im not a c-theorist but this vid makes me wonder to be honest

[Lokiate]

Plus the majority of the explosion took place OUTSIDE the towers and it was oxygen starved from the black smoke emitting which proved the fires were not severe or hot enough to weaken the steel.

Black smoke is an indicator that what's being consumed contains very little moisture, contains moderate to high levels of carbon, the fire is consuming the material very rapidly, and/or has a very rich air/fuel mixture. You know, there were these huge gaping holes in the sides of the buildings that created an excellent airflow, and with all that dry, carbon rich material inside, it actually created the perfect condition for a very rich air/fuel mixture. Would you like me to tell you how ancient man melted steel and iron?

look at that photo that eots posted in that video,that building burned for HOURS on end and was lit up like a torch yet it did not collapse

Oxygen deprived fires always burn for hours, right?

so much for the fairy tales of the 9/11 commission that the fires caused the towers to collapse.

I saw a bumble bee flying one time. So much for the fairytale of aerodynamics.

 

[Obamerican]

WTC 1&2 both collapsed from a unique design that was designed to withstand 707's flying into them. While I would like to think the design was right I'm thinking that there were some things they overlooked. And, of course, there is the fact that they were much larger jets with bigger fuel loads.
There have been NO other buildings in the world built like the twin towers. I think it was a unique set of circumstances that brought both down. NOT the crap from the idiot crowd such as Jones, Rimjob, Eots, among others, believe.

bullshit...and what about wtc 7

This is why humanity has yet to evolved beyond
a slave class, the deniers who walk among us.

We haven't evolved because morons like you think Frank Zappa was some kind of "genius". Fuck Seattle.

 

[Mr. Jones]

once again you're posting non fact ....

Point them out then. The rebuttals to the NIST explanation are factual, make sense and are based on what NIST says in their own reports, so what are the non factual statements that are being said, or are you going to post more idiotic gifs of yourself?

are you amazingly thick or what?
ther is no logical reason to go point for point on the rebuttals, because there are ALL based specious speculation,no hard evidence and the people are for the most part not qualified to make an informed statement All of your so called information is bias, uncorroborated not checked for accuracy. in other words it's a :

Just as I thought, you can't rebuke the proof that has been posted that shows the NIST report is flawed, by saying it is "specious speculation, no hard evidence," etc..
All I asked is that you back up your allegations, and show us where it is 'specious speculation" and inaccurate, and you can't.

The evidence and proof that rebukes the NIST report, continues to stand unchallenged, and dawgshit101 is irrelevant, and loses.

 

[daws101]

Point them out then. The rebuttals to the NIST explanation are factual, make sense and are based on what NIST says in their own reports, so what are the non factual statements that are being said, or are you going to post more idiotic gifs of yourself?

are you amazingly thick or what?
there is no logical reason to go point for point on the rebuttals, because there are ALL based specious speculation,no hard evidence and the people are for the most part not qualified to make an informed statement All of your so called information is bias, uncorroborated not checked for accuracy. in other words it's a :

Just as I thought, you can't rebuke the proof that has been posted that shows the NIST report is flawed, by saying it is "specious speculation, no hard evidence," etc..
All I asked is that you back up your allegations, and show us where it is 'specious speculation" and inaccurate, and you can't.

The evidence and proof that rebukes the NIST report, continues to stand unchallenged, and dawgshit101 is irrelevant, and loses.

hey dumbass it's refute:re·fute verb \ri-ˈfyüt\
re·fut·edre·fut·ing

Definition of REFUTE
transitive verb
1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2: to deny the truth or accuracy of <refuted the allegations>
— re·fut·able \-&#712;fyü-t&#601;-b&#601;l\ adjective
— re·fut·ably \-bl&#275;\ adverb
— re·fut·er noun
See refute defined for English-language learners »
See refute defined for kids »
Examples of REFUTE
The lawyer refuted the testimony of the witness.
He refutes the notion that he's planning to retire soon.
She refuted the allegations against her.
But for every study that shows acid rain is damaging frogs, another one refutes it. —Emily Yoffe, New York Times Magazine, 13 Dec. 1992
I'VE DONE THAT!: "there is no logical reason to go point for point on the rebuttals, because there are ALL based specious speculation,no hard evidence and the people are for the most part not qualified to make an informed statement All of your so called information is bias,ncorroborated not checked for accuracy. in other words it's a :

[/QUOTE]

