The IMPOSSIBLE didn't happen on 911

[SFC Ollie]

•
The probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, based on the available data and evidence, and the
computer simulations (Chapter 13); and

(My Bold)


NIST NCSTAR 1-9, WTC Investigation
693
Appendix D
H
YPOTHETICAL
B
LAST
S
CENARIOS
D.1 BACKGROUND
As part of assessing alternative hy
potheses for initiation of the collapse
of WTC 7, a hypothetical blast
event was considered. Scenarios of a hypothetical
blast event that could have occurred in WTC 7 on
September 11, 2001, were assessed, including blast locati
on, size, and timing. Identification and analysis
of hypothetical blast scenarios was conducted in thr
ee phases, with the results
from each phase being used
as input to the next phase. The three phases were:
•
Phase I: Identify hypothetical blast scenar
ios to initiate structural collapse.
•
Phase II: Assess the blast wave propagation
inside the building and the corresponding
response of the WTC 7 windows.
•
Phase III: Assess the approximate distance from the
building that the blast would have been
audible in an urban setting


(Looks like they did look at CD, and dismissed it..)

 

[SAYIT]

I DID NOT CLAIM ANYTHING I POSTED THEIR QUOTE..

It's an inaccurate quote...It's cut and pasted from bits and placed to give a false impression of their findings...

Your quote...

The dash between the two sentences in the first part above.. You left out some shit there.. That's acceptable to be brief and only as long as you don't change the implied or intended meaning of the material you are citing. Which your edited quote certainly did that...

From your NIST FAQ's link....

4. 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.

Right there first sentence number 4, it opposes what you claimed they said...WTF dude? You are lying, no matter how you slice it, you are editing their words to imply the opposite of they were intended... Pretty lame tactic man...

Yet soooo typical of the 9/11 "truthers" whose conclusions are built on half-truths, speculation, distortions and outright fabrications. That's why they are called "truthers" and, along with their 9/11 CT Movement, have been subjected to ridicule and marginalization.

 

[gslack]

It's an inaccurate quote...It's cut and pasted from bits and placed to give a false impression of their findings...

Your quote...



The dash between the two sentences in the first part above.. You left out some shit there.. That's acceptable to be brief and only as long as you don't change the implied or intended meaning of the material you are citing. Which your edited quote certainly did that...

From your NIST FAQ's link....



Right there first sentence number 4, it opposes what you claimed they said...WTF dude? You are lying, no matter how you slice it, you are editing their words to imply the opposite of they were intended... Pretty lame tactic man...

are you actually trying to deny if you accept the NIST theory is correct a single blast event on one column could of brought down wtc 7 ??

So you are denying altering their claims? YOU altered their claims with a twisted and inaccurately edited quote, the evidence is right there staring at you...So your defense is denying its so???

Your claim they said...

the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

What they actually said... That below is from YOUR OWN LINK...

4. 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.

5. 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.

Diagram 1—Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures. (Credit: NIST)

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, and 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.
The probable collapse sequence is described in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 2.4 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Chapter 13.

Now the LINK WAS FROM YOU!!!!!! Get it yet? The revision that you are talking about, the FAQ's you linked to was yours... Damn dude..

Grow up, you took a couple of sentences out of context and tried to sell a line of BS from it.. Nice try but no...

 

[gslack]

Right there first sentence number 4, it opposes what you claimed they said...WTF dude? You are lying, no matter how you slice it, you are editing their words to imply the opposite of they were intended... Pretty lame tactic man...

So you dont understand the words revision and update ??


In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Other revisions to the final WTC 7 report included:

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

The actual text you cut and paste your edited quote from... Again using YOUR LINK!

In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Now quit lying and read the actual text before going off and making a fool of yourself..

P.S. In case you aren't acting and really so ignorant. The difference between what you wrote and what they wrote (aside from missing words) was the fact they weren't saying that an explosive took out column 79, like you are insinuating. They simply stated that no matter how it happened (loss of column 79) it would have ended up the same way regardless of the fires...Get it? It means the column failing was the cause of the collapse, but the fires led to the columns failure...MORON...

 

[SAYIT]

Right there first sentence number 4, it opposes what you claimed they said...WTF dude? You are lying, no matter how you slice it, you are editing their words to imply the opposite of they were intended... Pretty lame tactic man...

So you dont understand the words revision and update ??


