contradicting these papers, but you're prepared to dismiss over 300 million people. Now do us all a favor and piss off with your homos.
Right, but rest assured there is no science in this document.
But I take it it's impossible to discuss that with you as you are brainwashed to reply with 'conspiracy theory' accusations (such as the one above) as are most of the American people.
i blame niggers and faggots for the problem.
To get any skeptic to believe those simulation.
They would have to open source the code,
so everyone can check that the code simulate real physics.
Also it still don't explain why bcc reported the collapse 20 min. to early.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s
Larry Silverstein (owner of the WTC) admitted that they had a controlled demolition. Why is this not mentioned anywhere? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
Hey cunt,
Still having your ass reamed by your daddy Osama Bin Laden? You must enjoy being his bitch fucktoy.
... he SAID that they "made the decision" and then they "did it". In the NEXT SENTENCE, he said they then watched it collapse. There is no doubt whatever about what he is talking about. If YOU have doubts about his statements, then you must not know how the English language works.
Imperial:
WTC7 was 741ft tall.
Gravity is 32.1ft/s
741/32.1==23.08s
It should have taken 23 seconds for WTC7 to freefall. It took less. Explain that.
If it was really fire and bent metal, then chaos theory applied means it should never have imploded and fallen on its footprint.
NIST is lying.
They're using their grammar skills there.
It's the difference between arguing "facts" and "beliefs".
"I believe THUS" is not subject to any form of rational proof or disproof.
"But this only happens because people don't just stand there and accept blindly what is told to them especially when it goes against commen sense."
That's the thing about "common sense". It just ISN'T that common.
A NIST engineer, somebody who's actually studied the debris, seen the site, and understands the physics involved says "According to the evidence, it happened THUS".
Bert Armchair, with a lousy example of a third-grade education, is sitting in front of his boob-tube chucks back a Schlitz and goes "Sounds hokey to me. I think Alien Ninjas from the gub'mint blew it up!"
Now what is YOUR "common" sense telling you at this point?
Simply having an opinion and an alternate theory on how something came about doesn't make you an authority.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Bushco did 9/11? Nonsense.
Bushco knew what was going to happen and tacitly let it happen because they wanted their New Pearl Harbor? Yeah, I wouldn't put that past a group of sociopaths.
Fucking hell. Reply when you know what you're talking about. Please. A shorter building is more prone to a complete collapse because there is, ummmmmmm, less of it. A fire in a few floors in a shorter building will proportionately take up more of the building and destabilise the building as a whole more. A fire in two floors in a five story building is serious. A fire in two floors in a twenty story building will not destabilise all of it, although it is still obviously a problem.
Sorry sweetie. The onus is on you. No building above six stories has ever completely collapsed of its own accord because of what I described above, and if all you have as a comeback is "The WTC Towers are different to other buildings", then you have a problem. The question I have is, why are the WTC buildings totally different to every other building that has ever existed and why would a fire in the eightieth floor destabilise everything down to ground floor cascading in a complete collapse to untouched floors? I'm still waiting.
Errrr, yer. So why did a much larger building where large parts of it were untouched by fire collapse?
Because it's all in your mind sweetie. You don't like what is being asked here, and you're assuming I have some government conspiracy packed away when all I'm doing is asking the questions.
Hmmmmmm. So why, exactly, were none of the buildings left standing when comparatively little of them were touched by fire? Why are none of the WTC buildings left standing, when collapses in other buildings have left at least some of the untouched structure? I have a feeling we'll be going around in circles over that one, and sorry, but no, asking that question does not dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.
That's a bold claim. Why exactly?
No. Feel free to fill me in, because you've come up with jack shit so far.
The idea that these buildings were brought down by explosives is patently absurd. Period. However there is a "conspiracy theory" that is, to me at least, plausable and believable. Namely that Bush/Cheney and the other neocons allowed 9/11 to happen by looking the other way, and by not doing enough to stop it.
It is a well known fact, as outlined in the "Project for a New American Century", that Cheney and the other neocons wanted desparately to go into Iraq. It is also a fact that the Patriot Act had been written several years before 9/11, and was sitting in a drawer, waiting to be enacted. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me to think that Cheney would allow America to be attacked in a hugely symbolic but ultimately non-devastating way, as a way of pushing the country into Iraq, and of foisting laws like the Patriot Act on congress.
However, I fear that what I propose here will be lumped in with all of the other crackpot conspiracy theories about demolition teams in the twin towers. There is really no compelling evidence to support what I say. Only a strong suspicion based on what was written in the Project for a New American Century document, and observation of how far the neoconservatives seemed willing to go to enact their policies. America under Cheney and his neocon thugs has been a profoundly unsettling place. I often feel that there is a war being waged right under our noses, against freedom and the ideals of American democracy.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
There is only one way in which buildings fall into small pieces and powder: They were deliberately demolished.
All the WTC buildings had extremely large steel central columns. Heat delivered only at the top of those columns cannot make the bottom, very broad bases melt, even if there was enough heat, which there wasn't.
Never in history have buildings fallen into powder and small pieces, unless they were demolished.
It's a very inconvenient fact, but the the American government is partly very corrupt. As the familes of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis will tell you. Most people in America want to believe that the U.S. taxpayer paying to kill Iraqis is better than Saddam Hussein killing Iraqis.
Hmmmmm, yer. I just wonder who the conspiracy theorists are really.
More than enough kinetic energy where, and what mass starts moving? In what way does this utterly meaningless and non-defined statement pertain to WTC 7 or any of the other buildings? If anything is full of shit, it's that. You can't start a fire and/or structurally destabilise the top few floors in a multi-storey building and have it completely collapse the whole building. Fact. The greater number of structurally sound floors below are more than enough to dissipate any energy and momentum of such a collapse unless you destabilise the floors below (or they are already destabilised) in some way so they respond weakly. Try this on any model that you might care to build. Seriously.
No shit?
3 steel buildings fall over, the first time in history, under exceptional circumstances, one thats required 7 years investigation to explain.... OR, they were knocked down deliberately.
I know where my money is placed.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
Buildings are NOT designed to suffer complete destruction after an accident.
Now we know you are retarded. Please stop posting until you have learned how to read. I never said they were designed to suffer complete destruction, I said that they were designed such that in case of complete destruction, it would be a pancake collapse.
Please go find some references on the assertion that buildings are designed to fail like this under ALL assertions.
Please go and find a place where I said so. Then go and find a course on reading 101.
I wouldn't begin to know or imagine what really happened
Once you have finished Reading 101, try the NIST report. It is quite enlightening.
I actually work with architects and engineers every day
The fact that you clean toilets at an architects office doesn't mean you are an expert on architecture. Also, given the fact that you clearly can not read, you never will be.
I find it ridiculously hard to imagine that a building catching fire could lead to a complete collapse by design.
And I find it ridiculously hard to imagine that someone who can't actually read is still so eager to post drivel in a public forum.