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

[LA RAM FAN]

Being that an event like this, that is, two fuel-laden wide bodied jets have NEVER stuck modern skyscrapers before, I don't think ANYONE knows for sure what the physics of such an event are. Even the engineers that designed the building. Even bin Laden was surprised. Perhaps, it's likely that all the reports of "bombs going off"' are misunderstood phenomena related to the impact/collapse of the structure itself? I think THAT is more likely the case. People like the idea of conspiracies and hidden plots being revealed. I think that, years from now, facts will show that the two towers collapsed BECAUSE of the planes hitting them, it was NOT an controlled implosion.

you need to watch the second video that eots posted on this thread,it destroys your theory.also wt7 and the witness testimony of barry jennings who was in bld 7 is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission they cant get around.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Being that an event like this, that is, two fuel-laden wide bodied jets have NEVER stuck modern skyscrapers before, I don't think ANYONE knows for sure what the physics of such an event are. Even the engineers that designed the building. Even bin Laden was surprised. Perhaps, it's likely that all the reports of "bombs going off"' are misunderstood phenomena related to the impact/collapse of the structure itself? I think THAT is more likely the case. People like the idea of conspiracies and hidden plots being revealed. I think that, years from now, facts will show that the two towers collapsed BECAUSE of the planes hitting them, it was NOT an controlled implosion.

Yeah, pretty much. We're talking about a lot of fuel, not just the stuff inside the jets, but all the combustible and burnable material inside the buildings, the airflow that was created by the jets hitting the buildings, as well as the air inside this giant steel, glass, and concrete tube, and the differential pressures in and out of the buildings. It wasn't a pretty combination.

the designer, the former wtc electrical engineer and and the fire protection expert seem to disagree with you

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

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Being that an event like this, that is, two fuel-laden wide bodied jets have NEVER stuck modern skyscrapers before, I don't think ANYONE knows for sure what the physics of such an event are. Even the engineers that designed the building.

There have been studies and calculations done on the fuel loads, and fire temps that don't jive with the collapses, nor the straight down manner of the descents, nor the rapid times of collapse. Even NIST had to change the fuel loads they sited in the WTC7 report when it flaws were pointed out to them, and the fire tests, and the fire proofing tests were less then scientific, or accurate.
Ever wonder why the media, and others were saying that WTC7 was going to be the next building to fall down? Why did the BBC and CNN, have reporters on air claiming that WTC7 was collapsing when it clearly was NOT?
How come they seemed to know it was going to collapse, but it took years to figure out (an excuse) as to WHY it actually did?

Even bin Laden was surprised.

OBL was surprised, as he flat out denied responsibility for the attacks, and the FBI had no proof of his involvement.

Perhaps, it's likely that all the reports of "bombs going off"' are misunderstood phenomena related to the impact/collapse of the structure itself? I think THAT is more likely the case.

The secondary explosions were not looked into, nor the witnesses who spoke of them taken seriously, and at first explosions were denied even to have occurred by many OCTAs here and elsewhere.

People like the idea of conspiracies and hidden plots being revealed. I think that, years from now, facts will show that the two towers collapsed BECAUSE of the planes hitting them, it was NOT an controlled implosion.

The official story is of itself a conspiracy theory with wild speculations, and highly improbable events, extreme luck by the alleged hijackers, and laws of physics that does not stand up to scrutiny when looked at objectively, and scientifically.

Just yesterday a reporter who worked in Chicago, (Carol Marin) who was there on 9-11, wrote an article about how she was saved on that day, in it she stated that a fireball explosion occurred, and then the building "melted" and collapsed. This is total nonsense but is what is being put into the trough to be eaten up by people who do not think any deeper then what they are told to.

9/11 is the biggest event in our life time, and yet here we sit a decade later, and the average American has not put any logical thought into what happened that day. For the most part, Americans were driven by emotional, almost animalistic, herd mentality into multiple wars, loss of liberties and explosive generational debt. We were driven by the fear of Mushroom Clouds and Weapons of Mass Destruction that were only found in our minds. When I look back at how much our world has changed over the past decade since 9/11, it is astounding to me how much death and debt could have been avoided if we just came face to face with reality.