In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Other revisions to the final WTC 7 report included:

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

The actual text you cut and paste your edited quote from... Again using YOUR LINK!

In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Now quit lying and read the actual text before going off and making a fool of yourself..

P.S. In case you aren't acting and really so ignorant. The difference between what you wrote and what they wrote (aside from missing words) was the fact they weren't saying that an explosive took out column 79, like you are insinuating. They simply stated that no matter how it happened (loss of column 79) it would have ended up the same way regardless of the fires...Get it? It means the column failing was the cause of the collapse, but the fires led to the columns failure...MORON...

What you have noticed is (ID)eot's willingness to make a fool of himself (just look at his avatar) to serve his agenda. It is obvious that the dissemination of truth and facts are, regrettably, just not part of that agenda. Considering his admiration for Internet BS "warriors" like Terral it seems he's hoping to be the next Internet "sensation."

 

[eots]

Right there first sentence number 4, it opposes what you claimed they said...WTF dude? You are lying, no matter how you slice it, you are editing their words to imply the opposite of they were intended... Pretty lame tactic man...

So you dont understand the words revision and update ??


In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Other revisions to the final WTC 7 report included:

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

The actual text you cut and paste your edited quote from... Again using YOUR LINK!

In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Now quit lying and read the actual text before going off and making a fool of yourself..

P.S. In case you aren't acting and really so ignorant. The difference between what you wrote and what they wrote (aside from missing words) was the fact they weren't saying that an explosive took out column 79, like you are insinuating. They simply stated that no matter how it happened (loss of column 79) it would have ended up the same way regardless of the fires...Get it? It means the column failing was the cause of the collapse, but the fires led to the columns failure...MORON...

insinuating?? ..I am stating the fact that according to NIST and I qoute..The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

if the computer model is accepted as accurate then there is no avoiding a single blast event could of brought down the towers..if the column was blown out it .. would still have led to a complete loss of the building..you can argue no explosives where used but you cant argue according to NIST a single blast event could of created the same result...

 

[SFC Ollie]

Am I wrong in thinking that they said that 5 stores of the column gave out at the same time? If that is what happened then no a single blast would not do it.

 

[gslack]

So you dont understand the words revision and update ??


In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Other revisions to the final WTC 7 report included:

NIST Tech Beat - November 20, 2008

The actual text you cut and paste your edited quote from... Again using YOUR LINK!

In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Now quit lying and read the actual text before going off and making a fool of yourself..

P.S. In case you aren't acting and really so ignorant. The difference between what you wrote and what they wrote (aside from missing words) was the fact they weren't saying that an explosive took out column 79, like you are insinuating. They simply stated that no matter how it happened (loss of column 79) it would have ended up the same way regardless of the fires...Get it? It means the column failing was the cause of the collapse, but the fires led to the columns failure...MORON...

insinuating?? ..I am stating the fact that according to NIST and I qoute..The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

if the computer model is accepted as accurate then there is no avoiding a single blast event could of brought down the towers..if the column was blown out it .. would still have led to a complete loss of the building..you can argue no explosives where used but you cant argue according to NIST a single blast event could of created the same result...

COULD HAVE... Get it yet? All of that means squat. The fact is as NIST said, the fires caused the column to fail. What difference does it make if an explosion could have caused the same effect? Doesn't mean there was an explosion, and they certainly never said there was one.

Again you got busted misquoting and jump to a false assumption. Their words speak for themselves, just as yours do.. You cited a false and edited version of a quote, didn't check it, and it gave you the wrong impression of their findings... How many years you been peddling this and didn't even check? Since '01? What's worse is no one checked you either... I bet from looking at your posting style you have peddling this crap for a long time. Perpetuated the nonsense until you are so sure of it, even the fact your own words were shown to be false you still try and pretend its so...

Get a grip... Your argument, your obsession, your so-called "evidence" is false. You edited their words to make your claim seem accurate, when their actual words said no such thing..

 

[SAYIT]

The actual text you cut and paste your edited quote from... Again using YOUR LINK!



Now quit lying and read the actual text before going off and making a fool of yourself..

