Final WTC7 Report Released

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Final WTC7 Report Released

Postby jingofever » Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:25 pm

LINK.

A selection from their FAQ:

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building’s critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column … presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn’t that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder—located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7—would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby barracuda » Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:27 pm

Well, this should end all the Controlled Demolition™ conspiracy nonsense around here once and for all.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby kissing blarney » Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:37 pm

barracuda wrote:Well, this should end all the Controlled Demolition™ conspiracy nonsense around here once and for all.


That statement was flowing with so much molten thercasm it didn't even need the green.
User avatar
kissing blarney
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:05 pm
Location: colorado
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:12 pm

.

The usual paradox.

Failure of one or two columns due to fire and irregular damage causes the whole building to neatly implode in a fashion that at least visually mimics a near-perfect controlled demolition.

But:

A planned demolition would have required massive placements of explosives and pre-cuttings of every single column in the building. Otherwise it would have been impossible!

(Like, you can't just put explosives next to the one magic column the failure of which collapses the whole building. Only a fire could cause that!)
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby sunny » Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:15 pm

JackRiddler wrote:(Like, you can't just put explosives next to the one magic column the failure of which collapses the whole building. Only a fire could cause that!)


Hysterical! Thank you.
Choose love
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Postby nathan28 » Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:21 pm

fucking horseshit. sadly, i don't care. i might write them a letter, but that'll be it. FWIW there are insurance contentions that will likely make use of this "fact" finding.
User avatar
nathan28
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby anothershamus » Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:24 pm

I heard a theory a long time ago about certain buildings being pre-set with demolition explosives so it would be possible to demo them when the time came. Does anyone know if this has this ever been done?
)'(
User avatar
anothershamus
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: bi local
Blog: View Blog (0)

Warren Commission tactics.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:46 pm

By now there must be a notebook detailing how to lie about, deny, and ignore physical evidence and laws of physics.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Hysterical.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

This is what the new 'X Files' movie was used to reinforce, the meme that the issue is mere "belief."

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive.

"So we broke the law by not investigating since we couldn't be assured of a foregone conclusion that would sustain the cover-up."

Gee, why bother pursuing the truth since nothing is certain and all is just a matter of opinion? Only incorrigible zealots insist. Let's agree to disagree.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Avalon » Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:53 pm

JackRiddler wrote:.

The usual paradox.

Failure of one or two columns due to fire and irregular damage causes the whole building to neatly implode in a fashion that at least visually mimics a near-perfect controlled demolition.

But:

A planned demolition would have required massive placements of explosives and pre-cuttings of every single column in the building. Otherwise it would have been impossible!

(Like, you can't just put explosives next to the one magic column the failure of which collapses the whole building. Only a fire could cause that!)


Succinct and impeccable. That meme's a keeper.
User avatar
Avalon
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Eldritch » Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:56 pm

JackRiddler wrote:.

The usual paradox.

Failure of one or two columns due to fire and irregular damage causes the whole building to neatly implode in a fashion that at least visually mimics a near-perfect controlled demolition.

But:

A planned demolition would have required massive placements of explosives and pre-cuttings of every single column in the building. Otherwise it would have been impossible!

(Like, you can't just put explosives next to the one magic column the failure of which collapses the whole building. Only a fire could cause that!)


Brilliant, Jack. And right on.
Eldritch
 
Posts: 1178
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:02 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby nomo » Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:59 pm

At the very least we now have specific and detailed instructions on how to properly prepare a building for demolition with thermate. Thanks NIST!
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby elfismiles » Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:45 pm

anothershamus wrote:I heard a theory a long time ago about certain buildings being pre-set with demolition explosives so it would be possible to demo them when the time came. Does anyone know if this has this ever been done?


I recall shortly after 911 many people claimed, "skyscrapers are designed to fall straight down because otherwise they might topple over and cause more damage to surrounding buildings." I've yet to find an official citation for such a seemingly commonsense idea.

However here is my collection of data on the "Built for Demolition" meme ...