“It is said that men go mad in herds, and only come to their senses slowly, and one by one.” -Charles MacKay

A Decade of Denial and Deception | Don't Tread On Me

There are other things like what areas the hijacked planes were in, and the times the transponders were turned off, and why would a hijacker risk flying around for over an hour when they could have flown directly to their targets.
These are questions that considering the perps lack of expertise, and knowledge of radar tracking, and general piloting skills, have to be asked and investigated deeper.

The debate of 9-11 and the questioning of what happened and what was officially said about the events, is not for people who only skim through the BS talking points, ALTHOUGH this is where it begins, and where it started to fall apart for the tellers of the 9-11 conspiracy story.

From the "melted steel" and the "obvious" "jet fuel" fire temps, to the rest of the exaggerated talking points designed to deceive the naive public, along with the ever popular nonsense of 'thousands of people involved, someone would have spoken out by now" crap.

I find it strange when asked for proof, they themselves offer no concrete proof for what they themselves believe. There is massive proof that the OCT is flawed, and inaccurate, as is many aspects of our governments stories in the past ie: Vietnam, WMDs, Iran Contra,
and a host of other shit we were told at the time, but found out later
was not accurate.

Both sides of the arguments have to be looked at and scrutinized fully, where many people just say that the History channel, or Popular Mechanics have "debunked" the "conspiracy" and are satisfied with their versions, despite the obvious flaws and BS.

A big contradiction is since it was proven that the fire temps couldn't have "melted" the steel as was first widely regurgitated by the media, and highly educated engineers, then the fact of the very high recorded, and witnessed rubble fires demand an answer. Instead this fact is denied.
It has been shown that it simply is not scientifically possible to collapse and pulverize 3 buildings with 2 planes, while achieving 10 and 7 second decent rates (one actually producing free fall acceleration) with "jet fuel" and gravity alone, and 19 A-rabs with minimal commercial airliner flight training, box cutters as the culprits.

You took the Bush dupes to school major big time there.

 

[daws101]

Being that an event like this, that is, two fuel-laden wide bodied jets have NEVER stuck modern skyscrapers before, I don't think ANYONE knows for sure what the physics of such an event are. Even the engineers that designed the building.

There have been studies and calculations done on the fuel loads, and fire temps that don't jive with the collapses, nor the straight down manner of the descents, nor the rapid times of collapse. Even NIST had to change the fuel loads they sited in the WTC7 report when it flaws were pointed out to them, and the fire tests, and the fire proofing tests were less then scientific, or accurate.
Ever wonder why the media, and others were saying that WTC7 was going to be the next building to fall down? Why did the BBC and CNN, have reporters on air claiming that WTC7 was collapsing when it clearly was NOT?
How come they seemed to know it was going to collapse, but it took years to figure out (an excuse) as to WHY it actually did?


OBL was surprised, as he flat out denied responsibility for the attacks, and the FBI had no proof of his involvement.


The secondary explosions were not looked into, nor the witnesses who spoke of them taken seriously, and at first explosions were denied even to have occurred by many OCTAs here and elsewhere.

People like the idea of conspiracies and hidden plots being revealed. I think that, years from now, facts will show that the two towers collapsed BECAUSE of the planes hitting them, it was NOT an controlled implosion.

The official story is of itself a conspiracy theory with wild speculations, and highly improbable events, extreme luck by the alleged hijackers, and laws of physics that does not stand up to scrutiny when looked at objectively, and scientifically.

Just yesterday a reporter who worked in Chicago, (Carol Marin) who was there on 9-11, wrote an article about how she was saved on that day, in it she stated that a fireball explosion occurred, and then the building "melted" and collapsed. This is total nonsense but is what is being put into the trough to be eaten up by people who do not think any deeper then what they are told to.

