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."
more whitewashing, make sure you never watch the actual footage of that building coming down either, looks pretty symmetrical to me
The use of language is interesting, don't you think? I'm not prepared to entertain any real conspiracy theories, but I have been fairly curious about one point I can't quite understand: Why are there so many similarities to the way the buildings fell to a controlled demolition?
Almost everyone that watches the collapse of the world trade center buildings and compares them to films of controlled demolitions sees that they look the same.
There are probably many plausible and well researched reasons for this, but no one has addressed them, but merely use language to attempt to discredit any such questions. That's what I find most interesting about the whole thing.
Let's just get this out of the way first. BULLSHIT!
The rest of the world knows something suspicious went on, but America has their head in the sand. Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center? The sheer ignorance of the American populace astounds me.
Let's just get this out of the way first. BULLSHIT!
The rest of the world knows something evil went on, but America has been the target of fundamentalists for a long time. Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing but oxidizing flame was enough to melt or buckle steel in the trade center? The sheer paranoia of the non-Americans populace astounds me.
Now to be a little more creative with my response. Do you care to give a reason that you think the U.S. gov't (or whoever you think actually did it) caused these buildings to collapse? By the way, let me remind you that 2 of these buildings were over 2x bigger than WTC7 and were hit by commercial airliners prior to their collapse. Also, do you have evidence that the building in Europe you speak of was built exactly the same way as WTC7 to use it as a fair comparison in showing off your....um...structural engineering prowess?
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Look, something crooked DEFINITELY went on, but it wasn't in how the buildings were brought down. It's in how the government knew exactly who was responsible, the minute it happened, and flew them the hell out of the country. WE KNOW THIS. Why doesn't anyone focus on it?? Seems important to me. The conspiracy theorist in me believes it is perfectly possible the government hired these men to do it. But I still believe the planes took the buildings down.
Jeremy
I'm sorry, but buildings that large do not completely collapse like that due to fire. That's why firefighters had no fear whatsoever of going in there. You would have probably got at least half to three quarters of the buildings still left standing because fire would not destabilise and collapse every single part of the building. It's crucial to remember that absolutely nothing was left standing. It certainly wouldn't happen in two, or even three, buildings as well, as appears to be the case. The case of the seventh building is still very flimsy, and the whole thing hinges on the fires somehow spreading from other buildings. You can get simulations to say anything if you ask "What if?" for long enough, but that doesn't mean that it happened that way, and real-life experience tells us it probably didn't.
Were the buildings demolished? It's certainly possible, and the manner of the collapse(s) were mighty suspicious, but I have never seen any concrete evidence for that, as much as we might want to get ahead of ourselves. Is there some government conspiracy? Possible, but again, people always seem to jump several steps ahead when they talk about that and we still have no evidence at all. Is the above a conspiracy theory? Nope. It's based on years of how large buildings have tended to collapse, and how they react to fire, and all I and others would like is a sensible conclusion which takes that into account. Repeatedly saying "The buildings collapsed due to fire" and coming up with a theory to fit the facts with nothing to back it up is never going to be good enough.
Cynically, all this report seems to be is a knee-jerk response to the really big elephant in the room - the complete collapse of WTC 7 - discussion of which has been doing the rounds for a while, and has gained some traction.
Troll? Who am I trolling?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
* I * am not accusing anyone of anything! Larry Silverstein did. So please address the question: if it was not intentional, why did he say that it was? Especially when that statement could have had a profound effect on his insurance?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist myself, but I have to laugh heartily at some of these debunkings. The Madrid Tower actually works against you here, and the cited articles actually admit it. For starters, the Madrid Tower is far shorter than the WTC buildings and is much more prone to a complete collapse, which is what we're talking about here. Collapses in taller buildings will tend to leave at least something intact because of pancaking. Secondly, look at the huge intensity of that fire relative to the size of the building itself. It encompassed the entire building:
http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html
That didn't happen in the WTC collapses. Alas, that debunking just raises far more questions than answers. You can't melt all the steel in a very large building to induce a complete collapse, especially not in the lower floors of a building where a fire rages multiple storeys up, and the building will not collapse completely when the upper floors collapse because the lower floors are still sound enough to keep at least something left standing.
and so was Oklahoma City, the attack on the USS Liberty was another false flag, so was Russia's attack on Georgia and incidentally how
WWII started when the Germans claimed they were attacked by Poland.