P.S. In case you aren't acting and really so ignorant. The difference between what you wrote and what they wrote (aside from missing words) was the fact they weren't saying that an explosive took out column 79, like you are insinuating. They simply stated that no matter how it happened (loss of column 79) it would have ended up the same way regardless of the fires...Get it? It means the column failing was the cause of the collapse, but the fires led to the columns failure...MORON...

insinuating?? ..I am stating the fact that according to NIST and I qoute..The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

if the computer model is accepted as accurate then there is no avoiding a single blast event could of brought down the towers..if the column was blown out it .. would still have led to a complete loss of the building..you can argue no explosives where used but you cant argue according to NIST a single blast event could of created the same result...

COULD HAVE... Get it yet? All of that means squat. The fact is as NIST said, the fires caused the column to fail. What difference does it make if an explosion could have caused the same effect? Doesn't mean there was an explosion, and they certainly never said there was one.

Again you got busted misquoting and jump to a false assumption. Their words speak for themselves, just as yours do.. You cited a false and edited version of a quote, didn't check it, and it gave you the wrong impression of their findings... How many years you been peddling this and didn't even check? Since '01? What's worse is no one checked you either... I bet from looking at your posting style you have peddling this crap for a long time. Perpetuated the nonsense until you are so sure of it, even the fact your own words were shown to be false you still try and pretend its so...

Get a grip... Your argument, your obsession, your so-called "evidence" is false. You edited their words to make your claim seem accurate, when their actual words said no such thing..

A few weeks ago the same CT loon claimed the NIST said that a blast only as loud as standing in front of "speakers at a rock concert" could have felled bldg 7 when what they had actually said was 10x louder than those speakers. Like most 9/11 CTs, (ID)eot is an inveterate liar as well as a fool.

 

[eots]

insinuating?? ..I am stating the fact that according to NIST and I qoute..The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

if the computer model is accepted as accurate then there is no avoiding a single blast event could of brought down the towers..if the column was blown out it .. would still have led to a complete loss of the building..you can argue no explosives where used but you cant argue according to NIST a single blast event could of created the same result...

COULD HAVE... Get it yet? All of that means squat. The fact is as NIST said, the fires caused the column to fail. What difference does it make if an explosion could have caused the same effect? Doesn't mean there was an explosion, and they certainly never said there was one.

Again you got busted misquoting and jump to a false assumption. Their words speak for themselves, just as yours do.. You cited a false and edited version of a quote, didn't check it, and it gave you the wrong impression of their findings... How many years you been peddling this and didn't even check? Since '01? What's worse is no one checked you either... I bet from looking at your posting style you have peddling this crap for a long time. Perpetuated the nonsense until you are so sure of it, even the fact your own words were shown to be false you still try and pretend its so...

Get a grip... Your argument, your obsession, your so-called "evidence" is false. You edited their words to make your claim seem accurate, when their actual words said no such thing..

A few weeks ago the same CT loon claimed the NIST said that a blast only as loud as standing in front of "speakers at a rock concert" could have felled bldg 7 when what they had actually said was 10x louder than those speakers. Like most 9/11 CTs, (ID)eot is an inveterate liar as well as a fool.

you forgot.. "This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast "

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[eots]

insinuating?? ..I am stating the fact that according to NIST and I qoute..The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

if the computer model is accepted as accurate then there is no avoiding a single blast event could of brought down the towers..if the column was blown out it .. would still have led to a complete loss of the building..you can argue no explosives where used but you cant argue according to NIST a single blast event could of created the same result...

COULD HAVE... Get it yet? All of that means squat. The fact is as NIST said, the fires caused the column to fail. What difference does it make if an explosion could have caused the same effect? Doesn't mean there was an explosion, and they certainly never said there was one.

Again you got busted misquoting and jump to a false assumption. Their words speak for themselves, just as yours do.. You cited a false and edited version of a quote, didn't check it, and it gave you the wrong impression of their findings... How many years you been peddling this and didn't even check? Since '01? What's worse is no one checked you either... I bet from looking at your posting style you have peddling this crap for a long time. Perpetuated the nonsense until you are so sure of it, even the fact your own words were shown to be false you still try and pretend its so...

Get a grip... Your argument, your obsession, your so-called "evidence" is false. You edited their words to make your claim seem accurate, when their actual words said no such thing..

A few weeks ago the same CT loon claimed the NIST said that a blast only as loud as standing in front of "speakers at a rock concert" could have felled bldg 7 when what they had actually said was 10x louder than those speakers. Like most 9/11 CTs, (ID)eot is an inveterate liar as well as a fool.

so to be clear are you claiming according to NIST findings..a single blast event (as loud a a shotgun) that could Buckle column 79 would not be capable of taking down wtc 7 ??