9/11 is the biggest event in our life time, and yet here we sit a decade later, and the average American has not put any logical thought into what happened that day. For the most part, Americans were driven by emotional, almost animalistic, herd mentality into multiple wars, loss of liberties and explosive generational debt. We were driven by the fear of Mushroom Clouds and Weapons of Mass Destruction that were only found in our minds. When I look back at how much our world has changed over the past decade since 9/11, it is astounding to me how much death and debt could have been avoided if we just came face to face with reality.

“It is said that men go mad in herds, and only come to their senses slowly, and one by one.” -Charles MacKay

A Decade of Denial and Deception | Don't Tread On Me

There are other things like what areas the hijacked planes were in, and the times the transponders were turned off, and why would a hijacker risk flying around for over an hour when they could have flown directly to their targets.
These are questions that considering the perps lack of expertise, and knowledge of radar tracking, and general piloting skills, have to be asked and investigated deeper.

The debate of 9-11 and the questioning of what happened and what was officially said about the events, is not for people who only skim through the BS talking points, ALTHOUGH this is where it begins, and where it started to fall apart for the tellers of the 9-11 conspiracy story.

From the "melted steel" and the "obvious" "jet fuel" fire temps, to the rest of the exaggerated talking points designed to deceive the naive public, along with the ever popular nonsense of 'thousands of people involved, someone would have spoken out by now" crap.

I find it strange when asked for proof, they themselves offer no concrete proof for what they themselves believe. There is massive proof that the OCT is flawed, and inaccurate, as is many aspects of our governments stories in the past ie: Vietnam, WMDs, Iran Contra,
and a host of other shit we were told at the time, but found out later
was not accurate.

Both sides of the arguments have to be looked at and scrutinized fully, where many people just say that the History channel, or Popular Mechanics have "debunked" the "conspiracy" and are satisfied with their versions, despite the obvious flaws and BS.

A big contradiction is since it was proven that the fire temps couldn't have "melted" the steel as was first widely regurgitated by the media, and highly educated engineers, then the fact of the very high recorded, and witnessed rubble fires demand an answer. Instead this fact is denied.
It has been shown that it simply is not scientifically possible to collapse and pulverize 3 buildings with 2 planes, while achieving 10 and 7 second decent rates (one actually producing free fall acceleration) with "jet fuel" and gravity alone, and 19 A-rabs with minimal commercial airliner flight training, box cutters as the culprits.

You took the Bush dupes to school major big time there.

you just keep wishing that 911 toadie!

 

[Mr. Jones]

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?

 

[daws101]

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?

asked and answered and this long ass post proves nothing except you love to spew dogma...btw you didn't name you're source ..afraid it will lack credibilty?
911 REVIEW? LMAO!!!! OF COURSE IT HAS NO CREDIBILTY LAMO!

 

[daws101]

The Daubert test of reliability: Fighting "junk science" in the courtrooms
2002, Nov 2nd | Emner: Pseudoscience, Skepticism
by Steven B. Loomis

I. Introduction
In continuation of Renata Zilch’s article on the Toxic Mold scare, this is a brief overview of the US court system’s treatment of scientific and other expert testimony under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Daubert (Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993)). The “toxic” mold case cited by Renata Zilch in her article had the testimony of the Plaintiff’s expert excluded on the grounds that the methodology used was simply too unreliable to be useful to the jury. See Allison v. Fire Insurance Exchange, 98 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. App.-Austin 2002, n.w.h.).

The Texas standard, as discussed below, is based directly on the standards set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert. This article is only a brief summary of some of the issues involved in expert testimony and the efforts by the court system in the U.S. to exclude unreliable expert testimony, or “junk science,” from trials without interfering with the jury’s basic function as a finder of fact.

II. Overview
The U.S. court system places a great amount of faith in the collective ability of a jury to determine issues on a bewildering array of subjects, with no special training or education. That faith is tested somewhat when the jury is faced with testimony from purported experts using techniques or methods of analysis that lie far outside a lay person’s normal sphere of knowledge.

The courts have an inherent reluctance to take any issue of fact away from the jury. The credibility of any witness – even an expert witness – is a pure question of fact; there is no legal instruction regarding what a juror may or may not find “credible” or convincing. The court’s authority is limited to issues of law, and it has no say on the decision regarding what type of evidence or witness should be believed.

