Fire caused global collapse in wtc7?

because...

Then 7's collapse is studied by these SE's and FE's, and give their best reason why it fell, using every tool available to them. The vast majority of these professionals accept what is said.

Because hundreds of their peers disagree.
You can't say "The vast majority of these professionals accept what is said" without a data sample. Show me a scientific pool where 1500 or so professionals have reviewed both sides of the data and agree with NIST.

Originally posted by jprophet420
Because hundreds of their peers disagree.
You can't say "The vast majority of these professionals accept what is said" without a data sample. Show me a scientific pool where 1500 or so professionals have reviewed both sides of the data and agree with NIST.

Obviously such a poll has not been done, simply because nobody has felt the need. Go and ask the ASCE or CTBUH to help you with it.

Regardless the 'hundreds' of peers are actually quite a lot less than hundreds, and many of them say insane things like claiming the buildings were brought down by nuclear weapons.

Perhaps you could produce a list of people who have viewed the NIST report and alternative theories, and tell us what they say.

Originally posted by jprophet420

You can't say "The vast majority of these professionals accept what is said" without a data sample.

Sure I can.

It would be ludircrous in the extreme to suggest that 'everyone' in the press would cover up for the most hated man in America - namely, Bush.

If there was anything to the claim of coverups, or inside job, or anything remotely like that, someone would all give their left nut/ovary to hang him for what they perceive as war crimes.

The fact that none have done that story - especially now that he's out - is all the proof that I need that what I say is true.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


You're right, you could. It would then be an unfounded statement and everyone who uses logic would disregard it.

reply to post by exponent

Character assassination?:
"I expected more from a varsity letterman"
/the breakfast club rhetoric

I'm only counting the professionals, theres thousands total. If stephen hawking showed up at the party with a tinfoil hat and and a "no planes theory t shirt" that would disqualify all of his work he ever did prior to that point.



[edit on 9-7-2009 by jprophet420]

It's entirely possible that ANY building could fall from fire effects.

please...YOU fine ANY example of a building that has caused ITSELF to have total global collapse at a rate of decent EQUAL to the acceleration of gravity,(9.8m/s^2),
WHEN you find YOUR examples, then we'll look at the causes and compare

There's a reason why these effects are studied in the SE trade

lol...these affects aren't studied...it has NEVER happened before...there is NO comparison

FIRE DOES NOT DO THIS BY ITSELF

Apparently, SE's and fire science engineers are convunced that buildings can indeed fail without these countermeasures.

Not when they realize the basis of the NIST's HYPOTHESIS'S...Why do 700+ architectural and engineering professionals want a NEW investigation...because this doesn't happen from fire...700 professionals who are ignored and want answers that NIST can't supply

The only thing that can be gleaned from the fact that a majority of buildings DON'T fail is because these SE's do a pretty good job.

So give them their props for that.

you have no idea what YOUR talking about....buildings DON'T do this period.....EVERY building has to follow the SAME codes as ANY OTHER building...they ALL have to deal with their own load bearing specifics, and ALL have to follow the SAME basic principals.....YOU IDIOT, 'arm chair' wanna be's, don't have a clue

This alone is enough to prove you have not actually read the NIST report in depth or understood their conclusions.

hmmm...Underwriter Laboratories, tested 17' and 35' floor assemblies. They loaded it with twice the weight that were known to have been on those floors.
They heated it up to 450 degrees hotter than was recorded in the steel testing. (900C)
they tested for 2 hours...which is longer than the towers stood for.
The 17' sagged 4"...the 35' sagged even less
no floor collapse

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

no core column examined showed temp. above 250C
NIST 1-3 p.95,101,132

This claim you will find repeated on many conspiracy websites throughout the internet, but it is completely ignorant of what NIST was testing, or what actually occured in the floor tests.

we're getting off topic, but I proved my point...ANY evidence NIST has, GOES AGAINST their HYPOTHESIS

How can you expect to argue against the 'official story', when you have not even read the 'official story' well enough to understand it?

the 'OFFICIAL' story has been in place since the DAY AFTER...with NO investigation

and getting back to 7....how does SPOT fire cause total global collapse as fast as an abject can fall through the AIR?(9.8m/s^2)

and...WHY did it take a Q&A briefing by NIST, BEFORE ANY mention of free fall ACCELERATION was mentioned...



at around three min into this vid, Shyam Sunder the lead investigator for the NIST has this to say about free fall ACCELERATION, at the actual Q&A, taking questions from a HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS TEACHER

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

so what happened to 100+ft. of vertical support, ACROSS THE ENTIRE BUILDING, that NIST recorded as the amount of travel at free fall ACCELERATION???

