How's this? It's even in a youtube video, so it must be true!
Building 7 Explained - YouTube
And there are plenty more.
My point being that, for those of us who are laymen, there is no clear and obvious evidence that the collapse was not due to fires. More, if the science is so totally clear and obvious, doesn't that inherently mean that all the scientists and engineers who agree with the government's report are in on the conspiracy? And doesn't that include any who independently accept it, not just those who may have been contracted to do the investigation?
There is a lot of bandying about of the word 'fact' in these threads, but I'm pretty sure most of the time it is really 'opinion'.
If this computer simulation is to be considered so accurate....then why do tell, doesn't the NIST allow their data to be used for replication purposes?
Your ignorant appeal to a government authority is really telling, in that you don't seem to realize that it is certain factions within the US government that are the perpetrators of the lies regarding the 9-11 attacks.
How the fuck can you expect to appeal to the authority that is the main culprit, and that was tasked to conduct an honest and open investigation, including being forthcoming with the way the obtained their results....but were not?
We have posted proof and evidence that anyone with a basic grade school education could understand concerning the obvious distortions in the NIST report, yet you insist on using this discredited agency and report as a defense against what we post???
I could post much about their report that doesn't jive with the real world and readily visible results, and how they jumbled their data, but it is up to you as one of their defenders to prove us wrong, and you and the rest of your cohorts have failed.
Get with it or get on down the road, you bring nothing new to the discussion that solidifies your views.
And this is why so many of us have so little patience with the CT posters.
I did NOT appeal to government authority. In fact, I clearly asked if those who are NOT part of the government investigation, but agree with it's findings, must also be part of whatever conspiracy is at work.
I did not use the NIST report to try and debunk any claims you have made. I posted a youtube video of someone who claims to have debunked the free-fall, full building collapse idea.
Maybe if you didn't automatically assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a paid government agent, or completely believes the government's investigation, or whatever other assumptions you are making, you might see that some people just DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSIONS. Some people just are NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE SUPPOSED EVIDENCE YOU HAVE PRESENTED. None of that means belief in the NIST conclusions. It is possible to disbelieve both, or at least not be sure what the truth is.
Get back to me when you want to talk about what I actually post, rather than the delusions you create to pigeonhole me into whatever box you find most convenient.
You posted a video that used the NIST report and explanation that claimed it was true. You indirectly appealed to NIST as an authority on the subject.
Do you even watch the videos that you post beforehand??
The video does nothing but advance the reasons why so many think NIST is full of shit. I'll explain----
In the video, he states that the WTC7 collapsed due to uncontrolled fires.
Like has been said already, there have been numerous occasions of hirise buildings engulfed in larger fires that exceeded the 7 hrs of flame time at WTC 7, and they did not collapse into it's own footprint, like the video creator admitted happened to WTC 7
.
It is not mentioned that these buildings like most others had a degree of safety factor built into them, and are designed to withstand 3-5 times their limitations.
He goes on to say that 7 was supported by a series of steel columns (and beams) he also says that steel loses half of its strength at around 1200 degrees, then shows a steel beam being overcome by 2000 deg. flame.
Questions-Is the steel used in the video tempered and assembled to specs for use in a hi rise building?
The alloys and the heat treatment used in the production of steel result in it having different values and strengths. Testing must be accurate to determine the properties of the steel and to ensure adherence to standards.
High-tempered steel can be used exactly the same as untempered steel but is preferable in the area of construction.
Was it ever proven that the fire temps even reached 2000 deg. in the WTC 7?
NO.
Was the piece that was used in the video treated with fire retardant?
Doesn't appear to have been.
Here are tests results that cast doubt on the NIST theory of fire doing all the damage it claimed.
A New Approach to Multi-Storey Steel Framed Buildings Fire and Steel Construction.
Next he involves the thermal expansion that supposedly took place, but leaves out the fact that the components were held in place by the shear studs, that would have had to rip apart, and also does not mention that the expansion would have also occurred at the other end of the piece..NIST is caught distorting facts regarding the shear studs by saying there were none in a 2008 report. This contradicts directly with what they said on Sept.2005,
"Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs.
Typically the shear studs were 3/4 inch think x 5 inches long spaced 1 to 2 ft. on center.."
Without this thermal expansion concoction by NIST, and the deception regarding the shear studs
the whole fabrication is laid bare..
That and the fact that they tried to lie about the FF, then admitted to that as well, but left out the explanation for it.