However, the courts – and the drafters of the Federal Rules of Evidence – recognized that unreliable or irrelevant testimony from an expert is not useful to the jury, and in fact ultimately risks confusing them. There exists also the very real concern that a jury will give too much credence to a supposed “expert” based on his qualifications alone, and would be unable to effectively evaluate the science behind any opinions being offered. Finally, there is also the pragmatic fact that many litigants will simply use “hired guns” – terminology from the old west used as shorthand for experts-for-pay – who will essentially testify to anything, as long as they are paid enough.

The Federal Rules therefore set the courts up as “gatekeepers” to insure that only opinions that are backed by a consistent methodology be allowed before the jury. A subjective opinion from an expert with insufficient objective evidence to back it up is essentially no evidence at all.

The courts, however, recognize that their job as gatekeepers is extremely limited in scope. The court does not attempt to weed out an opinion that it believes is incorrect, but only looks to the methodology used to determine whether the result (whatever it may be) was arrived at in a reliable fashion. The exclusion of an expert’s testimony is supposed to be the exception, not the rule: “Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky — but admissible – evidence.”

III. Daubert and The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Because of the above considerations, the courts have long filled the role of “gate keeper” to ensure that expert testimony reaching the jury meets a basic level of reliability. Older case law (based on the common law “Frye Test”) (2) used a fairly stringent standard for determining if an expert could testify in front of a jury: the testimony was inadmissible unless “the principle it is based on is sufficiently established to have a general acceptance to the field in which it belongs.” (3)

The Frye test was used by the majority of U.S. Federal courts for over seventy (70) years.(4) While it was widely accepted, a relatively small number of courts either refused to follow the strict test or actually repudiated it directly. (5)

The test, poor at separating any new or novel scientific or technological procedure, came under increasing attack in the Eighties and early Nineties.(6) The Supreme Court in the Daubert finally declared that the more flexible Federal Rules of Evidence had completely replaced the Frye test in determining whether an expert’s testimony was admissible. (7)

IV. The Daubert Test for Reliability
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states, in part:

witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if:
the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,
the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. (8)
The key for the Court in determining whether an expert may testify before a jury is therefore primarily one of “reliability of method.” The court will not look at the actual opinion held by an expert, but merely examines his or her methodology to determine whether the procedures used would be expected to lead to trustworthy results.(9) If an expert relies on unreliable foundational data or his methodology is not reliable, then his entire opinion is likewise unreliable and should be excluded from the jury. (10)

A. The Daubert Factors
The U.S. Supreme Court set out several specific factors that should be used by the courts in evaluating any proposed expert testimony. These factors are not exclusive and some or all may not apply in any given case, but they are always the place to start the reliability analysis. (11) The factors are as follows:

Whether the theory or technique has been scientifically tested;
Whether the theory or technique has been subject to peer review or publication;
The (expected) error rate of the technique used;
Acceptance of the theory or technique in the relevant scientific community.(12)
The test is meant to be a flexible one, with no single factor being dispositive.(13) Likewise, the Supreme Court recognized that not all factors would be useful in all cases, and that other factors may be more important than any of the listed ones for a specific case. (14) Obviously, an opinion or type of analysis created specifically for use in a lawsuit is not given the same weight as a method of analysis that is widely accepted by the scientific community outside the litigation setting. While the Daubert test is certainly more liberal than the older, Frye standard, it still allows the exclusion of testimony where the court is convinced that the method used to support the opinion is simply too poorly designed to be trustworthy.

B. “Other” Factors
Since the Daubert decision was handed down, the federal courts have identified a number additional factors which have been useful in examining the reliability of expert opinion. These include the following:

Whether experts are proposing to testify about matters growing naturally and directly out of research they have conducted independent of the litigation, or whether they have developed their opinions expressly for purposes of testifying. (15)
Whether the expert has unjustifiably extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion. (16)
Whether the expert has adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations. (17)
Whether the field of expertise claimed by the expert is known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give (Skeptics will be happy to note that even the most “reliable” astrologer using methodology “widely accepted” by the relevant “scientific” community can be excluded under this analysis). (18)
The above list of additional factors is taken directly from the commentary to the 2003 version of the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding Rule 702.