So there's a big screen TV right before I get into the office and that usually has CNN on all day. Having all the facts I had to giggle at the
mere headline they had scrolling past that read "WT7 myth explained".
At least read these sites and know what they're about:
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/
http://www.truthnews.us/
No. The demolition industry avoids the pancaking of floors, because they want an ordered collapse of each individual floor, or at defined levels, to avoid floors completely pancaking into each other and completely dissipating the energy of the demolition. Thus, you see one floor going, and then the floor below a few milliseconds after to avoid the floor above completely collapsing into the floor below to avoid the collapse from being halted and to avoid debris being spread.
You have to do a controlled collapse of each floor at various intervals to make sure the building completely collapses. If you don't, and all you have are a few weakened floors above collapsing (pancaking) on themselves and on to the floors below, then the floors below will simply absorb the energy, the collapsed floors will fall outwards and keep at least some of the building intact. That's why no building above six stories has completely collapsed of its own accord. There's simply too much of it, unless you've weakened the floors at every level. Seriously. Try this with any kind of model any time. It will run out of steam.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. If you destabilise one floor there is nowhere near enough energy to collapse the whole building when the rest of it is still largely intact. That's why any demolition will demolish a building bit by bit at specific times and at given floor levels to make sure the whole thing goes straight down.
That's why you bring in a demolition company.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth had a press conference to discuss the new NIST WTC7 report.
http://www.ae911truth.org/audio/AE911truth%20News%20Conf%20080821_web.mp3 [ae911truth.org]
They didn't do a very good job programming the sims that ran on those Beowulf clusters. The AE911truth press conference addresses the so-called sims too.
Garbage in, Garbage Out.
I don't believe I've said that all the steel needed to melt at all. This is something you're assuming - for some reason.
However, to get a complete collapse of a whole building that large you have to have destabilised large parts of it at various intervals to ensure that it all goes straight down and not a trace of the structure is left. All the floors below the fire have to be destabilised in some fundamental way to ensure this happens. No demolition company has ever turned up on site and said "Oh, we'll burn five storeys in the top half of this fifty storey building and it will all go down". The entire building needs to be accounted for.
You've offered no explanation as to how all the floors, most of which were completely untouched, below the few floors that were affected by fire became so structurally unsound that they were able to collapse in. Unless this happens, you simply don't have enough energy to precipitate a full collapse from the action of a few floors at the top of the building collapsing into those below. You will still get at least some of the building intact.
I don't. I'm asking the question as to what caused all the floors to completely collapse.
So what if it is ALSO used to mean something else? It was NOT used in that "other" context! He said they decided to "pull", then he said that they watched the building collapse. They did NOT "pull" the building down (the other context that has been mentioned). And he knew that. So... he could not have meant it that way, could he?
I am posting anonymously because I believe the moderating in this forum is unreasonably biased against those who question the official explanation of the WTC collapses, myself among them. I fully support having a new, independent investigation of the WTC collapses, rather than the federal investigations we've had to date. I thought I would include the following quotes directly from the NIST Report which I find interesting and relevant to some of the discussions here.
