The AIA disowns Richard Gage "AIA" and few architect want to have anything to do with him.

[Len Colby]

Bartmer's account is not substantiated by others and he was speaking about events hours after Jennings left the area. Jennings' similarly lacks substation form others. He had no way of knowing if the 'explosion' was caused by the collapse of the North Tower or something else,

[Steven Gaal]

http://whatreallyhappened.com/node/189030

with comments section.

[Len Colby]

http://whatreallyhap...com/node/189030

with comments section.

Another non-sequitur, what do you think this proves?

Edited September 11, 2012 by Len Colby

[Steven Gaal]

_{with comments section. I SELDOM WRITE THAT}

_{During the clean-up, beams}

_{Mike Rivero}

_{During the clean-up, beams would be cut using a standard cutting torch, which cuts steel by feeding extra oxygen into the flame so that the steel burns away in a shower of sparks. Cutting torches don't melt the steel because said melted steel could easily rejoin the cut, hence the need to have it oxidize to be removed completely. So cutting torches do not leave the kind of melted steel we see in this photo. Only thermite cutter charges do that. Thermite produces intense heat using powdered aluminum and iron oxide. When ignited, the aluminum "steals" the oxygen from the iron oxide, both exothermic reactions. The newly created aluminum oxide wafts away as white smoke and the melted DE-oxygeneted iron hardens as a visible iron slag. That extra iron is a signature of thermite and is, of course seen clearly in the above photo. At the bottom of one of the WTC elevator slags was a solid melted iron block, dubbed "the meteor" which officially remains unexplained to this day.}

_{.09/09/2012 - 16:10}

[Len Colby]

Rivero has no relevant experience or expertise. Photos from GZ prove him wrong:

Close-up of above

[Steven Gaal]

WTC 7

Gallery of Evidence

http://www2.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php

The NIST hypothesis offers NO explanation for the collapse of half the core columns.

The sudden and complete destruction of World Trade Center 7 was not included in the 911 Commission Report.

=====================================

http://www.ae911truth.org/ ((home page))

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1.Rapid onset of collapse

2.Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction

3.Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

4.Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint

5.Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

6.Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional

7.Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

1.FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

2.Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses

3.Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1.Slow onset with large visible deformations

2.Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3.Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4.High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed

Edited September 12, 2012 by Steven Gaal

[Len Colby]

The compiler of the lists is an architect who never designed a building over 3 stories tall and has no experience with controlled demo. Most of his claims are wrong or misleading. For example:

• Onset was not "sudden", the FD had suspected the building would collapse for hours due to observed damage and instability, the technical penthouses came down several seconds before the north façade.
  

• There was no foreknowledge despite the POS scumbag insinuating the FDNY and NYPD were 'in on it', collapse was expected for reasons mentioned above.
  

• Structures tend to collapse straight-down because that the way gravity pulls them.
  

Edited September 13, 2012 by Len Colby

[Steven Gaal]

All questions answered ?? Why are they hiding things ??

Requesting release of the NIST computer model for WTC7

Submitted by ProfJones on Fri, 07/20/2012 - 9:15am

• WTC7 NIST
  

Yesterday, I went to a town hall meeting with an aid to US Senator Mike Lee (UT) and expressed my concerns regarding NIST's report on WTC 7. The Senator's aid was open minded and well aware that some felt strongly that events of 9/11 were allowed by the US government or even “orchestrated” (his term).

It seems to me that a new investigation by Congress would be most unlikely at this stage. Instead, I requested that NIST's computer model for the WTC7 failure and fall be released to us so that independent testing can proceed (my letter below). The aid to Senator Lee assured me that he would pass this request along to the Senator and include my concerns in his report to Senator Lee.

Do you think this approach has merit? Could we successfully apply pressure to NIST to release their WTC 7 computer model, via Senators, Congresspersons, polls, etc? Is this a worthwhile goal for the 9/11 Truth Community? Could AE911Truth engineers run the model if it were released?

To: Senator Mike Lee (Utah)

From:

Dr. Steven E. Jones

Professor of Physics, Ret.

[address given]

1. The key to good science is independent verification.

2. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was charged by Congress to explain the complete collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11/2001 (the 47-story building that was not hit by a plane).