C. Texas Factors
As Renata’s associated article shows, the Texas courts use a test derived directly from the Supreme Court’s Daubert analysis.(19) Many states have adopted similar language and analysis, as their state rules of evidence are patterned directly after – if not identical to – the Federal Rules of Evidence. (20)

The Texas Supreme Court, while accepting the analysis and conclusions of the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert, declined to simply adopt the Daubert factors.(21) The Texas courts therefore use a slightly different formulation of the same concepts. In any case involving a challenge to the reliability of expert testimony, the courts examine the following factors:

The extent to which the theory has been or can be tested;
The extent to which the technique relies upon a subjective interpretation by the expert;
Whether the theory has been subject to publication and/or peer review;
The technique’s potential rate of error;
Whether the underlying theory or technique has been generally accepted as valid by the relevant scientific community; and
The non-judicial uses that have been made of the theory or technique (i.e., was is developed simply for litigation?). (22)
Like Daubert, these factors are non-exclusive; the courts are allowed to look at any facts that it feels are relevant to its examination of the expert’s methodology. (23)

Also like Daubert, the courts are cautioned to “focus solely on the validity of principles and methodology underlying the testimony, not the conclusions generated.” (24) This is a test designed to find bad methodology, not exclude opinions that the court believes are incorrect.

V. Application to Mold Cases
Issues of causation in “toxic” mold cases, such as the one cited by Renata, are well suited for the above type of reliability analysis. In any case of alleged negligence, it is necessary for a plaintiff to prove not only that the Defendant has breached a duty of care, but that the breach actually caused the damages complained of. This type of causation evidence is outside the general knowledge of a lay person and is therefore almost exclusively within the realm of expert testimony.

Causation, in mold cases (or any case involving alleged health problems from exposure to a substance or chemical), is a two-step hurdle for the plaintiff. First, he or she must show that the substance in question can cause the type of damages attributed to it. This is called “general” causation – can the substance cause the type of damages alleged in the general population? (25)

If the plaintiff passes the first hurdle, then he or she must also show (by a preponderance of the evidence) that the substance in question actually caused his or her specific injuries. (26)

An expert must show a sufficient factual grounding for both of these levels of causation before that testimony can be considered reliable enough to be put in front of a jury. In the Allison case cited by Renata, the plaintiff’s expert relied on epidemiological studies, but failed to show that such reliance met accepted standards within the scientific community.(27) In fact, the expert testified that:

he could not give a confidence interval for the results of his study;
he could not give a calculation for any risk factors for exposure; and
he could not state that the techniques used in the study were generally accepted. (28)
This testimony, combined with the fact that the expert appeared to be using this study merely for litigation (and in a manner not generally used by his field of study), allowed the trial court to exclude his entire testimony without any real controversy. The decision was upheld on appeal with a minimum of text devoted to the issue. (29)

This case helps illustrate that the science behind at least some of the mold cases is built more upon wishful thinking and the profit motive than actual science. Until and unless the plaintiffs in such cases can come up with a methodology that passes muster, the “coming wave” of toxic tort litigation risks going the way of bathtub fusion.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Disenchanted61]

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.

 

[Mr. Jones]

The source is in the link, as well as the video, you obviously don't read nor look into what your opposition rebuttals back to you, that is why you are a fool. You haven't answered shit at all, all that YOU post is the same old tired dogma and unproven BS theories, then you try to pretend you actually reply with anything meaningful
Or of any substance pertaining to the topic!

I can see that you are a waste of time, as you don't have the capability to engage in any intelligent debate, all the while posting shit that has been thoroughly debunked.
Anybody can go and read what the NIST report says you fucking idiot! It is what is in it that is being debated and proven false.
Fuck you, you are a waste of time.

 

[daws101]

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.

Which deniers would those be?
there are so many to choose from.