:not rebuke: re·bukedre·buk·ing

Definition of REBUKE
transitive verb
1a : to criticize sharply : reprimand b : to serve as a rebuke to
2: to turn back or keep down : check
— re·buk·er noun
See rebuke defined for English-language learners »
See rebuke defined for kids »
Examples of REBUKE
<the father was forced to rebuke his son for the spendthrift ways he had adopted since arriving at college>
<strongly rebuked the girl for playing with matches>
Origin of REBUKE
Middle English, from Anglo-French rebucher, rebouker to blunt, check, reprimand
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to REBUKE
Synonyms: admonish, chide, reprimand, reproach, reprove, tick off, burn one's ears, get after, get on
Antonyms: cite, commend, endorse (also indorse)
Related Words: berate, castigate, chew out, dress down, flay, harangue, jaw, keelhaul, lambaste (or lambast), lecture, rail (at or against), rate, scold, score, upbraid; abuse, assail, attack, bad-mouth, blame, blast, censure, condemn, criticize, crucify, denounce, dis (also diss) [slang], excoriate, fault, knock, lash, pan, reprehend, slam; belittle, deprecate, disparage, minimize, mock, put down; deride, ridicule, scoff, scorn
Near Antonyms: approve, endorse (also indorse), OK (or okay), sanction; applaud, extol (also extoll), hail, laud, praise, salute, tout
see all synonyms and antonyms
[+]more[-]hide
and I'm irrelevant...

 

[Mr. Jones]

are you amazingly thick or what?
there is no logical reason to go point for point on the rebuttals, because there are ALL based specious speculation,no hard evidence and the people are for the most part not qualified to make an informed statement All of your so called information is bias, uncorroborated not checked for accuracy. in other words it's a :

Just as I thought, you can't rebuke the proof that has been posted that shows the NIST report is flawed, by saying it is "specious speculation, no hard evidence," etc..
All I asked is that you back up your allegations, and show us where it is 'specious speculation" and inaccurate, and you can't.

The evidence and proof that rebukes the NIST report, continues to stand unchallenged, and dawgshit101 is irrelevant, and loses.

hey dumbass it's refute:re·fute verb \ri-&#712;fyüt\
re·fut·edre·fut·ing

Definition of REFUTE
transitive verb
1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2: to deny the truth or accuracy of <refuted the allegations>
— re·fut·able \-&#712;fyü-t&#601;-b&#601;l\ adjective
— re·fut·ably \-bl&#275;\ adverb
— re·fut·er noun
See refute defined for English-language learners »
See refute defined for kids »
Examples of REFUTE
The lawyer refuted the testimony of the witness.
He refutes the notion that he's planning to retire soon.
She refuted the allegations against her.
But for every study that shows acid rain is damaging frogs, another one refutes it. —Emily Yoffe, New York Times Magazine, 13 Dec. 1992
I'VE DONE THAT!: "there is no logical reason to go point for point on the rebuttals, because there are ALL based specious speculation,no hard evidence and the people are for the most part not qualified to make an informed statement All of your so called information is bias,ncorroborated not checked for accuracy. in other words it's a :

:not rebuke: re·bukedre·buk·ing

Definition of REBUKE
transitive verb
1a : to criticize sharply : reprimand b : to serve as a rebuke to
2: to turn back or keep down : check
— re·buk·er noun
See rebuke defined for English-language learners »
See rebuke defined for kids »
Examples of REBUKE
<the father was forced to rebuke his son for the spendthrift ways he had adopted since arriving at college>
<strongly rebuked the girl for playing with matches>
Origin of REBUKE
Middle English, from Anglo-French rebucher, rebouker to blunt, check, reprimand
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to REBUKE
Synonyms: admonish, chide, reprimand, reproach, reprove, tick off, burn one's ears, get after, get on
Antonyms: cite, commend, endorse (also indorse)
Related Words: berate, castigate, chew out, dress down, flay, harangue, jaw, keelhaul, lambaste (or lambast), lecture, rail (at or against), rate, scold, score, upbraid; abuse, assail, attack, bad-mouth, blame, blast, censure, condemn, criticize, crucify, denounce, dis (also diss) [slang], excoriate, fault, knock, lash, pan, reprehend, slam; belittle, deprecate, disparage, minimize, mock, put down; deride, ridicule, scoff, scorn
Near Antonyms: approve, endorse (also indorse), OK (or okay), sanction; applaud, extol (also extoll), hail, laud, praise, salute, tout
see all synonyms and antonyms
[+]more[-]hide
and I'm irrelevant...[/QUOTE]

Your evasiveness is evident.

 

[daws101]

Just as I thought, you can't rebuke the proof that has been posted that shows the NIST report is flawed, by saying it is "specious speculation, no hard evidence," etc..
All I asked is that you back up your allegations, and show us where it is 'specious speculation" and inaccurate, and you can't.