PrePlanted Explosives in WTC or “Built for Demo”?
Filed Under (Built For Demo, Controlled Demolition, Radio, WTC, WTC7) by admin on 23-07-2007

http://parapolitics.info/2007/07/23/pre ... -for-demo/



See also ...

http://parapolitics.info/category/built-for-demo/
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Postby elfismiles » Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:55 pm

And then there is artist Paul Laffoley's claims of working on the design of the WTC along with the bin laden company and the questions about where to pre-plant the explosives...

Mike Hagan's Radio Orbit - Paul Laffoley Talks About The World Trade Center

Hear is the interview:
http://www.mikehagan.com/2012/mp3/02120 ... FFOLEY.mp3

http://kentroversypapers.blogspot.com/2 ... orked.html

Placement of 9/11 explosives were planned decades previous?
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... hp?t=11572
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Postby FourthBase » Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:07 pm

Where has JackRiddler's meme been all this time???

Fucking genius.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby jingofever » Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:31 pm

3.3 HYPOTHETICAL BLAST SCENARIOS

Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC 7 (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Appendix D). As a minimum, the explosive material would have had to cause sufficient damage to a critical column or truss that it became unable to carry its service load or that a lateral deflection would cause it to buckle. Six combinations of explosive location and column/truss and two implementation scenarios were considered. In the first scenario, there was ample time for optimized preparation of the structure (including possible preliminary cutting of structural members) and use of the minimum mass of explosives. In the second scenario, the explosion was to be effected in the shortest possible time, which was to be no more than a 7 h to 8 h time frame. SHAMRC, a software program that is used for analysis of explosive detonations, shock propagation and structure loads due to blast and fragments, was used to simulate pressure histories from the hypothetical blasts. The pressure histories were then used to determine whether windows would have broken, which would have provided visible evidence of a charge detonation to observers outside the building. SHAMRC has a proven record of accuracy for explosive weights of less than 500 g (1 lb) to more than 4 x 106 kg (4,000 tons). A validated Shard Fly-Out Model (SFOM) was used to predict window breakage. Simulations were performed for differing degrees of partitioning of a tenant floor. Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario explosive location. This involved preliminary cutting of Column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to carry out without detection. Calculations were also performed for a lesser charge size of 1 kg (2 lb) to evaluate threshold explosive requirements for window fragility.

Figure 3–1 shows the results for the two shaped charges applied to Column 79 on a tenant floor that was highly partitioned, such as Floor 12. Nearly all the windows on the northeast section of the blast floor would have been broken, even by the smaller charge. Simulations for open landscaped floors led to more extensive window breakage.

The actual window breakage pattern on the visible floors on September 11, 2001 (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5) was not at all like that expected from a blast that was even 20 percent of that needed to damage a critical column in WTC 7. The visual evidence did not show showing such a breakage pattern on any floor of WTC 7 as late as about 4:00 p.m. or above the 25th floor at the time of the building collapse initiation. Views of the northeast corner at the time of the collapse were obstructed by other buildings. The window breakage would have allowed the sound of a blast to propagate outward from the building. NLAWS, a validated acoustic wave propagation software program, was used to predict the propagation of the sound of the hypothetical blasts. The calculations showed that all the hypothetical blast scenarios and charge sizes would have broadcast significant sound levels from all of the building faces. For instance, if propagation were unobstructed by other buildings, the sound level emanating from the WTC 7 perimeter openings would have been approximately 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of 1 km (0.6 mile) from WTC 7. This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. The sound from such a blast in an urban setting would have been reflected and channeled down streets with minimum attenuation. The hard building exteriors would have acted as nearly perfect reflectors, with little to no absorption. The sound would have been attenuated behind buildings, but this would also have generated multiple echoes. These echoes could have extended the time period over which the sound could have been detected and could possibly have had an additive effect if multiple in-phase reflections met. However, the soundtracks from videos being recorded at the time of the collapse did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). Therefore, the Investigation Team concluded that there was no demolition-type blast that would have been intense enough to lead to the collapse of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001.
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 152 guests