 

[Mr. Jones]

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.

The people who started to question the validity of the NIST reports and 'investigation" are intelligent, credible people from all walks of life, and backgrounds. Who used science, and physics to bolster their claims, it is the deniers of the facts these people present to them to study, that are the "deniers who walk among us"

 

[daws101]

The source is in the link, as well as the video, you obviously don't read nor look into what your opposition rebuttals back to you, that is why you are a fool. You haven't answered shit at all, all that YOU post is the same old tired dogma and unproven BS theories, then you try to pretend you actually reply with anything meaningful
Or of any substance pertaining to the topic!

I can see that you are a waste of time, as you don't have the capability to engage in any intelligent debate, all the while posting shit that has been thoroughly debunked.
Anybody can go and read what the NIST report says you fucking idiot! It is what is in it that is being debated and proven false.

Fuck you, you are a waste of time.

nice dodge, just proved my point, your sources have no credibilty.. I'M NOT REQUIRED TO REBUT OR ANSWER .IT'S YOU WHO ARE MAKING THE ALLEGATIONS AND MUST PROVE YOUR CLAIMS ,
Constantly spewing factless and specious opinion is not evidence especially when it comes from non credible sources...

 

[Mr. Jones]

The Daubert test of reliability: Fighting "junk science" in the courtrooms
2002, Nov 2nd | Emner: Pseudoscience, Skepticism
by Steven B. Loomis

The Bush Administration's first instinct when it comes to science has been to suppress, discredit or alter facts it doesn't like.

But suppressing or altering science can be a tricky business; the Bush Administration has found it easier at times simply to arrange to get the results it wants.

The Bush Administration has so violated and corrupted the institutional culture of government agencies charged with scientific research that it could take a generation for them to recover their integrity..

Science, like theology, reveals transcendent truths about a changing world. At their best, scientists are moral individuals whose business is to seek the truth. Over the past two decades industry and conservative think tanks have invested millions of dollars to corrupt science. They distort the truth about tobacco, pesticides, ozone depletion, dioxin, acid rain and global warming. In their attempt to undermine the credible basis for public action (by positing that all opinions are politically driven and therefore any one is as true as any other), they also undermine belief in the integrity of the scientific process.

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/science/rfk.asp

NIST along with the EPA are perfect examples of political manipulation of science. Hence, the results were junk science with serious consequences.
How is NIST wrong and why is it being called junk science?
The answer is in the post, link, and video you choose to ignore.

Many of the things that are being called wrong about the NIST report, are being ignored,.... by people who then ridicule the positions and facts of those they ignore, without even knowing what those positions, or facts actually are!

 

[daws101]

The Daubert test of reliability: Fighting "junk science" in the courtrooms
2002, Nov 2nd | Emner: Pseudoscience, Skepticism
by Steven B. Loomis

The Bush Administration's first instinct when it comes to science has been to suppress, discredit or alter facts it doesn't like.

But suppressing or altering science can be a tricky business; the Bush Administration has found it easier at times simply to arrange to get the results it wants.

The Bush Administration has so violated and corrupted the institutional culture of government agencies charged with scientific research that it could take a generation for them to recover their integrity..

Science, like theology, reveals transcendent truths about a changing world. At their best, scientists are moral individuals whose business is to seek the truth. Over the past two decades industry and conservative think tanks have invested millions of dollars to corrupt science. They distort the truth about tobacco, pesticides, ozone depletion, dioxin, acid rain and global warming. In their attempt to undermine the credible basis for public action (by positing that all opinions are politically driven and therefore any one is as true as any other), they also undermine belief in the integrity of the scientific process.

NRDC: The Junk Science of George W. Bush by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

NIST along with the EPA are perfect examples of political manipulation of science. Hence, the results were junk science with serious consequences.
How is NIST wrong and why is it being called junk science?
The answer is in the post, link, and video you choose to ignore.

Many of the things that are being called wrong about the NIST report, are being ignored,.... by people who then ridicule the positions and facts of those they ignore, without even knowing what those positions, or facts actually are!