PLEASE show the scientific principal that allows 'COLD' steel, to show the SAME characteristics as 'HOT' steel involved in fire
PLEASE show HOW, the massive weight on the roof, supports itself, while ALL vertical support below, disappears, so as to give the impression of WHAT WE ALL SEE...an entire building falling as fast as an object can fall...through the AIR

[edit on 9-7-2009 by hgfbob]

[edit on 9-7-2009 by hgfbob]

Because hundreds of their peers disagree.
You can't say "The vast majority of these professionals accept what is said" without a data sample. Show me a scientific pool where 1500 or so professionals have reviewed both sides of the data and agree with NIST.

all NIST released was their HYPOTHESIS...they DID NOT, and REFUSE to release the data, as to HOW they came to those conclusions, as a TRUE PEER-REVIEW is suppose to...that is the WHOLE idea behind peer-review

WTC7 report...NO pics of the fires THEY say were there....ANYWHERE
NO steel to examine, to even think about thermal expansion...
IGNORED free fall acceleration, that is EASILY observed in the decent of the building, and the FACT that it is occurring globally

Regardless the 'hundreds' of peers are actually quite a lot less than hundreds, and many of them say insane things like claiming the buildings were brought down by nuclear weapons.

Civil Corp of Engineers, use directional thermal devises to dig through rock for underground spaces and tunnels....and is small enough to carry it in a 6 pack cooler...only insane to someone who has NO CLUE

Perhaps you could produce a list of people who have viewed the NIST report and alternative theories, and tell us what they say.

anyone can VIEW the NIST HYPOTHESIS....it's the DATA that got to their conclusions that they REFUSE to release......there WAS NO PEER REVIEW...and YOU wont find ANYONE who gets their income, directly or indirectly from the Gov. speaking out against this...9-11 is STILL TABOO

Originally posted by jprophet420

You're right, you could. It would then be an unfounded statement and everyone who uses logic would disregard it.

Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

But the fact remains that Bush is the most hated man in the press. It's also a fact that it's really not necessary to PROVE a story in a press report.

I suspect that there have been a few that have looked into it and decided that the whole inside job hypothesis doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

So i can also say that anyone that uses logic realizes that there just aren't enough SE's/FE's that are questioning the NIST report, and ALSO pass the smell test re. their claims that the NIST report is inconclusive.

Originally posted by hgfbob

all NIST released was their HYPOTHESIS...they DID NOT, and REFUSE to release the data, as to HOW they came to those conclusions, as a TRUE PEER-REVIEW is suppose to...that is the WHOLE idea behind peer-review

All the subsequent reports from SE's and FE's agree that there is nothing wrong with NIST's report on 7 or the TT. There's your peer review.

Also, I believe that you can purchase data from NIST if you want. There's a thread about that right now, I believe. Also, you need to take into account that the structural docs are not public property. So NIST isn't allowed - by law - to just release them to the public. Some info is available, for it was necessary to justify their conclusions in both reports (7 and TT), but like I said, if you want to purchase them, go right ahead.

I'm actually scared to use my oven at 500ºF now, lest my kitchen collapse.

I'm no physicist, so please correct me here. If the fires were localized - regardless of how massive they were so superlatively reported to be - would there be no 'heat sink' effect from the steel that was connected, but not in the areas of the fires? If structural steel fails at 500ºF, as we are repeatedly advised by the media, all the steel in the building would have had to have been heated to similar temperatures to initiate a global collapse. Otherwise the non-heated steel would have had to have remained sound. Of course we cannot know that it did/didn't as all the steel was removed very quickly from the site.

I need to remember exactly which program I was watching on the History Channel last week. Possibly something military based. Anyway, during one sequence a little information bubble came up overlaying the picture to assert that "Steel fails at 500ºF". No other information bubble came up during the whole program, so it was very unusual to see. Had there been these little bubbles throughout the program I would have probably just breezed past it. I think it was added later (after final production) to aid the education of the viewing public. How very civic minded of them.

Originally posted by Badgered1

would there be no 'heat sink' effect from the steel that was connected, but not in the areas of the fires?

Not much of one, at any rate.

The heat would have to transfer through the bolts and connections, so it really wouldn't matter much how large the "sink" was.

All the subsequent reports from SE's and FE's agree that there is nothing wrong with NIST's report on 7 or the TT. There's your peer review.

Actually, the NIST report is not peer reviewed, and...

Thank you for visiting The Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001.

so yeah, facts and all... they keep getting in the way of debunking...

Originally posted by jprophet420

Actually, the NIST report is not peer reviewed

Well, when several qualified SE's/FE's put out white papers that discusses the findings in the report, personally, I'd call that a peer review.

But feel free to think otherwise.

posted by Badgered1

would there be no 'heat sink' effect from the steel that was connected, but not in the areas of the fires?

posted by Joey Canoli
Not much of one, at any rate.

The heat would have to transfer through the bolts and connections, so it really wouldn't matter much how large the "sink" was.

Are you claiming that heat in steel beams will not disperse to cooler steel areas through thousands of steel bolts and other steel connections?

I have burned my hand holding on to a steel piece which was bolted to another steel piece several feet away which was cut with a torch.

The entire steel structure including the steel core would be a heat sink.