 

[eots]

The actual text you cut and paste your edited quote from... Again using YOUR LINK!



Now quit lying and read the actual text before going off and making a fool of yourself..

P.S. In case you aren't acting and really so ignorant. The difference between what you wrote and what they wrote (aside from missing words) was the fact they weren't saying that an explosive took out column 79, like you are insinuating. They simply stated that no matter how it happened (loss of column 79) it would have ended up the same way regardless of the fires...Get it? It means the column failing was the cause of the collapse, but the fires led to the columns failure...MORON...

insinuating?? ..I am stating the fact that according to NIST and I qoute..The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

if the computer model is accepted as accurate then there is no avoiding a single blast event could of brought down the towers..if the column was blown out it .. would still have led to a complete loss of the building..you can argue no explosives where used but you cant argue according to NIST a single blast event could of created the same result...

COULD HAVE... Get it yet? All of that means squat. The fact is as NIST said, the fires caused the column to fail. What difference does it make if an explosion could have caused the same effect? Doesn't mean there was an explosion, and they certainly never said there was one.

I never claimed they said there was one numbskull..and what difference does it make is
a) the findings mean multiple charges would not be required only a single blast event

b) damage to the building can not be exaggerated to try and make an extraordinarily low probability event seem more probable

Again you got busted misquoting and jump to a false assumption. Their words speak for themselves, just as yours do.. You cited a false and edited version of a quote

I posted a direct quote from NIST with link you ninny

the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

didn't check it, and it gave you the wrong impression of their findings...

there is no wrong impression...NIST CONCLUDED

The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.


If concluded otherwise that's your problem..

How many years you been peddling this and didn't even check? Since '01?

the updates did not come out until late 2008 dumbfuk...thats the part that got you all confused ...you did not comprehend the words updates and revisions
and could not understand why it was different than the older report you kept going backward to

What's worse is no one checked you either... I bet from looking at your posting style you have peddling this crap for a long time. Perpetuated the nonsense until you are so sure of it, even the fact your own words were shown to be false you still try and pretend its so...

as stated above...this is your lil deluded conspiracy theory because you dont understand the word .. revision

Get a grip... Your argument, your obsession, your so-called "evidence" is false. You edited their words to make your claim seem accurate, when their actual words said no such thing..

I quoted NISTas I pointed out clearly and provided a link..and your little brain got all confused and you struggled to realize its was in fact a NIST.gov site..then once you got past that you got all confused in your head again as you did not understand the concept this was a revision and update from 2008
something you still seem to be struggling with given you..since 2001 comments

 

[gslack]

insinuating?? ..I am stating the fact that according to NIST and I qoute..The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

if the computer model is accepted as accurate then there is no avoiding a single blast event could of brought down the towers..if the column was blown out it .. would still have led to a complete loss of the building..you can argue no explosives where used but you cant argue according to NIST a single blast event could of created the same result...

I never claimed they said there was one numbskull..and what difference does it make is
a) the findings mean multiple charges would not be required only a single blast event

b) damage to the building can not be exaggerated to try and make an extraordinarily low probability event seem more probable





I posted a direct quote from NIST with link you ninny

the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.



there is no wrong impression...NIST CONCLUDED

The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.


If concluded otherwise that's your problem..




the updates did not come out until late 2008 dumbfuk...thats the part that got you all confused ...you did not comprehend the words updates and revisions
and could not understand why it was different than the older report you kept going backward to



as stated above...this is your lil deluded conspiracy theory because you dont understand the word .. revision

Get a grip... Your argument, your obsession, your so-called "evidence" is false. You edited their words to make your claim seem accurate, when their actual words said no such thing..

I quoted NISTas I pointed out clearly and provided a link..and your little brain got all confused and you struggled to realize its was in fact a NIST.gov site..then once you got past that you got all confused in your head again as you did not understand the concept this was a revision and update from 2008
something you still seem to be struggling with given you..since 2001 comments

Liar!!!

You can BS all you want, you used an edited quote out of context to give a false impression of their findings. It's fraudulent and pathetic...

YOU FUCKED UP! What seven funnier is you have obviously been getting this wrong a long time... All this time and you have spreading a lie, a lie uncovered by YOUR OWN LINK... Nice work, way to out the conspiracy man..