The evidence and proof that rebukes the NIST report, continues to stand unchallenged, and dawgshit101 is irrelevant, and loses.

hey dumbass it's refute:re·fute verb \ri-&#712;fyüt\
re·fut·edre·fut·ing

Definition of REFUTE
transitive verb
1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2: to deny the truth or accuracy of <refuted the allegations>
&#8212; re·fut·able \-&#712;fyü-t&#601;-b&#601;l\ adjective
&#8212; re·fut·ably \-bl&#275;\ adverb
&#8212; re·fut·er noun
See refute defined for English-language learners »
See refute defined for kids »
Examples of REFUTE
The lawyer refuted the testimony of the witness.
He refutes the notion that he's planning to retire soon.
She refuted the allegations against her.
But for every study that shows acid rain is damaging frogs, another one refutes it. &#8212;Emily Yoffe, New York Times Magazine, 13 Dec. 1992
I'VE DONE THAT!: "there is no logical reason to go point for point on the rebuttals, because there are ALL based specious speculation,no hard evidence and the people are for the most part not qualified to make an informed statement All of your so called information is bias,ncorroborated not checked for accuracy. in other words it's a :

:not rebuke: re·bukedre·buk·ing

Definition of REBUKE
transitive verb
1a : to criticize sharply : reprimand b : to serve as a rebuke to
2: to turn back or keep down : check
&#8212; re·buk·er noun
See rebuke defined for English-language learners »
See rebuke defined for kids »
Examples of REBUKE
<the father was forced to rebuke his son for the spendthrift ways he had adopted since arriving at college>
<strongly rebuked the girl for playing with matches>
Origin of REBUKE
Middle English, from Anglo-French rebucher, rebouker to blunt, check, reprimand
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to REBUKE
Synonyms: admonish, chide, reprimand, reproach, reprove, tick off, burn one's ears, get after, get on
Antonyms: cite, commend, endorse (also indorse)
Related Words: berate, castigate, chew out, dress down, flay, harangue, jaw, keelhaul, lambaste (or lambast), lecture, rail (at or against), rate, scold, score, upbraid; abuse, assail, attack, bad-mouth, blame, blast, censure, condemn, criticize, crucify, denounce, dis (also diss) [slang], excoriate, fault, knock, lash, pan, reprehend, slam; belittle, deprecate, disparage, minimize, mock, put down; deride, ridicule, scoff, scorn
Near Antonyms: approve, endorse (also indorse), OK (or okay), sanction; applaud, extol (also extoll), hail, laud, praise, salute, tout
see all synonyms and antonyms
[+]more[-]hide
Your evasiveness is evident.

dodge much?

 

[Mr. Jones]

hey dumbass it's refute:re·fute verb \ri-&#712;fyüt\
re·fut·edre·fut·ing

Definition of REFUTE
transitive verb
1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2: to deny the truth or accuracy of <refuted the allegations>
— re·fut·able \-&#712;fyü-t&#601;-b&#601;l\ adjective
— re·fut·ably \-bl&#275;\ adverb
— re·fut·er noun
See refute defined for English-language learners »
See refute defined for kids »
Examples of REFUTE
The lawyer refuted the testimony of the witness.
He refutes the notion that he's planning to retire soon.
She refuted the allegations against her.
But for every study that shows acid rain is damaging frogs, another one refutes it. —Emily Yoffe, New York Times Magazine, 13 Dec. 1992
I'VE DONE THAT!: "there is no logical reason to go point for point on the rebuttals, because there are ALL based specious speculation,no hard evidence and the people are for the most part not qualified to make an informed statement All of your so called information is bias,ncorroborated not checked for accuracy. in other words it's a :

:not rebuke: re·bukedre·buk·ing

Definition of REBUKE
transitive verb
1a : to criticize sharply : reprimand b : to serve as a rebuke to
2: to turn back or keep down : check
— re·buk·er noun
See rebuke defined for English-language learners »
See rebuke defined for kids »
Examples of REBUKE
<the father was forced to rebuke his son for the spendthrift ways he had adopted since arriving at college>
<strongly rebuked the girl for playing with matches>
Origin of REBUKE
Middle English, from Anglo-French rebucher, rebouker to blunt, check, reprimand
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to REBUKE
Synonyms: admonish, chide, reprimand, reproach, reprove, tick off, burn one's ears, get after, get on
Antonyms: cite, commend, endorse (also indorse)
Related Words: berate, castigate, chew out, dress down, flay, harangue, jaw, keelhaul, lambaste (or lambast), lecture, rail (at or against), rate, scold, score, upbraid; abuse, assail, attack, bad-mouth, blame, blast, censure, condemn, criticize, crucify, denounce, dis (also diss) [slang], excoriate, fault, knock, lash, pan, reprehend, slam; belittle, deprecate, disparage, minimize, mock, put down; deride, ridicule, scoff, scorn
Near Antonyms: approve, endorse (also indorse), OK (or okay), sanction; applaud, extol (also extoll), hail, laud, praise, salute, tout
see all synonyms and antonyms
[+]more[-]hide
Your evasiveness is evident.

dodge much?