Originally posted by SPreston

Are you claiming that heat in steel beams will not disperse to cooler steel areas through thousands of steel bolts and other steel connections?

I have burned my hand holding on to a steel piece which was bolted to another steel piece several feet away which was cut with a torch.

The entire steel structure including the steel core would be a heat sink.

Nope.

That's too bad. Cuz I've held onto a steel piece that was cut with a torch less than a foot away and didn't get burned.

Yes it would. it just wouldn't conduct heat away as fast as a continuous piece. It's called physics. Heat can only move x fast through steel, aluminum, fire insulation, etc. Cross sectional area comes into play here. When it is necked down in the connection areas, heat conduction rate gets necked down.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420

Actually, the NIST report is not peer reviewed

Well, when several qualified SE's/FE's put out white papers that discusses the findings in the report, personally, I'd call that a peer review.

But feel free to think otherwise.

Right. and theres nothing i like to cite more than the papers that supported the notions in the prelim that all became null when the 'final' report came out and came to a different conclusion.

And for the record, thats not the peer review process.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by hgfbob

all NIST released was their HYPOTHESIS...they DID NOT, and REFUSE to release the data, as to HOW they came to those conclusions, as a TRUE PEER-REVIEW is suppose to...that is the WHOLE idea behind peer-review

All the subsequent reports from SE's and FE's agree that there is nothing wrong with NIST's report on 7 or the TT. There's your peer review.

Also, I believe that you can purchase data from NIST if you want. There's a thread about that right now, I believe. Also, you need to take into account that the structural docs are not public property. So NIST isn't allowed - by law - to just release them to the public. Some info is available, for it was necessary to justify their conclusions in both reports (7 and TT), but like I said, if you want to purchase them, go right ahead.

There is my peer review?...are you freakin kidding me.....releasing the HYPOTHESIS, is NOT a peer-review

Here is an example of what I mean...

Down load this paper here, it discredits the Bazant and the NIST theory, that the "jolt or force", that initiated the collapses, is not there.

They state their hypothesis, they have all the data used to get to their conclusion, and they have EVIDENCE that backs up their hypothesis...

56 min of spot fire and we have a NATURAL total global collapse symmetrically falling at a CONSTANT, near free fall speed....not quite falling at 9.8m/s^2, but falling as fast as an object falls through the atmosphere,(with resistance)....hmmmm keeping a constant speed, while CAUSING itself to collapse


and I already paid 20 million for the NIST investigation...

releasing the plans has NOTHING to do with NIST

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by SPreston

Are you claiming that heat in steel beams will not disperse to cooler steel areas through thousands of steel bolts and other steel connections?

I have burned my hand holding on to a steel piece which was bolted to another steel piece several feet away which was cut with a torch.

The entire steel structure including the steel core would be a heat sink.

Nope.

That's too bad. Cuz I've held onto a steel piece that was cut with a torch less than a foot away and didn't get burned.

Yes it would. it just wouldn't conduct heat away as fast as a continuous piece. It's called physics. Heat can only move x fast through steel, aluminum, fire insulation, etc. Cross sectional area comes into play here. When it is necked down in the connection areas, heat conduction rate gets necked down.

That makes sense. But I thought some of the connections on each floor were welds.



[edit on 7/9/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by hgfbob

all NIST released was their HYPOTHESIS...they DID NOT, and REFUSE to release the data, as to HOW they came to those conclusions, as a TRUE PEER-REVIEW is suppose to...that is the WHOLE idea behind peer-review

All the subsequent reports from SE's and FE's agree that there is nothing wrong with NIST's report on 7 or the TT. There's your peer review.

but all the "subsequent reports", are from the SAME people, or organization that ORIGINALLY worked on the NIST report...HOW is THAT a peer review? Little ONE SIDED...don't ya think?

where is their explanation on HOW a 47 story steel structure, symmetrically falls AT a rate equivalent with the acceleration of gravity. When the kink is formed, no mater WHAT position the building was in EVERYTHING fell as FAST as an object can fall through the AIR

WE SEE this happening, you could pick ANY point, and get the same measurements.

This is what Shyam Sunder the lead investigator for the NIST had to say about free fall ACCELERATION, at the NIST Q&A at around three min into the vid.posted below...

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

video can be seen here

It's obvious that in order to accelerate, you need....'OPEN SPACE' with NOTHING in the way


free fall acceleration occurs at 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds of the collapse...I think it's longer

[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=4.0s.

HOW was that 'OPEN SPACE', created...over the ENTIRE building at the SAME TIME, in order to get the results we all see happening

it wasn't from spot fire on one end

If it was a progression like the HYPOTHESIS says, we would have seen it reflected in the exterior of the building, there is too much weight on the roof to 'LEAVE HANGING' with nothing underneath, as proven by the East PH falling in when it's vertical support underneath was taken out

The facade is a non supporting structure and it will not stay and let the columns fall behind...it is attached to the perimeter columns