August 21st: NIST report states WTC-7 "Did not collapse from explosives" , page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 17 times


reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 11:25 AM by ThroatYogurt
What caused the fires in WTC 7?
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city’s water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building’s collapse began.

How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report’s probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building’s east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

www.nist.gov...



reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 11:26 AM by Techsnow
Listen to it live now.

noliesradio.org...


View this link to see multiple examples of massive fires (3rd post from top)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

NIST says there was no diesel fuel, which is opposite of what FEMA said.

The column was 15k pounds of fire protected steel and NIST says that it was weakened by the fire. Even the beams on each floor were fire protected.

From what I'm hearing apparently NIST left out a lot of important evidence.

NIST was supposed to be independent and unbiased yet why did they rule out the possibility of explosives or a controlled demolition.


[edit on 21-8-2008 by Techsnow]


reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 11:29 AM by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by Techsnow



FEMA was a preliminary report.

Here is the report on the fuel:

Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?
No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building’s loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.

Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor.

www.nist.gov...


reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 11:44 AM by dariousg
reply to post by ThroatYogurt





Failure between steel and concrete. Long span steel beams. Girder on floor 13 failed, causing floor to collapse. Cascading failures. Column 79 failed.


There was NO cascading failure my friend. Everyone who has watched the collapse KNOWS this for a fact. The damn building FELL STRAIGHT DOWN. No cascade, no unequal collapse between column such and such and floor such and such. It ALL GAVE WAY AT ONCE. Period.

I appreciate you trying to bring this forward but it also seems kind of funny that it would take 7 freaking years for them to come up with a reason for WTC 7s collapse.

It doesn't smell right and quite frankly I still have yet to find any valid information backing their claims on the towers. Why should we believe them on this building? Why didn't 'thermal expansion' cause many other steel structure skyscrapers to collapse after burning MUCH LONGER?

You see, they can say what they are paid to say but basic logic and a basic understanding of mechanics and physics says otherwise.



reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 11:47 AM by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by dariousg




I do not work for NIST i did not write the report. I am only showing you what was brought up today.

I suggest you watch a complete video of the collapse incuding the several seconds prior to global collapse.(penthouse collapse)

You don't beleive it? Come up with your own hypothisis.



[edit on 21-8-2008 by ThroatYogurt]


reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 11:50 AM by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by dariousg



refute what NIST presented today with evidence.

If not, all you have is an opinion. PERIOD.


reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 11:50 AM by PplVSNWO
reply to post by dariousg



Exactly, look how the model shows the ends of the building severely buckling/falling/pulling towards the center of the building. In real life, you can watch the entire building fall in a prefectly straight line. Their model does not fit with observed events.
There TY, I debunked with evidence. Their model is not what happened.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by PplVSNWO]

[edit on 21-8-2008 by PplVSNWO]


reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 11:52 AM by dariousg
Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to
post by dariousg




I do not work for NIST. I am only showing you what was brought up today.

You don't beleive it? Come up with your own hypothisis.



I know you don't work for NIST and I have come up with my own hypothesis on MANY threads. I do enjoy reading your posts WHEN you present information like this. But you are obviously supporting this finding and that's where I have to differ yet again from you.

The building crimped in the middle and came straigth down. Classic demolition style. Period. A fire collapse would have started in one place and then slowly worked itself throughout if it would have EVER caused a collapse in the first place.

I just hate that this report will be the final presentation by NIST and that it leaves so much to be answered just like their report on the towers. It seems to be the way things are done in this administration so I can't say I blame them.

Present partial facts and leave a bunch of holes in the report and then call it good. That way people keep arguing over it while the years keep slipping away. Before we know it 911 will have JFK status. Not that it doesn't already in the CT world but I'm speaking more towards the time line. It will soon be 40 plus years and nothing will be released until all responsible parties are dead. Just like the JFK scam.


reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 12:02 PM by Techsnow
I am still attempting to understand the prophetic news reporting of the BBC



Is this video a hoax or is that WTC7 right behind her head?

CNN prophetic reporting.

Why does everyone know that WTC7 was going to fall? Even the firefighters said it was going to fall in the 2nd video.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by Techsnow]


reply posted on 21-8-2008 @ 12:54 PM by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by Griff



Griff... I am looking forward to your opinion of this latest report.

Thanks!
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 13 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 7 days ago with 13 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 16 hours ago, 26 flags
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 17 hours ago, 25 flags
My Brain = about to explode
  Member Art, Posted 8 hours ago, 22 flags
ATS's Gutter-rats and the 90+ intro thread
  Rant, Posted 16 hours ago, 21 flags
Amazing French Indigo Girl in Africa (Tippi)
  Survival, Posted 7 hours ago, 15 flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 17 hours ago, 130 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 16 hours ago, 106 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 12 hours ago, 65 replies
I saw a cat turn into a bag..
  The Gray Area, Posted 16 hours ago, 40 replies