You once again are misusing the quote function, while evading answering the questions posed to you. Why the hell are you even bothering to be here if you can't debate the topic properly, or even learn to use the functions of the forum properly?
You're a fucking loser

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Plus the majority of the explosion took place OUTSIDE the towers and it was oxygen starved from the black smoke emitting which proved the fires were not severe or hot enough to weaken the steel.

Black smoke is an indicator that what's being consumed contains very little moisture, contains moderate to high levels of carbon, the fire is consuming the material very rapidly, and/or has a very rich air/fuel mixture. You know, there were these huge gaping holes in the sides of the buildings that created an excellent airflow, and with all that dry, carbon rich material inside, it actually created the perfect condition for a very rich air/fuel mixture. Would you like me to tell you how ancient man melted steel and iron?

look at that photo that eots posted in that video,that building burned for HOURS on end and was lit up like a torch yet it did not collapse

Oxygen deprived fires always burn for hours, right?

so much for the fairy tales of the 9/11 commission that the fires caused the towers to collapse.

I saw a bumble bee flying one time. So much for the fairytale of aerodynamics.

ALL you did here was prove my case for me that explosives brought the towers down.
AGAIN,black smoke indicates the fires were NOT intense or hot,wake the hell up.the firemen themselves were recorded saying the fires were not intense at all and would be out soon.you are comparing apples and oranges,towers and those in particular, were designed to withstand jet fuel fires,they anticipted it all with an airliners crashing into it,get a clue. they were quoted saying if that happened,there would be a great loss of life due to the fires but the structure itself would remain standing.the twin towers were lit up like a torch in the 70's at one time with fires far more extensive and sever than these were.

again you just proved my case for me.you have reading comprehension problems.I said oxygen starved fires like the ones in the twin towers dont burn for hours.that pic of that tower in spain WASNT oxygen starrved,it was lit up like a torch and burned for hours.damn you are showing off your ignorance and how your afraid of the truth.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

:not rebuke: re·bukedre·buk·ing

Definition of REBUKE
transitive verb
1a : to criticize sharply : reprimand b : to serve as a rebuke to
2: to turn back or keep down : check
— re·buk·er noun
See rebuke defined for English-language learners »
See rebuke defined for kids »
Examples of REBUKE
<the father was forced to rebuke his son for the spendthrift ways he had adopted since arriving at college>
<strongly rebuked the girl for playing with matches>
Origin of REBUKE
Middle English, from Anglo-French rebucher, rebouker to blunt, check, reprimand
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to REBUKE
Synonyms: admonish, chide, reprimand, reproach, reprove, tick off, burn one's ears, get after, get on
Antonyms: cite, commend, endorse (also indorse)
Related Words: berate, castigate, chew out, dress down, flay, harangue, jaw, keelhaul, lambaste (or lambast), lecture, rail (at or against), rate, scold, score, upbraid; abuse, assail, attack, bad-mouth, blame, blast, censure, condemn, criticize, crucify, denounce, dis (also diss) [slang], excoriate, fault, knock, lash, pan, reprehend, slam; belittle, deprecate, disparage, minimize, mock, put down; deride, ridicule, scoff, scorn
Near Antonyms: approve, endorse (also indorse), OK (or okay), sanction; applaud, extol (also extoll), hail, laud, praise, salute, tout
see all synonyms and antonyms
[+]more[-]hide
Your evasiveness is evident.

dodge much?

You once again are misusing the quote function, while evading answering the questions posed to you. Why the hell are you even bothering to be here if you can't debate the topic properly, or even learn to use the functions of the forum properly?
You're a fucking loser

thats daws troll for ya.he can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey troll he is.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Plus the majority of the explosion took place OUTSIDE the towers and it was oxygen starved from the black smoke emitting which proved the fires were not severe or hot enough to weaken the steel.