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

 

[Mr. Jones]

The Daubert test of reliability: Fighting "junk science" in the courtrooms
2002, Nov 2nd | Emner: Pseudoscience, Skepticism
by Steven B. Loomis

The Bush Administration's first instinct when it comes to science has been to suppress, discredit or alter facts it doesn't like.

But suppressing or altering science can be a tricky business; the Bush Administration has found it easier at times simply to arrange to get the results it wants.

The Bush Administration has so violated and corrupted the institutional culture of government agencies charged with scientific research that it could take a generation for them to recover their integrity..

Science, like theology, reveals transcendent truths about a changing world. At their best, scientists are moral individuals whose business is to seek the truth. Over the past two decades industry and conservative think tanks have invested millions of dollars to corrupt science. They distort the truth about tobacco, pesticides, ozone depletion, dioxin, acid rain and global warming. In their attempt to undermine the credible basis for public action (by positing that all opinions are politically driven and therefore any one is as true as any other), they also undermine belief in the integrity of the scientific process.

NRDC: The Junk Science of George W. Bush by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

NIST along with the EPA are perfect examples of political manipulation of science. Hence, the results were junk science with serious consequences.
How is NIST wrong and why is it being called junk science?
The answer is in the post, link, and video you choose to ignore.

Many of the things that are being called wrong about the NIST report, are being ignored,.... by people who then ridicule the positions and facts of those they ignore, without even knowing what those positions, or facts actually are!

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?

 

[Mr. Jones]

nice dodge, just proved my point, your sources have no credibilty.. I'M NOT REQUIRED TO REBUT OR ANSWER .IT'S YOU WHO ARE MAKING THE ALLEGATIONS AND MUST PROVE YOUR CLAIMS ,
Constantly spewing factless and specious opinion is not evidence especially when it comes from non credible sources...

If you intend on replying to something you don't agree with it usually is customary to point out the parts that offend you, which you almost never do in any detail that makes sense, and I have pointed out a few parts out of many that are dubious about the NIST report, including proof that substantiates the claims, it's not our fault if you refuse to take the time to address what is being said and answer in a comprehensible or intelligent manner.

Again I ask for you to show all the readers what are the non facts about the rebuttal against the NIST report?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Being that an event like this, that is, two fuel-laden wide bodied jets have NEVER stuck modern skyscrapers before, I don't think ANYONE knows for sure what the physics of such an event are. Even the engineers that designed the building.

There have been studies and calculations done on the fuel loads, and fire temps that don't jive with the collapses, nor the straight down manner of the descents, nor the rapid times of collapse. Even NIST had to change the fuel loads they sited in the WTC7 report when it flaws were pointed out to them, and the fire tests, and the fire proofing tests were less then scientific, or accurate.
Ever wonder why the media, and others were saying that WTC7 was going to be the next building to fall down? Why did the BBC and CNN, have reporters on air claiming that WTC7 was collapsing when it clearly was NOT?
How come they seemed to know it was going to collapse, but it took years to figure out (an excuse) as to WHY it actually did?


OBL was surprised, as he flat out denied responsibility for the attacks, and the FBI had no proof of his involvement.


The secondary explosions were not looked into, nor the witnesses who spoke of them taken seriously, and at first explosions were denied even to have occurred by many OCTAs here and elsewhere.

People like the idea of conspiracies and hidden plots being revealed. I think that, years from now, facts will show that the two towers collapsed BECAUSE of the planes hitting them, it was NOT an controlled implosion.

The official story is of itself a conspiracy theory with wild speculations, and highly improbable events, extreme luck by the alleged hijackers, and laws of physics that does not stand up to scrutiny when looked at objectively, and scientifically.

Just yesterday a reporter who worked in Chicago, (Carol Marin) who was there on 9-11, wrote an article about how she was saved on that day, in it she stated that a fireball explosion occurred, and then the building "melted" and collapsed. This is total nonsense but is what is being put into the trough to be eaten up by people who do not think any deeper then what they are told to.