3. NIST developed a computer model with adjustable parameters to explain the WTC 7 collapse.

4. I request that this WTC7-fall computer model be released immediately in a computer-ready form so that independent testing/verification can proceed. This model was developed using taxpayer funds.

5. In particular, NIST states in their 2008 report,

“The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used.” I challenge that assumption, and wish to insert into the computer model the known physical value for thermal conductivity, to see how this changes things.

6. There are now over 1,700 engineers and architects in the AE911Truth.org society, and I am confident that our combined expertise will permit us to perform the independent verification of the NIST WTC7 computer model, once that computer simulation is released in full to us, in computer-ready form.

7. Contact information for NIST:

NIST WTC Investigation Team

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8610

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610

Phone: (301) 975-6051

Email: wtc@nist.gov

Sincerely,

Dr. Steven E. Jones

#######################################

Thank you for the comments and encouragement!

I think it is clear that the action of seeking release of the NIST computer simulation for the fall of WTC7 can have worthwhile impact. Hopefully the computer simulation will actually be released in computer-ready form so that we can flex it and see what it tells us about 9/11!

The two best approaches to reach this goal seem to be:

1. Writing Senator Mike Lee; this can be done by writing, faxing or phoning:

316 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Phone: 202-224-5444

Fax: 202-228-1168

2. Enlisting the cooperation of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in the pursuit of this goal.

To this end, I have emailed a request to my friend Richard Gage.

Sincere best wishes,

Steve

[Len Colby]

Since Jones made no mention of having filed an FOIA request we must assume he hasn't. So this comes across as posturing.

NIST didn't release the WTC 1 & 2 models because they would only run on super computers and no one with access to one asked, I image the same applies to the WTC 7 models.

[Steven Gaal]

• 911 Saga: WTC7 Computer Models Used As Smoke Curtains for Truth
  
• 
  
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCgCWqiViYQ
  ============================================
  My Response to Chris Mohr
  
• 
  
• 
  
• This is a response to Chris Mohr's rebuttal to Richard Gage on Building 7's collapse: http://youtu.be/PkbDyAJuirg
  
• 
  
• Note his comments at about 2:22 and 7:27 (of his video, not mine). I could critique practically everything he says in his video, but here I am focusing on only his bizarre interpretation of the NIST velocity vs time graph which NIST added into their final report in November 2008 to cover over their previous, blatantly false denial of freefall. For more on that, see my three part series starting with http://youtu.be/eDvNS9iMjzA
  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  FOLLOW THE MONEY $$$$$ . SOME ARE PAIDED TO POST ,SOME ARE PAID TO LIE IN
  SO-CALLED SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
  

=======================================================

• NIST – The new GSA travel controversy?
  http://blogs.ajc.com...el-controversy/
  

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CALL/FAX !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think it is clear that the action of seeking release of the NIST computer simulation for the fall of WTC7 can have worthwhile impact. Hopefully the computer simulation will actually be released in computer-ready form so that we can flex it and see what it tells us about 9/11!

The two best approaches to reach this goal seem to be:

1. Writing Senator Mike Lee; this can be done by writing, faxing or phoning:

316 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Phone: 202-224-5444

Fax: 202-228-1168

2. Enlisting the cooperation of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in the pursuit of this goal.

To this end, I have emailed a request to my friend Richard Gage.

Sincere best wishes,

Steve

Edited September 14, 2012 by Steven Gaal

[Len Colby]

• 911 Saga: WTC7 Computer Models Used As Smoke Curtains for Truth
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

A classic example of conspiracy kook thinking, following the video makers logic a dolphins must be fishs, persimmons must be tomatoes and salamanders must be lizards because they look so much a like. It's also a bit dated since complained that NIST had not released their report on the collapse.

