It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# NIST-after kink is formed, the building is 'falling through the air'

page: 1
4
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 03:23 AM
[NICSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This
acceleration was 32f/s^2 (9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity....This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0 s.

so, in the famous, 'north view', of the collapse of 7, after the kink is formed, the building is falling symmetrically, straight down, at free fall speed, the whole time we are viewing from this angle
What can cause the disappearance of over 100+ft. of vertical support, across the entire building, how does 'FIRE', we don't 'SEE', [NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows", affect 'ALL' the steel columns, not to mention according to NIST, an engulfed 12th floor,....with "no visible fire from the windows"

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:36 AM
This point can be pounded over and over again, but what it comes down to is you either understand what this implies, or you just appeal to authority and assume someone has a logical explanation, despite none being produced thus far.

"Falling through the air" isn't accurate, by the way. They said 32 ft/s^2, or 9.8m/s^2, that is straight free-fall without drag. Falling through air means there is drag, but KE=PE contradicts that outright. That building was filled with air, and it was all pushed out of the way before/while it was falling.

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:02 AM
Nist takes all that time building their models and animations but yet why couldn't they of showed one that shows the north tower collapse and how it or what part of it (based off known video evidence of the collapse) scooped out the famous middle chunk of seven?

You would think they might do something like this seeing as there is not a single photo of this supposed damage.

"That building was filled with air, and it was all pushed out of the way before/while it was falling."- Bsbray

How exactly would something like this be done?

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:12 AM

Originally posted by bsbray11

"Falling through the air" isn't accurate, by the way. They said 32 ft/s^2, or 9.8m/s^2, that is straight free-fall without drag. Falling through air means there is drag, but KE=PE contradicts that outright.

bs..have you noticed every time they try to band-aid their incompetent report it gets worse? They have become truly laughable.

[edit on 1-31-2009 by Valhall]

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Valhall
bs..have you noticed every time they try to band-aid their incompetent report it gets worse? They have become truly laughable.

The truly saddening part of it all is that we have scientists (NIST) who believe a free-falling building is logical and worth changing the fire/building codes for.

Oh, that's right, when one really looks at what NIST proposes as changes to the codes, one will see that their new found form of collapse has no direct cause for these code changes.

Widening exit stairs: Yeah, because the stairs were not wide enough, the building fell at free-fall acceleration. (Or fell at all for that matter).

I'd like one of the NIST supporters to actually name ONE code change that is a direct result of NIST's new theories on how that building collapsed. Please.

[edit on 1/31/2009 by Griff]

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Griff

to actually name ONE code change that is a direct result of NIST's new theories on how that building collapsed. Please.

Sigh.....

www.nist.gov...

The model code changes consistent with the NIST WTC investigation recommendations that are now required by the IBC-including those approved at the ICC final action hearings in Rochester, N.Y., during May 21-26, 2007-are:

Increased bond strength for fireproofing

Increasing by one hour the fire-resistance rating of structural components and assemblies in buildings 420 feet and higher.

Explicit adoption of the "structural frame" approach to fire resistance ratings

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
"That building was filled with air, and it was all pushed out of the way before/while it was falling."- Bsbray

How exactly would something like this be done?

I don't know but it's what the numbers show. If they measured 9.8m/s^2, then unless they simply were off, there's really no "adjustment" there for drag. It means they pushed not only the building's mass out of the way, but also air, which has its own mass.

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Increased bond strength for fireproofing

Increasing by one hour the fire-resistance rating of structural components and assemblies in buildings 420 feet and higher.

Explicit adoption of the "structural frame" approach to fire resistance ratings

Sigh.

Not one of those is directly the result of thermal expansion causing a long span truss to break it's connections.

1. How does the bond strength of fireproofing coorelate to WTC 7? Was the fireproofing blown off in that instance?

2. Increasing the fire rating from 2 hours to 3 hours does nothing in a building that is on fire for over 5 hours.

3. Adopting the structural frame approach to fire resistance ratings just makes the fire resistance of other members equal to columns. How is a fire resistance of 3 hours going to stop a long spanned truss from thermally expanding and breaking the connection in a 5 hour fire?

Wouldn't more prodent code changes be:

Limit the length of span to avoid any themal expansion to the point of failure?

Limit connections to those that are able to handle thermal expansion of long members?

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Griff

Wouldn't more prodent code changes be:

Limit the length of span to avoid any themal expansion to the point of failure?

Limit connections to those that are able to handle thermal expansion of long members?

I gave you some.

Now it seems as if rather than asking for code changes that resulted from lessons learned to make buildings safer, you're asking why don't they make code changes that would make them impervious to fire enduced collapse.

I hear one can rent flatbed trucks at Ryder.

That'll make moving those goalposts a wee bit easier Griff.

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 02:40 PM
At any rate here is a full list of code change recs, I believe from the Tower investigation only.

Note that this is proposed recs ONLY. As noted, some have been enacted. Some perhaps not yet. perhaps some never will.

Will NIST make MORE recs from the 7 investigation?

Who knows. Perhaps they will address exactly what you ask. Perhaps the very points you raise will be addressed by the improved fire ratings and/or insulation standards.

But the fact remains that there HAVE been lessons learned from it, and these are just now being enacted into code.

wtc.nist.gov...

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Now it seems as if rather than asking for code changes that resulted from lessons learned to make buildings safer, you're asking why don't they make code changes that would make them impervious to fire enduced collapse.