9/11 is the biggest event in our life time, and yet here we sit a decade later, and the average American has not put any logical thought into what happened that day. For the most part, Americans were driven by emotional, almost animalistic, herd mentality into multiple wars, loss of liberties and explosive generational debt. We were driven by the fear of Mushroom Clouds and Weapons of Mass Destruction that were only found in our minds. When I look back at how much our world has changed over the past decade since 9/11, it is astounding to me how much death and debt could have been avoided if we just came face to face with reality.

“It is said that men go mad in herds, and only come to their senses slowly, and one by one.” -Charles MacKay

A Decade of Denial and Deception | Don't Tread On Me

There are other things like what areas the hijacked planes were in, and the times the transponders were turned off, and why would a hijacker risk flying around for over an hour when they could have flown directly to their targets.
These are questions that considering the perps lack of expertise, and knowledge of radar tracking, and general piloting skills, have to be asked and investigated deeper.

The debate of 9-11 and the questioning of what happened and what was officially said about the events, is not for people who only skim through the BS talking points, ALTHOUGH this is where it begins, and where it started to fall apart for the tellers of the 9-11 conspiracy story.

From the "melted steel" and the "obvious" "jet fuel" fire temps, to the rest of the exaggerated talking points designed to deceive the naive public, along with the ever popular nonsense of 'thousands of people involved, someone would have spoken out by now" crap.

I find it strange when asked for proof, they themselves offer no concrete proof for what they themselves believe. There is massive proof that the OCT is flawed, and inaccurate, as is many aspects of our governments stories in the past ie: Vietnam, WMDs, Iran Contra,
and a host of other shit we were told at the time, but found out later
was not accurate.

Both sides of the arguments have to be looked at and scrutinized fully, where many people just say that the History channel, or Popular Mechanics have "debunked" the "conspiracy" and are satisfied with their versions, despite the obvious flaws and BS.

A big contradiction is since it was proven that the fire temps couldn't have "melted" the steel as was first widely regurgitated by the media, and highly educated engineers, then the fact of the very high recorded, and witnessed rubble fires demand an answer. Instead this fact is denied.
It has been shown that it simply is not scientifically possible to collapse and pulverize 3 buildings with 2 planes, while achieving 10 and 7 second decent rates (one actually producing free fall acceleration) with "jet fuel" and gravity alone, and 19 A-rabs with minimal commercial airliner flight training, box cutters as the culprits.[/QUOTE








[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGsOkT__M7Y]National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 3 - YouTube[/ame]

Learn how to use the quote function you fucking moron.

 

[Mr. Jones]

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??

 

[daws101]

The Bush Administration's first instinct when it comes to science has been to suppress, discredit or alter facts it doesn't like.

But suppressing or altering science can be a tricky business; the Bush Administration has found it easier at times simply to arrange to get the results it wants.

The Bush Administration has so violated and corrupted the institutional culture of government agencies charged with scientific research that it could take a generation for them to recover their integrity..

Science, like theology, reveals transcendent truths about a changing world. At their best, scientists are moral individuals whose business is to seek the truth. Over the past two decades industry and conservative think tanks have invested millions of dollars to corrupt science. They distort the truth about tobacco, pesticides, ozone depletion, dioxin, acid rain and global warming. In their attempt to undermine the credible basis for public action (by positing that all opinions are politically driven and therefore any one is as true as any other), they also undermine belief in the integrity of the scientific process.

NRDC: The Junk Science of George W. Bush by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

NIST along with the EPA are perfect examples of political manipulation of science. Hence, the results were junk science with serious consequences.
How is NIST wrong and why is it being called junk science?
The answer is in the post, link, and video you choose to ignore.

Many of the things that are being called wrong about the NIST report, are being ignored,.... by people who then ridicule the positions and facts of those they ignore, without even knowing what those positions, or facts actually are!

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 :

 

[Zona]

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.

OH yeah? Well... a former wrassler who used to be a Navy Seal (even though he never was a seal and he was NEVER IN COMBAT) said they used Thermite paint and that is what made the towers go down. So everything you just said is wrong.

Jesse Ventura rules!