Black smoke is an indicator that what's being consumed contains very little moisture, contains moderate to high levels of carbon, the fire is consuming the material very rapidly, and/or has a very rich air/fuel mixture. You know, there were these huge gaping holes in the sides of the buildings that created an excellent airflow, and with all that dry, carbon rich material inside, it actually created the perfect condition for a very rich air/fuel mixture. Would you like me to tell you how ancient man melted steel and iron?

look at that photo that eots posted in that video,that building burned for HOURS on end and was lit up like a torch yet it did not collapse

Oxygen deprived fires always burn for hours, right?

so much for the fairy tales of the 9/11 commission that the fires caused the towers to collapse.

I saw a bumble bee flying one time. So much for the fairytale of aerodynamics.

you also showed your ignorance because you didnt even bother reading any of Mr Jones posts here on page three because he took you Bush dupes to school .You did not read it because since as we both know, you only see what you WANT to see.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

once again you're posting non fact ...

.

QUOTE=daws101;4130141]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.

That's all great until you really look at HOW they deliberately fucked up the data to arrive at their no doubt, preconceived conclusions.
Concerning WTC7-
No actual scientific experiments are behind the NIST theory, other than computer simulations that we will likely never be allowed to examine. So all you beliefs in their study are based on assumptions, and not hard science, or facts, which makes their report BS, AND THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING YOU BELIEVE...BS.

Thermal expansion, not weakening, softening, shortening or sagging

In NIST's computer, steel can do just about anything. We saw that in the report for the towers, where we were told that similar computerized office fires made floors sag, columns shorten, and large quantities of steel melt soften weaken. This time, we have what NIST calls a "new phenomenon" for structural steel, called thermal expansion.

"Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder connecting Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor."

"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 ... This left Column 79 with insufficient lateral support in the east-west direction. The column buckled eastward, becoming the initial local failure for collapse initiation." NCSTAR 1-A, p 19-20

With this summary statement, NIST begins its explanation with a sleight of hand. The "initial local failure" is not a column buckling according to this new story, but is the displacement of a girder by means of the thermal expansion of up to five floor beams. It is there that we must begin our analysis of NIST's new story, and if that is not realistic, then none of the remaining explanation for WTC 7 is realistic.

We should begin with a fact described in one of NIST's earlier reports on WTC 7.

"Most of the beams and girders [in WTC 7] were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs." NCSTAR 1-1, p 14

NIST now contradicts this earlier finding, in order to support the new story.

"In WTC 7 no studs were installed on the girders." NCSTAR 1-9, p 346

For the thermal expansion story, this presence of shear studs holding the concrete floor to the beams and girders is important.

The studs were 0.75 in x 5 in long, and were positioned every 1 to 2 ft along the beam or girder, according to NCSTAR 1-1. There were 28 of these studs for each of the five beams that supposedly expanded. NIST deceptively played down all those shear studs in its recent presentation, where a simple diagram falsely suggested there were only three studs for each beam.

For the allegedly displaced girder, according to NIST's first report there would have been a similar number of shear studs, placed at intervals of 1 to 2 feet, for a total of at least 22 studs.
But NIST's new report removes all of these in order to make it easier for the girder to be pushed out.

Some of NIST's other diagrams indicate that the girder was fastened to column 79 with only two seat bolts. There were, in fact, two seat bolts and two clip bolts for each girder/column connection. Additionally, NIST unconvincingly tells us that it "found no evidence that the girders or beams in WTC 7 were welded to the seats" (NCSTAR 1-9, p 348). Of course, by now we know what NIST means when it says it "found no evidence."

It appears NIST is telling us that the loose beams, deflected the loose girder a distance of several feet. Even if we believe that WTC 7 was built in such a shoddy manner, is this hypothesis realistic?

First, note that thermal expansion is not a new phenomenon, and structural steel was not just invented for use at the WTC.
Such effects have been a possibility in all of the thousands of other situations in which structural steel was heated throughout history. So what enormous new difference did thermal expansion make for WTC 7?

The floor beams that NIST is speaking of, that supposedly pushed the girder between column 79 and column 44 completely out of place, were each about 52 feet, in length.
the beams could have expanded 0.019 m for every 100 °C increase in temperature.

Remember also that any thermal linear expansion would have been acting on the external columns of WTC 7's east wall as well, because thermal expansion does not affect just one end of a beam. Whatever distance the beams pushed NIST's critical girder, the same distance in bowing out of the east wall of WTC 7 would have had to occur, unless WTC 7 was a very unstable structure to begin with.
Therefore, half of the total expansion length (0.01 m) would have affected NIST's critical girder for every 100 °C increase in temperature.

For NIST's new story, those floor beams would have had to not only expand linearly, but also break 28 high-strength shear studs, 2 seat bolts, 2 clip bolts (and seat welds), and then cause the buckling of a gigantic girder (which also had 22 shear studs) before the beams themselves buckled or even weakened.