I hear one can rent flatbed trucks at Ryder.

That'll make moving those goalposts a wee bit easier Griff.

Ahhh. Are we getting a bit confused Seymour? I asked you what specifically NIST requested as code changes due to WTC 7. Now you can't come up with any? Poor Seymour. Now he might be fired from his day job.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 01:47 AM

But the fact remains that there HAVE been lessons learned from it, and these are just now being enacted into code.

wtc.nist.gov...

What lessons Seymour? That we have to improve the fire codes? Boy, any 12 year old could have told you that.

I asked for specific code changes directly resulting from WTC 7. And you can't even come up with one. HAHA.

I hope they are paying you enough when the TSHTF. All I have to say.

Or will they just simply "let you go" like all the other millions of unemployed today?

[edit on 2/1/2009 by Griff]

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Now it seems as if rather than asking for code changes that resulted from lessons learned to make buildings safer, you're asking why don't they make code changes that would make them impervious to fire enduced collapse.

I guess your employers forgot to mention these requests to code changes?

#Requiring buildings more than 420 feet high to be designed to survive a building contents fire to burnout without more than local failure of the structural frame.

Requiring structures not to suffer a collapse disproportionate to a local initiating failure caused by an accident or incident.

www.nist.gov...

You better keep up Semour or, like the rest of us, you will be unemployed also.

[edit on 2/1/2009 by Griff]

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:56 AM

Originally posted by Griff

Requiring buildings more than 420 feet high to be designed to survive a building contents fire to burnout without more than local failure of the structural frame.

Requiring structures not to suffer a collapse disproportionate to a local initiating failure caused by an accident or incident.

www.nist.gov...

If you haven't noticed Seymour. For NIST to make such broad statements of design shows their lack of design knowledge to begin with. That is (I'm positively sure) why the ICC refused to implement these "new codes".

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Griff

That is (I'm positively sure) why the ICC refused to implement these "new codes".

Posting at 4 am? I guess it's obvious why your posts are just so wrong, it ain't funny.

www.nist.gov...

the first comprehensive set of building code changes recently approved by the International Code Council (ICC) based on recommendations from the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

You are citing old positions, Griff.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 10:18 AM
BTW, Seymour, notice that the code changes you are citing are from 2007? When did the WTC7 report come out again?

And again I'll ask: Name ONE code change directly related to WTC7.

Edit: It's funny how the page I linked to is dated October 2008 while yours is dated June 2007.

Now, who is posting out-dated material?

[edit on 2/1/2009 by Griff]

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 10:23 AM
reply to post by Seymour Butz

From your source dated June 20, 2007:

The model code changes consistent with the NIST WTC investigation recommendations that are now required by the IBC-including those approved at the ICC final action hearings in Rochester, N.Y., during May 21-26, 2007-are:

From my source dated October 1 2008:

The changes, adopted at the ICC hearings held Sept. 15-21, 2008, in Minneapolis, Minn., will be incorporated into the 2009 edition of the ICC's I-Codes (specifically the International Building Code, or IBC, and the International Fire Code, or IFC), a state-of-the-art model code used as the basis for building and fire regulations promulgated and enforced by U.S. state and local jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions have the option of incorporating some or all of the code's provisions but generally adopt most provisions.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Griff

I asked for specific code changes directly resulting from WTC 7. And you can't even come up with one. HAHA.

The ha ha's are on you, my friend.

In the 7 final report, they address the long span beams by saying that they should have better fire protection... and to take a whole frame approach to designing the buildings to account for just that.

So they actually DID specifically address it, it's just that you are unaware of that fact.

So basically what just happened there, is that I didn't correct you in my previous post, just to see what you would say, and as usual, you showed your ignorance.

Congratulations Mr.....

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
In the 7 final report, they address the long span beams by saying that they should have better fire protection... and to take a whole frame approach to designing the buildings to account for just that.

How is fireproofing a long span beam for 3 hour rating going to hinder thermal expansion in a 5 hour fire?

So they actually DID specifically address it, it's just that you are unaware of that fact.

No they didn't. You just think they did.

So basically what just happened there, is that I didn't correct you in my previous post, just to see what you would say, and as usual, you showed your ignorance.

Congratulations Mr.....

Go ahead and correct away. I'm sure I'll do circles around your logic.

[edit on 2/1/2009 by Griff]

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Griff

How is fireproofing a long span beam for 3 hour rating going to hinder thermal expansion in a 5 hour fire?

No they didn't. You just think they did.

Go ahead and correct away. I'm sure I'll do circles around your logic.

1-so then you admit that 7 fell from thermal expansion of the floor beam? Good for you.

How will it hinder? Is that the point? Isn't the point to provide enough time to get the people OUT, and the fire fighters IN... all in time to save lives and hopefully prevent the building from collapsing? Or do you think that they should be designed for an event like that - no water to fight the fires, etc????????

Your question doesn't make sense from the get go. You're asking about why aren't they making changes that would prevent a building collapse under similar conditions that existed on 9/11, which is so far outside the scope of any realistic scenario that it's just stupid to even SUGGEST that it should be addressed.

2- yes they did. You just think they didn't because you haven't read where they address it in the 7 report, or have chosen to ignore it in favor of some fantasy about how you're smarter than the collective work experience at NIST.

3-already done. But your ego refuses to accept the fact that you're wrong.

new topics

top topics

4