Are you one of those disinformation agents? You should be, you sure debunked this one thanks man!

What they said..

In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

What you claimed they said...

the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Not the same.. What they state very clearly is that any loss of column 79 would have resulted in the same end result. Meaning if it were a fire weakening it, an explosion, or an alien craft disintegrating it, the collapse would still occurred. It just so happened the columns collapse was caused by excessive heat, caused by fires which were in turn caused by burning, falling debris from the other towers.. As per their words below..

4. 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.

5. 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.

Diagram 1—Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures. (Credit: NIST)

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, and 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.
The probable collapse sequence is described in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 2.4 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Chapter 13.

Done and done.. Now you can cry about the last sentence and claim some crazy concept from it or you can read the full report honestly and accept reality..

Either way you go, you are a proven peddler of bullshit and baseless conspiracy nonsense..

 

[eots]

I never claimed they said there was one numbskull..and what difference does it make is
a) the findings mean multiple charges would not be required only a single blast event

b) damage to the building can not be exaggerated to try and make an extraordinarily low probability event seem more probable





I posted a direct quote from NIST with link you ninny

the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.



there is no wrong impression...NIST CONCLUDED

The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.


If concluded otherwise that's your problem..




the updates did not come out until late 2008 dumbfuk...thats the part that got you all confused ...you did not comprehend the words updates and revisions
and could not understand why it was different than the older report you kept going backward to



as stated above...this is your lil deluded conspiracy theory because you dont understand the word .. revision




I quoted NIST as I pointed out clearly and provided a link..and your little brain got all confused and you struggled to realize its was in fact a NIST.gov site..then once you got past that you got all confused in your head again as you did not understand the concept this was a revision and update from 2008
something you still seem to be struggling with given you..since 2001 comments

Liar!!!

lol..what a childish and empty headed reply..what..I did not post a link ? you did not claim it was not a NIST site ?..you didnt keep going back to material prior the revision ?...what part is a lie exactly

You can BS all you want, you used an edited quote out of context to give a false impression of their findings. It's fraudulent and pathetic...

I cut and pasted the conclusions of NIST and provided a link to the full text
what ever impression that created in your little head is no ones doing but your own..I just posted the fact NIST concluded the loss of column 79 under any circumstance would of resulted in the complete loss of wtc 7

YOU FUCKED UP! What seven funnier is you have obviously been getting this wrong a long time... All this time and you have spreading a lie, a lie uncovered by YOUR OWN LINK... Nice work, way to out the conspiracy man..

What lies is that ?...I have only made the the revised findings of NIST and their conclusion that the failure of column 79 under any circumstances would of resulted in the complete loss of wtc 7 and made the point that if NIST is correct then it means a single blast event no louder than a shot gun would be capable of bring down wtc 7

Are you one of those disinformation agents? You should be, you sure debunked this one thanks man!

What they said..

you threw a hissy fit ..you dewunked nothing

What you claimed they said...

Not the same.. What they state very clearly is that any loss of column 79 would have resulted in the same end result. Meaning if it were a fire weakening it, an explosion, or an alien craft disintegrating it, the collapse would still occurred. It just so happened the columns collapse was caused by excessive heat, caused by fires which were in turn caused by burning, falling debris from the other towers.. As per their words below..

how do they know that ?..how do they know there was no explosion or thermal device...the only reason they gave was..no sound as loud as a shot gun blast was heard or reported

4. 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.

5. 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.

Diagram 1—Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures. (Credit: NIST)

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, and 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.
The probable collapse sequence is described in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 2.4 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Chapter 13.

Done and done.. Now you can cry about the last sentence and claim some crazy concept from it or you can read the full report honestly and accept reality..