This is quite the opposite of what NIST says happened in the towers, where the official story is that the floors sagged dramatically. In WTC7, NIST now says the floors did not sag or weaken a bit, but remained fiercely rigid as high-temperature linear expansion caused them to wreak havoc on the surrounding structure.

Highly exaggerated temperatures leave beams rigid

To accomplish the linear expansion, the beams first had to get very hot. NIST says that its computer models suggest that "some sections" of these beams reached 600 °C.

"Due to the effectiveness of the SFRM, the highest column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 °C (570 °F), and only on the east side of the building did the floor beams reach or exceed about 600 °C." NCSTAR 1A, p 19

"The temperatures of some sections of the beams supporting Floors 8, 12, 13, and 14 exceeded 600 °C." NCSTAR 1A, p 48

These extremely high steel temperatures would most certainly have resulted in the weakening of the beams, once the shear studs had been lost, allowing the thermal expansion to be relieved through downward sagging. This fact is supported by the experimental data produced by the Cardington tests, described in NCSTAR 1-9 (section 8.4.3), where much shorter floor beam spans experienced significant sagging. Therefore, this rigid beam linear expansion hypothesis is not realistic.

In any case, although NIST does not state it clearly in the new report, a 575 °C increase in temperature would have caused the girder end of the beams to experience a maximum of 2.2 inches of deflection.
And if it were only a "section," for example only a third of a beam length, then the increase from thermal expansion would be correspondingly smaller (or 0.7 inches). This makes NIST's story of all those bolts and studs breaking in unison, and that critical girder buckling, quite unbelievable.

But how did the beams reach 600 °C in the first place? In the real world, this would have required very hot fires for a very long time. In NIST's computer, of course, this was not a problem. As with the report for the towers, these cyber-space investigators only needed to fudge a few numbers, like the thermal conductivity of the materials involved. Structural steel has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/m/K, which means that any heat applied is easily wicked away. But if that value were set to zero, or near zero, any heat applied would allow the temperature to rise dramatically at the point of application.

"The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used." NCSTAR 1-5F, p 20

"The interior walls [including insulated steel columns] were assumed to have the properties of gypsum board [0.5 W/m/K]." NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52

"Although the floor slab actually consisted of a metal deck topped with a concrete slab...the thermal properties of the entire floor slab were assumed to be that of concrete [1.0 W/m/K]." NCSTAR 1-5F, p 52

Fudging the thermal conductivity values, and extrapolating the localized computer results across vast sections of the building, appears to be how NIST scientists convinced themselves that they could promote the high steel temperatures.

But also note that raising those five floor beams to a temperature of 600 °C would require an enormous amount of energy, far more than was available from the burning of the office furnishings underneath the floor beams.
Of course, NIST has not had any trouble selling such leaps of imagination before, as its media sponsors don't ask detailed questions and NIST does not discuss its reports with independent investigators.

Brief office fires in an environment designed for fire resistance

Further problems for NIST's new story result from admissions NIST has made about the state of the fires in the building, and the design of the structure. NIST admits that the fires in WTC 7 were typical office fires, and that the fires could not move from floor to floor.

"Their growth and spread were consistent with ordinary building contents fires." NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii
"There was no evidence of floor-to-floor fire spread until perhaps just before the WTC 7 collapse. Thus, the fire-rated floors were successful as fire penetration barriers." NCSTAR 1A, p 55

NIST also admits that the building was designed to comply with New York City Building Code, requiring fire resistance of 3 hours for columns and 2 hours for floors.

"The instructions to the bidders for the WTC 7 job were to bid on a 3 h rating for the columns and a 2 h rating for the fluted steel decking and floor support steel, which corresponded to the more stringent fire resistance requirements for Type 1B (unsprinklered) construction." NCSTAR 1A, p 7

"Private inspectors found that the applied SFRM thicknesses were consistent with these values." NCSTAR 1A, p 7 (also see NCSTAR 1-9, table 8-1, p 340)

Add to these facts that NIST admitted in their December 2007 advisory committee meeting that the fuel load could only support 20 minutes of fire in any given location.

"Question: ...fire moved every 20 minutes; essentially it started and stopped every 20 minutes, so if you do not have fuel in WTC 7, how could fires burn for as long as they had and taken out this major structure that had good fireproofing?"

"Answer (Sunder): The fires moved from location to location, meaning that at any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed. While the combustibles at a location were being consumed, the fire front would be progressing to adjacent combustibles."23

For floors 11 and 12, NIST increased this estimated fuel load from 4 lb/ft2 to 6.4 lb/ft2, presumably giving a new maximum fire time of 32 minutes. Even so, how then did NIST come up with fire times of 3.5 to 4 hours?

