The NIST's latest explanation of the WTC7 collapse is so farcical that one has to believe the theory is being promulgated by people inside NIST who are "signaling" to the public by the lameness of this hypothesis that NIST has been hamstrung on this issue by government pressure.
- Reviews
- Interviews
- Reviews
Support TDG!
Got something from TDG? Give a little back:
Your support is appreciated!
User login
Navigation
Poll
Sub Rosa
Issue 6:
- Robert Bauval
- Collecting Crowley
- Secrets of Fatima
- Manly P. Hall
farcical
What is farcical about it? Can you elaborate?
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
Farcical Indeed!
What's farcical about the report (and you can read about it at http://www.physorg.com/news138546437.htm..., linked by DG on 08/22) is that the NIST now claims that the collapse of WT7, which was hit by only the most minimal of falling debris prior to the collapse of WTC1 and 2, was brought down due to what they now call "thermal expansion," a newly-minted term to cover a myriad of anomalies in the evidence.
FTA: "Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.” What they claim, then, is that the demolition-style drop, where the interior section dropped first, followed perfectly by the two outer sections of the rectangular structure, was due to the weakening of a SINGLE support column.
Why then didn't just part of the structure collapse, or the entire building simply fall over, as many other structures involved in fire in the past have done? The NIST never address that question, nor the reports of tons of molten steel found in the WTC7 subbasement (as well as in both WTC1 and 2). To heat steel so hot that it's still molten three weeks later (when the recovery crews finally got to it) requires temperatures in the region of >3000K, far in excess of either the jet-fuel induced fires supposed to have caused the destruction of the Twin Towers, or the supposed debris-involved fires caused by the consumption of office material.
What's amazed many observers (on both sides of the argument) is the NIST's creation of this new term to explain the weakening of the steel: "thermal expansion," supposedly allowing the weakening of long-span floor systems "at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." So what they're saying, in roundabout terms, is that there is nothing in the evidence that can allow for the loss of structural integrity of the steel frame at the temperatures observed. Thus, they create a new term to cover this glaring error.
The only other option is to suggest that some much higher temperature caused the collapse than would have been due to anything that reached it from WTC1 or 2 or the airliners. This would then open up the discussion to include thermate, the cutting material used by demolition experts to drop buildings in controlled situations -- which is exactly the investigation that many 9/11 truth-seekers have called for.
Read the comments at the bottom of the original post, and you'll see the discussion also includes two other elements the NIST overlooks: the evidence of diagonally-cut steel beams from the basement of WTC7 (evidence of the building being intentionally demolished), and the interview with Barry Jennings from the Office of Emergency Management, who stated there were bodies and a blown-out lobby in WTC7 long before the Twin Towers fell. That's a blown OUT lobby, not blown IN from the supposed falling wreckage of the airliners, and before any debris from the falling Twin Towers.
To their credit, the NIST also admits ,"This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building..." They fail to mention this was also the ONLY known collapse of a steel-reinforced building due to fire ever, other than WTC1 and 2, of course.
Farcical? Yes.
Is it an admission of helplessness, as Emlong suggests? Maybe, maybe not. I think there are still quite a few Powers That Be that don't want an honest investigation of any of the 9/11 events.
Ask yourself this:
How long did it take us to find out the Maine explosion was caused by an internal weapons accident, and not an attack by Spain? (Answer: over seventy years)
How long did it take to discover the Lusitania was carrying ammunition, in contravention of the Neutrality Act, and that its sinking was also due to an internal explosion? (Answer: over eighty years)
How long did it take us to find out that the US staged the Gulf of Tonkin Incident that allowed for the ramp-up of the Viet Nam war? (Answer: over thirty years)
Any bets on how long the Military-Industrial Complex can keep this under wraps?
TemplarScribe
http://www.EternalHorizons.com
http://www.MichaelDelving.com
this report?
Is it this report?
When I posted my question, there was no discussion at the end of the original post in this thread, no links, nothing. Just the comment. There still is not today. That's why I asked.
On the other hand, "thermal expansion" is not a new term. At least it is not new to me.
As for the strangely corroded beam mentioned in the discussion on the link you provided (thanks), probably it refers to this FEMA report. The report (in appendix C) mentions that it is not clear where in the building that piece comes from. Have they considered that it may not be from the building? It could have come from WTC1. After all, hot debris from WTC1 started fires in WTC7.
I suspect that NIST is indeed covering up something, but it is not what you think. I suspect that building standards are not what they should be. In particular, there is a serious lack of redundancy. Assume for a minute that the NIST report is correct. If that is so, then two failures occurred, one after the other: (1) the sprinkler system failed, and then two days later, (2) the failure of one single critical support column caused the collapse of the building. If that is indeed the case, then many buildings are much more vulnerable than we think. Corruption in the New York City construction industry, and the regulatory agencies there? Would you be surprised about that?