Either way you go, you are a proven peddler of bullshit and baseless conspiracy nonsense..

ya..I know NIST theory..lol..my point is simple ..if NIST is correct a single blast event is all that would be required to cause the complete loss of wtc 7
and this possibility was never investigated beyond the claim no sound as loud as a shot gun blast was heard..no actually forensic chemical testing was done
and instead it took years to make a bogus and unverified computer model to explain how this extraordinarily improbably event could ever occur without he use of explosives

 

[gslack]

lol..what a childish and empty headed reply..what..I did not post a link ? you did not claim it was not a NIST site ?..you didnt keep going back to material prior the revision ?...what part is a lie exactly



I cut and pasted the conclusions of NIST and provided a link to the full text
what ever impression that created in your little head is no ones doing but your own..I just posted the fact NIST concluded the loss of column 79 under any circumstance would of resulted in the complete loss of wtc 7




What lies is that ?...I have only made the the revised findings of NIST and their conclusion that the failure of column 79 under any circumstances would of resulted in the complete loss of wtc 7 and made the point that if NIST is correct then it means a single blast event no louder than a shot gun would be capable of bring down wtc 7




you threw a hissy fit ..you dewunked nothing

What you claimed they said...






how do they know that ?..how do they know there was no explosion or thermal device...the only reason they gave was..no sound as loud as a shot gun blast was heard or reported

ya..I know NIST theory..lol..my point is simple ..if NIST is correct a single blast event is all that would be required to cause the complete loss of wtc 7
and this possibility was never investigated beyond the claim no sound as loud as a shot gun blast was heard..no actually forensic chemical testing was done
and instead it took years to make a bogus and unverified computer model to explain how this extraordinarily improbably event could ever occur without he use of explosives

DUDE... Seriously get a grip.. You are now claiming that because a single explosion COULD HAVE caused the collapse, they should have investigated for that specific occurrence. Despite the fact they already established the cause was not an explosion at all...

Wow man, seriously, wow.. There was no explosion they already established that, it was the fires started by fallen, burning debris which led the heat-stress failure of column 79, which caused the collapse. No explosion, heat-stress induced failure..They investigated using information and evidence they had, all of that told them what they reported on.. There was no explosion, the fact an explosion COULD HAVE blown column 79 is irrelevant, because the evidence showed it didn't freaking happen....

It's simple really.. If I fall off my roof and break my leg, does it matter if it COULD HAVE been caused by somebody pushing me off, if no one else was there to do it, and it was quite clear by all measure that I in fact fell off on my own?

My god man listen to what you are saying here.LOL

 

[eots]

ya..I know NIST theory..lol..my point is simple ..if NIST is correct a single blast event is all that would be required to cause the complete loss of wtc 7
and this possibility was never investigated beyond the claim no sound as loud as a shot gun blast was heard..no actually forensic chemical testing was done
and instead it took years to make a bogus and unverified computer model to explain how this extraordinarily improbably event could ever occur without he use of explosives

DUDE... Seriously get a grip.. You are now claiming that because a single explosion COULD HAVE caused the collapse, they should have investigated for that specific occurrence. Despite the fact they already established the cause was not an explosion at all...

and they established this how ??

Wow man, seriously, wow.. There was no explosion they already established that,

how exactlly ?

it was the fires started by fallen, burning debris which led the heat-stress failure of column 79, which caused the collapse. No explosion, heat-stress induced failure..

theory and a poor one at that

They investigated using information and evidence they had, all of that told them what they reported on.. There was no explosion, the fact an explosion COULD HAVE blown column 79 is irrelevant, because the evidence showed it didn't freaking happen....

they ignored wittiness testimony ..not only did they ignore it they denied it existed...when it without question did

It's simple really.. If I fall off my roof and break my leg, does it matter if it COULD HAVE been caused by somebody pushing me off, if no one else was there to do it, and it was quite clear by all measure that I in fact fell off on my own?

My god man listen to what you are saying here.LOL

I am saying it is far from clear by all measure that wtc 7 fell from fire and the NIST investigation was failure and came up with nothing more than a highly improbably theory based almost solely on a questionable and unverified computer model and went out of its way to avoid any real investigation of a blast scenario

 

[gslack]

and they established this how ??



how exactlly ?



theory and a poor one at that



they ignored wittiness testimony ..not only did they ignore it they denied it existed...when it without question did




I am saying it is far from clear by all measure that wtc 7 fell from fire and the NIST investigation was failure and came up with nothing more than a highly improbably theory based almost solely on a questionable and unverified computer model and went out of its way to avoid any real investigation of a blast scenario

Okay, watch....

WTC7 was brought down by a martian death ray. My evidence for it is that NIST didn't examine the debris for martian death rays, and said this; "The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events." in the last part of their report. proving that a martian death ray did indeed cause the collapse of WTC7...

See how that works? I can do it too. I have just as much justification for my theory as you do yours...