"However, it appeared likely the critical damage state occurred between 3.5 h and 4 h." NCSTAR 1A, p 32

What could possibly have been burning, under those beams, for another three hours?

Basically, NIST is saying Underwriters Laboratories is to blame

To sum up, steel components that were certified to withstand hours of fire failed in typical office fires lasting a maximum of 32 minutes in any given location. That means that there must have been negligence, or extremely poor performance, on the part of those who ensured the fire resistance of the structural components.

With the report on the towers, NIST pretended that it was a mystery as to who tested the steel components for fire resistance.
But, in fact, it wasn't actually that much of a mystery unless you asked UL while the whole country was watching.
But for WTC 7, NIST comes right out and says that UL was the firm that provided the fire resistance information for the building.

"According to the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Fire Resistance Directory (1983), these ratings required a thickness of 7/8 in. of Monokote MK-5 to be applied to the heavy columns, 1 7/8 in. to be applied to the lighter columns, 1/2 in. to be applied to the beams, and 3/8 in. to be applied to the bottom of the metal deck." NCSTAR 1A, p 7

That's one good reason why UL is not listed as being part of the WTC 7 investigation. Having the company that was responsible for establishing the fire resistance of the building participate in the politically motivated investigation into how the building failed from fire might just be a conflict of interest.

The problem NIST and UL have now is that confirming UL's involvement in the WTC 7 design, when the official story is centered only on failure by fire, could lead to greater problems for UL.

The final WTC 7 story and how it was predicted

After years of talking about diesel fuel fires and damage from the towers being the causes of the near free-fall collapse of WTC 7, and then acting as if they just couldn't get a handle on it,
(but then how was it correctly assumed and reported that WTC7 was going to collapse?)

NIST now has a new "obvious" story. The new story is based on a "new phenomenon" of thermal expansion whereby fully insulated steel beams are exposed to temperatures of 600 °C in only 32 minutes. Believe it or not, NIST actually says this happened in only a few seconds (NCSTAR 1-9, table 8-2, p 353).

This extreme temperature, which did not weaken the beams at all, as would have happened in WTC 1 or WTC 2, broke all the shear studs, seat bolts and clip bolts on all the beams of the east wall of WTC 7.
The beams then expanded linearly, pushing the girder between column 79 and column 44 by a maximum of 2.2 inches, causing that critical girder to buckle and fall away from columns 79 and 44.

We have seen that this "initial local failure" is not realistic. This is because the fire times could not possibly have caused the high steel temperatures cited, the steel would not have remained rigid if those temperatures had been reached, and the very slight thermal expansion would not have been great enough to cause the extensive girder damage imagined by NIST.

From that tenuous position, we are led to believe that the one fallen girder caused one column to buckle and that meant the total destruction of this 47-story building in a matter of seconds.

But who could have predicted all of this? NIST admits that this is a rare phenomenon that it had to work hard to prove.


"Failure of a floor beam in fire is a rare event, and, indeed, there have been many building fires that have not resulted in even local failures of the floor system. The challenge was to determine if a fire-induced floor system failure could occur in WTC 7 under an ordinary building contents fire." NCSTAR 1-9, p 330
(And they failed miserably)

What geniuses knew that this new phenomenon of the thermal expansion of several floor beams in unison would cause this one hair-trigger girder to bring the entire building down several hours before it actually occurred?

Many people did, including at least 60 fire department employees, more than 25 medical and emergency workers, and both CNN and the BBC.

The 9/11 Commission told us that the attacks on September 11th succeeded ultimately because of a "failure of imagination." NIST will never be accused of that kind of failure, as its new WTC 7 report is nothing but imaginary tripe.

This new story contradicts the previous major claims by NIST, ignores the most important of the existing evidence, produces no scientific test results to support itself, and is so obviously false on its face that not even a fictional character from another planet would believe it.
Fires that could only last 20 to 30 minutes lasted 4 hours (what was burning?).
Imaginary temperatures that, according to NIST would have easily weakened the same steel in the towers, left beams fully rigid so that they could push one girder a full 2.2 inches,
somehow breaking numerous bolts and studs in unison, as well as buckling the girder, before the beams themselves were affected in any way. Suddenly this one girder failure caused numerous floors to collapse, one hair-trigger "switch" column to buckle, and the whole building to fall in a total of 8 seconds.