It would be impossible for the minimal amount of thermal expansion to rip apart the heavy shear studs, so NIST pretends they didn't exist....After first admitting that they did.
This is but one example of the deception NIST used to achieve the demanded outcome, of a fire only explanation for the WTC 7 demise. It is very unlikely that this massive building would have come down so evenly at the rate that it did by only office fires. NIST admitted that the fires burned for 20 minutes or so then moved on. Fires cause asymmetrical random damaged as they are not controlled, so why the seemingly symmetrical collapse?
The theory that the inner core of 7 was falling down is absurd, as this implies that the outer columns and components were never connected to the inner structure.
In order for this massive building to come down as it did, producing FF for 8 stories, the supporting structure was taken out of the way. This is evident by the penthouse falling into the building first. This could not have occurred by random roving office fires, as a distorted collapse would have ensued and not the symmetrical one that was witnessed.
The idiot that produced your video, is also comparing a bridge, that is built with encased concrete, to the WTC7 .
Concrete does protect the steel that is encased within it, but at high temps the concrete explodes and the much thinner steel is exposed to the high temps of the tanker truck and collapses, much like a building that is used to try to prove their case regarding steel buildings and collapses.
The video producer asks why did 7 collapse, and he answers by saying that 7 was only one in history that was allowed to burn uncontrolled for 7 hours! How he can say this with all the other videos of other massive buildings that burned uncontrolled for much longer times, available is either ignorant or very deceptive of him.
Some of the warranted comments on the video-
"Another lying conspiracy retard. Amusing."
"Probably the lamest explanation of the WTC collapse I have had the misfortune to read.
I used to work in construction and I know those steels used in construction are as tough as hell. Fires are not enough to bring them down. Period."
"And you see, the guy who composed this video stated "it is only one in the history to burn, uncontrolled, 7 hours". And you believed to him without trying to check it."...
This video is lame, and full of lies. I also noticed that he didn't let the NIST simulation play to the end while doing the side by side comparison of the actual WTC7 collapse.....They look nothing alike...
Her's a much better and more detailed explanation regarding the shear studs and the thermal expansion that destroys the video you claim explains the demise of 7...And uses actual NIST reports in the process..Specifically the area around the famous column 79 that called for 3800 shear studs....on just one single level of the 47 story structure -4:00 minute mark.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qGe0E9cjUbI]Shear Ignorance - NIST and WTC7 - YouTube[/ame]
Why would they directly state the abundance of shear studs in building 7, then omit them out of subsequent reports
and their simulation model?
Well they admitted they were having trouble "getting a handle" on explaining the collapse, so they settled on the thermal expansion theory, but in order for it to be even remotely plausible, the rigid shear studs had to be removed from the equation..
Their thermal expansion theory does not hold up to scrutiny with these types of extra fortifications placed 1-2 ft apart
like they mentioned in their 2004 report.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PO_3pKXYMk]NELSON - Shear Stud Welding - YouTube[/ame]
Compare these two paragraphs. In the excerpted paragraph of the 2004 report, NIST says that studs were used with both beams and girders, although the studs "were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders" (the girder associated with column 79, by the way, was not a core girder). In the 2008 report, however, not only does NIST drop the association of girders with shear studs ( first sentence of excerpted paragraph), but then they go on to imply that studs were not indicated at all on the girders (last sentence of excerpted paragraph):
June 2004 NIST L pg 6 [10 on pg counter]
Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders.
August 2008 NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 15 [59]
Most of the beams [the words "and girders" are deleted] were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 in. in diameter by 5 in. long, spaced [the words "1 to" are deleted] 2 ft on center**. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for [the words "many of the core" are deleted] the girders.
Then, in this paragraph of the 2008 report, they use the "absence" of shear studs to help make their case:
August 2008 NCSTAR 1A pg 49 [87]
At Column 79, heating and expansion of the floor beams in the northeast corner caused the loss of connection between the column and the key girder. Additional factors that contributed to the failure of the critical north-south girder were (1) the absence of shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint and (2) the one-sided framing of the east floor beams that allowed the beams to push laterally on the girders, due to thermal expansion of the beams.
This deliberate distortion of the evidence can only be called fraud. Even those who have accepted the official story must acknowledge that NIST's misstatements of its own report are not mistakes. They are bending the facts to accommodate a theory that cannot stand up. Then they hide their computer modelling data so it can't be replicated?
Why?
WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: What Was In Building 7?
OpEdNews - Diary: NIST fraud - WTC 7 Shear Studs