This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires. (p. xxxi)
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. It was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an airplane. The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from those in the towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously. Instead, the fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings did not collapse, while WTC 7 succumbed to its fires. (p. xxxi)
Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing the critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard, nor was such a noise [heard in] video recordings of [collapse.] (p. xxxii)
The reader should keep in mind that the building and the records kept within it were destroyed, and the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin. (p. 13)
According to the generally accepted test standard... the fire resistance rating for a steel column or floor beam... [is] the time at which... the average column temperature exceeds 538 deg. C (1000 deg. F) or the average floor beam temperature exceeds 593 deg. C (1100 deg. F). (p. 19)
The initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 collapse sequence was the buckling of Column 79. This buckling arose from a process that occurred at temperatures at or below approximately 400 deg. C (750 deg. F), which are well below the temperatures considered in current practice for determining fire resistance ratings associated with significant loss of steel strength. (p. 19)
NIST performed simulations of the potentially severe pool fires that might have resulted from... diesel fuel present on the 5th floor... 4 types of fires resulting from fuel line rupture... were analyzed... NIST concluded that it was highly unlikely that any fires on the 5th or 6th floors contributed significantly to the collapse of WTC 7. (p 26)
NIST also evaluated the possible contribution of diesel fuel from the day tanks on Floors 7, 8, and 9... nearly all [that] diesel fuel... was recovered months after the WTC 7 collapse. (p 26)
Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. (p. 44)
Note Figure 3-14. Buckling of the lower exterior columns... (p. 38)
Once simulation of the global collapse of WTC 7 was underway, there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris... The details of the progression of the horizontal failure
They Bush administration got exactly what they wanted in Afghanistan and Iraq,
No, what they wanted was for the Iraqi people to greet us as liberators, and to begin withdrawing our troops from a peaceful democratic Iraq by around 2004. Oh, and did I mention the profits from Iraq's oil sales were supposed to bankroll the whole thing, so it wouldn't cost the American taxpayer anything? Of course most of us would call this plan criminally stupid, but that was the plan.
they got exactly what they wanted with the Patriot Act
Yes, I wonder how long they'd had that bit of legislation sitting around waiting for the right opportunity.
the FISA bill, wiretapping,
No, they just didn't want anyone to find out they were doing it. They're happy with the recent modification to FISA, of course, but their intention was to simply ignore the law, not change it.
no-fly lists,
I'm not sure how really this benefits anybody. Although Ted Kennedy getting on the list was pretty funny.
they got exactly what they wanted on things like the bankruptcy bill,
I can't speak to this; I'm sure you're right.
now they even got Poland and the Czech Republic to agree to the missile shield, even though it doesn't even work and in both countries the majority of the population are opposed to the project.
Yeah, that was a neat piece of diplomacy. Of course it doesn't work, but that was never the goal of the project - the goal was to line somebody's pockets. Any actual security benefits are icing on the cake.
If you consistently get what you want for 7 years, that's not exactly incompetence.
If they'd gotten exactly what they wanted, Bush's approval rating would be a bit higher than 30%. We came awfully close to electing John Kerry in 2004 even though nobody (including Democrats) actually liked him. Yes, it's a testament to the genius of Karl Rove that Bush managed to get reelected anyway, and that we haven't yet found evidence of deliberate vote tampering by Diebold, but it was a lot closer than they would have liked.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
They were cut with thermite. Look at the videos of the event.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
All Bush had to do was dismantle and stall anti-terrorism intelligence work, and he knew *something* would happen, and soon. He perhaps didn't expect the WTC to be hit, but the incompetence aimed at allowing it to happen was pretty systematic. Once it did occur, it took only a matter of days before it was cynically being spun to sell weapons and make bank for those who profit from disaster. It was a boon for all the institutions of the day, and big media who are wholly owned subsidiaries of the war industry. Perhaps nobody really allowed themselves to admit how they were using it to profit, but everyone did. Iraq was rolled out over the not-yet-cold bodies of 9-11 without anyone blinking an eye, while leveler heads were roundly ridiculed and marginalized.
None of these incompetent fuckers are innocent.
And who most likely told George Bush to lay low and do nothing? Probably, he was sold on the idea in a late night phone conference with Henry Kissinger: "Mister President, perhaps a little trip to Florida is just the thing you need to bolster your plunging numbers..."
In fact, this will be dramatized in my upcoming made-for-tv film "Homeland Insecurity" which will be released on the day Tom Skerritt apologizes for his role in NBC's racist, jingo-fest made-for-tv movie "Homeland Security" (now available on DVD!)
Welcome to the pretendocracy, people!
-- thinkyhead software and media
The main conclusion is that the building came down due to fire, not due to debris damage or some conspiracy demolition team.