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
"I'm a doctor, Jim, not a structural engineer!"
"It's worse than that, Jim!" Bones' iconic comment from Star Trek certainly fits this scenario:
According to the NIST report, the fire(s) started from the outer edges of the building and worked their way in. Yet, according to their "thermal expansion" theory, the crucial element that failed was in the center of the structure:
FTA: "NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these 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 interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building."
There are two errors, IMHO, with this theory:
1) If the fires were more prevalent and long-lasting in the exterior regions of the building, then why did the collapse occur due to a centrally-located span?
2) If the "thermal expansion" was prevalent on the east side of the building, then why didn't this section collapse sooner?
It also begs the question: if the airplane debris was not crucial to the fires, then why weren't additional structures in the region of the WTC collapse also subject to the same debris-induced fires?
BTW: The report does mention that the sprinkler system itself didn't fail, but that the single water main feeding the building ran underneath WTC1 and 2. So much for redundancy!
There is a staggering understatement as well: "While the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event..." Again, it bears repeating: the ONLY steel-reinforced buildings to date that have ever collapsed due to fire are the three WTC buildings.
Of course, the elephant in the room that few "traditional" investigators regard as significant:
-- WTC7, along with WTC1 and 2, were covered by the recently DOUBLED terrorism insurance coverage, covering a staggering $7.2 billion (lucky break there, eh?). In fact, Silverstein had just signed a deal adding the other 6 buildings to his WTC7 ownership just six weeks before the attack.
-- WTC7 also housed a clandestine New York office of the CIA. What did that office do? Anyone? Bueller?
They were engaged in top-secret counterterrorist and counterintelligence operations. Too bad none of their records survived. Might have shed some light on a few things, don'cha think?
And of course, FEMA was already (the evening of Monday, Sep. 10th) set up on Pier 28, running the New York part of the NORAD-led Vigilant Warrior and Vigilant Guardian exercises to protect the WTC buildings from terrorist attack (see http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defen... for more on the war games that were so prescient, yet almost criminally ineffective).
For an opposing view of the WTC7 collapse, check out http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7.... It touches on some of the points raised here, and many more.
TemplarScribe
http://www.EternalHorizons.com
http://www.MichaelDelving.com
thermal expansion
One thing at a time.
Do you really not know what "thermal expansion" means?
Did you really not know what this was, before digging into the circumstances of the WTC7 collapse?
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
Lots Of Things I Never Knew Before...
Earthling,
There are a LOT of things I didn't know before I began digging into the 9/11 events.
But to answer your question, yes, I had an idea what thermal expansion was. Anyone who grew up near railroad tracks or crossed bridges with metal expansion joints is aware how moderate temperature changes (hot or cold) can make metal expand and contract. And yes, I was familiar with the concept that the TE of uniform linear objects (like a rail or steel beam) are proportional to the temperature change.
I didn't know, however, that the difference between thermite and thermate is that though both are fast-burning chemicals useful in (among other uses) cutting steel quickly without unwanted explosive damage, thermate uses sulphur to increase the temperature . Which is interesting since unexplainable quantities of sulphur were found on sections of steel debris from WTC7 inspected by FEMA.
I quote here from a discussion at http://www.englishforums.com/English/Who... :
"Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis --"
One minor interruption: I didn't know you could so quickly dispose of evidence from a crime scene, either. In the Bush-Cheney world, I guess anything is possible. But I digress...
"-- FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study (available at http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...). Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence."
"The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: EUTECTIC REACTIONS, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
"A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes."
"FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion."
"Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination:"
-- "Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel"
-- "The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.... The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.... (The) liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel."
-- "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible... that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."
(end of quotes)
So, what the original report stated quite clearly was that the effects of EXTREMELY HIGH TEMPERATURES, mixed with unexplainable amounts of sulphur, were witnessed at work on the steel at WTC7, not that of low to moderate-temperature effects that would indicate failure due to "thermal expansion."
And until this week, I had no idea that NIST was so hard up for theories to cover the demolition of WTC7 that they had to pull "thermal expansion" out of thin air.
TemplarScribe
http://www.EternalHorizons.com
http://www.MichaelDelving.com
honesty on all sides
Ok there is a smalll problem here. Well no, a significant problem. The people who call themselves the "truth seekers" start with an obvious untruth - namely that NIST just invented the term "thermal expansion", when this has been well known, and well understood, for more than 100 years.
It does not inspire a lot of trust in these "truth seekers".
In particular, it does not inspire trust in their technical expertise, and in thier honesty.
Quite separately from that, consider the actions of the US. They went to war against the radical Islamists. Whether WTC7 fell down or not, it would have not made any difference whatsoever. Nobody in the world cares about that building. WTC1 and WTC2, yes. WTC7, no.