So, think you could help me push this new theory of mine? Maybe troll a few forums, make a video or two and get famous? What do ya say?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Did I not quote Annex D of their final report? You know the one where they investigated a possible blast scenario...The post that you ignored.

And while I'm at it column 79 it seems held until 8 floors had disconnected from it then it buckled. One blast couldn't do that...Still would have required a series of controlled explosions which were not heard.......

 

[Gamolon]

I summed up the official conspiracy theory in a concise way (in regards to the two portions which I was speaking of). I wasn't redundant in anything I said so to call it verbose doesn't seem applicable. Regardless, I take from your invective filled diatribe you are a defender of the official conspiracy, so why don't you make a principled defense?

Did you happen to miss this wihosa?

Time for your lesson wihosa...

Here is a diagram showing just how much bullshit your "understanding" of structural loads, floors, columns, and load distribution really contains.

As I stated earlier, the floors are designed for live loads. Live loads are changing loads consisting of people, cubicles, computers, etc. The floors, trusses, and truss connections are calculated and designed to support/distribute those live loads for THAT FLOOR ONLY!

Do you get that part? FOR THAT FLOOR ONLY.

Let that sink in before going on.

Tell us why, using your vast structural engineering wisdom, were the floor trusses and connections of floor number 1 in the twin towers not more robust than the floor trusses and connections of floor 98 in the same tower if the floors took care of the loads of the building structure above? Look at the diagram above again. The arrows pointing downward to the floors represent the live load. The arrows pointing left/right beneath the floors is the live load from the floors being distributed to the columns. The arrows point downward on the columns are showing the combined loads of everything being distributed down to the foundations (grillage components in this case).

The point were the live load of the floor meets the column is were the connections (floor truss connections) are at. All of the connections and trusses are designed to work together to distribute the live load of THAT FLOOR ONLY to the columns they are attached to. They are NOT designed to handle the entire structure above as you so stupidly claim.

It was the core columns and perimeter columns that increased in size and strength the further down you went. That's because those core columns (and to some extent the perimeter columns) were responsible for supporting/and transferring the loads of the building above to the grillages, NOT the floors. Here is a grillage to be used at the base of one of the columns. This grillage component was set on bedrock.

Your claim of "the floors are designed to support everything above them" is complete and utter bullshit and you have no clue about structural design and what goes into it. That much is perfectly clear.

Ok fine point, but I was referring to the columns, the vertical supports for the the entire structure. The columns of each floor are designed to carry all the imposed loads of the floors and columns above them.
Now if you want to go on with your pancaking "theory" show evidence of pancaked floors.

Oh you can't because there is no evidence of that.

Your official theory is debunked.

Pancake theory?! Do you even know what the hell your debating against? I never said anything about a "floor pancake theory" dumbass. Also, here's what NIST says about the pancake theory. I bolded the important parts just for you.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

So what are you debating against?



So you get your ass handed to you and move your goalposts to saying you meant "just the columns of each floor supported the weight above them".



If the floors/floor connections were sheared from their respective columns, what was holding up the perimeter column LATERALLY? Also, are you trying to claim that the upper section fell perfectly, column on column?

Another thing. Please explain how explosives, which according to you idiots creates immediate zero support, caused the perimeter columns to bow inward in the beginning of the collapse? How do you get that effect from explosives?


Let me explain what happened.

The impact of the jet severed perimeter columns and damaged severed some of the core columns. The fire weakened the remaining columns to initiate collapse. The upper section impacted the first floor just below and sheared it from it's respective columns. The upper section was also sheared apart as it descended created a debris pile. As the debris pile descended downward, it sheared and torn everything apart in it's path. With no lateral support, the descending debris pile pushed the perimeter columns outward like banana peels. The damaged core could not stand on it's own so it also collapsed. This is evident by this photo which shows remnants of the core WITH NO FLOORS ATTACHED.

 

[Gamolon]

For the third time, it is the curtain wall which is damaged, a non structural element. That's akin to saying that if you scrape the skin off you leg you can't stand.

Do you even know what a curtain wall is and what it pertained to with WTC7? Obviously not. Is you entire argument based upon incorrect information and you lack of structural knowledge?

Here is a photo of your a potion of your so called "curtain wall".


The curtain wall was the granite/window facade that was hanged from the structure above. The structure above helped with gravity as well as lateral loads. The long span trusses helped transfer loads to the perimeter.