If nothing hit the building, then why did it all the sudden catch fire right at the same time as the other buildings collapse? No conspiracy here, I am asking seriously...... Was there an investigation as to what caused the fire?
All points of time and space are connected.
I don't know about Slashdot but WE, the people who believe that the NIST report is nothing more than pseudoscience, ARE NOT KIDDING.
There are over 400 Architects that agree with us. They HAVE the scientific evidence that YOU can see.
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Video interview with Richard Gage (architect) in vancouver on Omni TV
http://www.ae911truth.org/omnitv_interview.htm
Review if for yourself.
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
Do you think the beams were designed so they would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and THEN collapse?
Not hardly. They were designed with massive enough steel beams so that they could be hit by a Boeing 707 and keep standing afterwards.
That picture clearly shows that pancaking creates a LITTLE dust. Only a little. Not the monsterous hundreds of feet tall cloud of atomized debris that was visible all the way up to the astronauts in the International Space Station.
Only massive amounts of explosives can create that kind of massive cloud of atomized debris.
References? Links?
Read the NIST report.
For a pancake collapse to occur, ALL vertical support structures have to be disabled or removed to allow a floor to fall straight down.
No.
I assert that buildings are designed to be survivable and not to suffer complete destruction from fire as is claimed in the official accounts, and you respond by calling someone retarded.
No, I claim you are retarded because you are unwilling to acquire information that is counter to your insane beliefs. It is also good to see that you confirm this in the above sentence.
you do seem to feel it's important to insult people a lot
No, it is not important to insult people a lot. Not if, by "people" you mean "primates with a functioning brain". I rarely, if ever, insult people.
Why is it that in spite of the design, this has NEVER happened before or since?
Because no skyscraper, before or since, has been subject to an accident where the entire support infrastructure failed. The WTC was unique.
HAVE INDEED queried these licensed professionals with literally decades of individual experience (hundreds of years if you count them collectively) on what they think of the official accounts and they all agree that they are extremely dubious to put it mildly.
Yeah, sure, we believe you. You having "talked to" some people is far more valid than hundreds of scientists doing forensic research and actually working on the problem. Besides, when janitors like you ask architects and engineers stupid questions like "it would be impossible right?" they tend to ignore you with a "yeah, sure, it would be impossible".
And to clarify my point about why it is so hard to believe that fire took these buildings down,
Go read the NIST report.
WTC7 was most certainly "pulled" intentionally
No, it wasn't, and the assertion is absurd. Since when did fire crews have demolition capabilities of this kind?
have to wonder since when has the owner of a building has ever had the authority to order the withdrawal of firefighters from a building under their jurisdiction?
The owner of the building never had such authority, however, in a conversation with a fire chief he is allowed to have an opinion.
and there are tons of pictures and vids of smaller buildings toppling over too. I believe you stated the parameters were 47 stories. Now you want to change them,
It was a controlled demolition plain and simple.
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
Larry Silverstein "acquired" his 99 year lease on the 3 buildings (tower1,2 and 7) and purchased billions in insurance immediately prior to the attacks. Funny how only the buildings he owned "collapsed".
second the motives were clearly to convince the American people that war was necessary which provided profits in the hundreds of billions of dollars for the Bush family and his oil buddies as well as the defense industry.
It also allowed them to gain a foothold in an area of the world they have wanted for a long time.
Finally, every major war has been started by a false flag operation. The Vietnam war was started by the Gulf of Tonkin attack that officials now ADMIT never happened.
The planned, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as hijacking a passenger plane, sinking a U.S. ship, burning crops and blaming such actions on Cuba. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nixed by John F. Kennedy, came to light through the Freedom of Information Act and was publicized by James Bamford.
But oh no...our government would neeeever do something like that would they?
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
Forget the plane. Forget 9-11. Ignore all outside circumstances, focus on the collapse of the structure. If you analyzed characteristics of the building collapse scientifically, which would you say was more likely? A. It was brought down by demolition B. A 'new phenomenon' occurred via thermal expansion of long floor beams, one column fails and brings the entire structure down with it.