When the big cathedral (WTC1 and WTC2) has been destroyed by the infidel, there could be a reason to go to war. When the infidel also destroys the garden shed (WTC7), what difference does it make?
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
Earth To Earthling
Earthling,
This discussion is not about the 9/11"truthseekers," as you call them. I've visited a dozen websites discussing this topic in the past week, and NOWHERE did I see anyone claiming that NIST "invented" the term. They (and I) have said that NIST is applying this term in lieu of far more compelling evidence.
What this discussion is really about is that NIST completely overlooks the very credible evidence published in previous government reports -- not dreamed up by "911 truthseekers" -- that high-intensity fires severely damaged the steel from WTC7.
Have you really read the links I posted? FEMA's own reports (and shocking images) describe "sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting," the same samples that their own scientists described as both "striking" and "never before observed in building fires"? They had no doubt that the metal came from WTC7, so suggesting it "may" have come from the other WTCs is spurious, to say the least.
And if you're concerned about "technical expertise," perhaps you should check out http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/..., a point-by-point critique of the NIST report that disputes each of the report's claims in as technical language as you'd ever want. There's also http://www.ae911truth.org/, a website supported by over 400 engineers and architects calling for a re-examination of the WTC collapses.
By the way: there are numerous sites that explain that the WTCs weren't the "cathedrals" the Bush/Cheney PR campaign would have us believe. The cleanup of the asbestos in the Twin Towers alone would have cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and the majority of New Yorkers and architects actually hated the buildings.
Second BTW: Using terms like "infidel" to describe the attackers on 9/11 betrays a certain, how shall I put it, bias, on your part, Earthling. I'm probably not the first to point that out. We need to be certain that ONLY Muslim extremists actually perpetrated this attack on America, before we go slinging around such incendiary tags.
Remember, it wasn't Muslims that planned war games for the very day of the attack (war games that included false bogeys on FAA screens), nor did Muslims send the New Jersey area fighters half-way to England and Alaska, nor did they change the transponder code on Flight 77 to an F-16 designation to thwart transponder-sniffing missile batteries at the Pentagon, nor did they plant a hijacker's passport on top of the WTC wreckage, completely unsinged, nor were they responsible for the hundreds of other striking anomalies that combined to render the trillion-dollar US air defense system entirely useless.
I'd sooner believe Santa Clause rode Flight 77 through a tightly descending 320-degree spiral into the recently-hardened southwestern facade of the Pentagon, than Muslim extremists were responsible for all of the 9/11 anomalies.
TS
newly minted
I thought "newly minted" meant that the term did not exist before.
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
Now I See, Said the Blind Poster
Earthling, it appears that you are hung-up on one tiny facet of this monumental discussion, and refuse to consider the big picture, nor the greater implications of what's really going on.
Until you're able to look past the pebble at your feet, the mountain will forever remain invisible.
TS
right
Apparently so. Apparently I am naive.
Naively, I look at what people say - they say "XYZ" and in the next message they say "nobody ever said XYZ". This should inspire trust, I realize that now.
I also naively don't believe that it mattered, for political purposes, whether WTC7 collapsed of didn't collapse. Most people in the world are equally naive, they don't even know that the place existed.
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
My first impression was
Controlled demo. And its only gotten stronger. Even Oliver Stone, added the explosions heard inside the buildings by NYC Fire and Police to his movie about 2 survivors. God what a horrible day. And what our government has done to the world and its own people in its wake.
Great Movie, Blade Runner
All I can say to you, BR, is I agree 100%.
I consider myself merely an objective researcher looking for answers, and horror-struck by the possibility of our own government being involved in the 9/11 attacks.
TS
aside
OK, I am done with the things that got a little personal.
I am curious about a technical issue - the effect of burning the aluminum of the aircraft. A mixture of the fuel, and the aluminum, and various other things burned, in a somewhat restricted area, but with lots of air flow in WTC1 and WTC2.
Does anyone know the chemistry of this sort of thing? Or is this a case where we have not seen it before?
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
A simple search
All anyone still ignorant of the whole WTC7 collapse mess has to do is query Youtube with the term "WTC7." The live footage with audio says it all. There are videos of explosions going off. There are testimonies from multiple witnesses hearing a countdown for blowing it up. There is even Lucky Larry Silverstein admitting they were going to "pull it."
I personally think WTC7 was supposed to come down in the collapsing debris field of the North Tower. That it was a "dud." What Bryan Jennings reported sounded like an attempt to kick out most of the basement structure and ground floor structure while the North Tower was collapsing so that the explosions in WTC7 would not be noticed in the mayhem of the North Tower collapse. But it didn't work. Therefore, more explosives had to be smuggled in to finish it. Just query "WTC7 IS Exploding" on Youtube.