NIST tells us that most of these unprecedented, illogical and thoroughly fantastic events were happening within the box of WTC 7 itself, before we saw anything.
Of course, they have absolutely no evidence for any of these things happening in the real world. But by now we know that it doesn't matter. The Bush scientists only need to keep their bosses' sadistic political story viable....

* NIST ignored all invitations from independent investigators to discuss or debate its findings or the alternative theory.
* NIST's previous reports show no evidence that NIST considered alternative theories at all. Only one small disclaimer was made in the final report for the towers, and only after public criticism that no mention of alternative theories was made in the draft report for the towers.
* 9/11 family members and independent investigators have had to pursue legal avenues to seek the truth from NIST, including a request for correction that has ultimately been ignored by NIST.4
* Those citizens who have successfully criticized NIST in public have lost their jobs for doing so.
* NIST makes no mention of the mainstream scientific articles published in support of the alternative theory.5

* The physical tests NIST and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) performed for the investigation on the towers did not support the predetermined conclusions that NIST.

* NIST avoided that problem with the WTC 7 investigation by simply not performing any physical tests to support its theory. Instead of throwing a few beams and columns together and heating them to see what might happen, NIST built its final story on nothing but computer models that it said took excruciatingly long periods of time to process ("... a 25 sec analysis took up to 8 weeks to complete.")

In other words, for NIST, avoiding problems means avoiding reality.
This is proof of their deceptions, and how they came up with their theory by fudging the data in many ways PROOF, NOT POOF,like the buildings were made to disappear.

Posting their attempt at an explanation, does not show it is proof that they are correct, You are posting wild speculation, guesses, and theories, and what I have just posted are the rebuttals to their theories, with proof, and a link if you want to read into it further.

So STFU about NOT having proof, their report and data is BS.
It further shows that the collapses of buildings that sustained asymmetrical and sporadic fire damage, would not have fallen down in a straight down symmetrical manner.
Something else facilitated their demise, and when it is tried to be explained, and especially pointed out to NIST, it is ignored without even exploring the possibilities, much like you defenders of their BS report and theory do.

The NIST WTC 7 Report:: Bush Science reaches its peak

This is a great rebuttal of the NIST WTC 7 report, that exposes the BS you idiots believe.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY&feature=player_embedded]NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed! - YouTube[/ame]

Proof of why the
NIST WTC7 report is complete BS is in the ABOVE POST, LINK, AND VIDEO.

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/ Carl Sagan. What proof do you have dawgshit101?

WHERE ARE THE NON FACTS THAT YOU SPEAK OF dawgshit101??"
Lets go..you want to continue to talk shit, and reply with lies and BS, OR DO YOU HAVE IT IN YOU TO POINT OUT AND BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY??

The Bush dupes can NEVER back up ANYTHING they say and they know it.they can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are.excellent post,you took them to school major BIGH TIME and they know it.notice how they all ran off from this post of yours? they always do that when they get taken to school.

 

[daws101]

:not rebuke: re·bukedre·buk·ing

Definition of REBUKE
transitive verb
1a : to criticize sharply : reprimand b : to serve as a rebuke to
2: to turn back or keep down : check
— re·buk·er noun
See rebuke defined for English-language learners »
See rebuke defined for kids »
Examples of REBUKE
<the father was forced to rebuke his son for the spendthrift ways he had adopted since arriving at college>
<strongly rebuked the girl for playing with matches>
Origin of REBUKE
Middle English, from Anglo-French rebucher, rebouker to blunt, check, reprimand
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to REBUKE
Synonyms: admonish, chide, reprimand, reproach, reprove, tick off, burn one's ears, get after, get on
Antonyms: cite, commend, endorse (also indorse)
Related Words: berate, castigate, chew out, dress down, flay, harangue, jaw, keelhaul, lambaste (or lambast), lecture, rail (at or against), rate, scold, score, upbraid; abuse, assail, attack, bad-mouth, blame, blast, censure, condemn, criticize, crucify, denounce, dis (also diss) [slang], excoriate, fault, knock, lash, pan, reprehend, slam; belittle, deprecate, disparage, minimize, mock, put down; deride, ridicule, scoff, scorn
Near Antonyms: approve, endorse (also indorse), OK (or okay), sanction; applaud, extol (also extoll), hail, laud, praise, salute, tout
see all synonyms and antonyms
[+]more[-]hide
Your evasiveness is evident.

dodge much?

You once again are misusing the quote function, while evading answering the questions posed to you. Why the hell are you even bothering to be here if you can't debate the topic properly, or even learn to use the functions of the forum properly?
You're a fucking loser

as stated many times before your so called "evidence" is based on a false premise..
I have answered your questions with the only answer that is relevant .
you have no real evidence to debate just fiction.