• This is a response to Chris Mohr's rebuttal to Richard Gage on Building 7's collapse:
  

• Note his comments at about 2:22 and 7:27 (of his video, not mine). I could critique practically everything he says in his video, but here I am focusing on only his bizarre interpretation of the NIST velocity vs time graph which NIST added into their final report in November 2008 to cover over their previous, blatantly false denial of freefall. For more on that, see my three part series starting with
  

• “This video has been removed by the user”
  

So??? after most of the building’s frame had collapsed part of the north facade fell at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds. Chandler didn't establish that NIST used an artificially start point for timing nor that the model predicted exactly 5.4 seconds.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

• FOLLOW THE MONEY $$$$$ . SOME ARE PAIDED TO POST ,SOME ARE PAID TO LIE IN
  SO-CALLED SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
  

=======================================================

• NIST – The new GSA travel controversy?
  http://blogs.ajc.com...el-controversy/
  

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You posted this drivel to another thread I replied there.

CALL/FAX !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think it is clear that the action of seeking release of the NIST computer simulation for the fall of WTC7 can have worthwhile impact. Hopefully the computer simulation will actually be released in computer-ready form so that we can flex it and see what it tells us about 9/11!

The two best approaches to reach this goal seem to be:

1. Writing Senator Mike Lee; this can be done by writing, faxing or phoning:

316 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Phone: 202-224-5444

Fax: 202-228-1168

2. Enlisting the cooperation of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in the pursuit of this goal.

To this end, I have emailed a request to my friend Richard Gage.

Sincere best wishes,

Steve

??? why are they fax bombing a senator when they haven't filed an FOIA yet?

Edited September 14, 2012 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

• 
  
  • ============================================
    
  • My Response to Chris Mohr
    

OMG this guy is long winded, what was his point?

[Steven Gaal]

The Destruction of WTC 7

http://11syyskuu.blo...n-of-wtc-7.html

In December 2007, it was acknowledged in the advisory committee meeting of the NIST that the fires in WTC 7 were ordinary office fires and burned out in any given location in 20 minutes. In such a short time, the temperature of fire-protected steel members would have maxed out below 200 degrees Celsius (or ~400 degrees Fahrenheit). Such temperatures have no effect on construction steel.

Buried in the final report is NIST's acknowledgement of a period of 2.25 seconds of total freefall, covering a distance of approximately 8 stories. The implications of the sudden total lack of structural support provided by 80 support columns over numerous stories are not discussed.

Perhaps NIST's report needs to be analyzed in the light of how Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC investigator, interviewed in New York Magazine, summed up the state of the investigation back in 2006:

NIST did have "some preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."

######################################################

Rate of Building 7's Fall

WTC 7's Facade Plunged at a Nearly Free-Fall Rate

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/speed.html

Edited September 15, 2012 by Steven Gaal

[Len Colby]

The Destruction of WTC 7

http://11syyskuu.blo...n-of-wtc-7.html

In December 2007, it was acknowledged in the advisory committee meeting of the NIST that the fires in WTC 7 were ordinary office fires and burned out in any given location in 20 minutes. In such a short time, the temperature of fire-protected steel members would have maxed out below 200 degrees Celsius (or ~400 degrees Fahrenheit). Such temperatures have no effect on construction steel.

The part in bold is essentially correct, the underlined part is supported only by a 24 page report in Finnish (with no indication of what part is being cited). Here's what NIST actually said:

Q: There was a previous mention of the day tanks and pressurized lines for diesel fuel in WTC

7. A 4 lb/ft2 fuel load 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?

A: The fires in the towers did not stop after 20 minutes. 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. Also, recall that the 4 lb/ft2 is the fuel load that is actually

consumed. The total loading of furnishings could have been higher if there were substantial

numbers of file cabinets, etc. Furthermore, the jet fuel led to widespread ignition of the

combustibles, but the jet fuel was consumed quickly and was a minimal contributor to the

sustained fires that weakened the structures in WTC 1 and WTC 2.

In the case of WTC 7, the estimated combusted fuel load was similar to the 4 lb/ft2 estimated in

the towers. The initial fires were small enough that most were not visible at the windows for

several hours. Most likely, these early fires involved only a small number of workstations at a

time. The early fires raised the air temperatures, preheating other clusters of cubicles and

leading to the larger fires seen during the afternoon.

Once the fires had begun heating the air, the overall air temperatures on a floor continued to rise

as new combustible material became involved. The local air temperatures began to fall when the

local fuel supply was depleted and fresh air reached that area. The heating of the structure

through its protective insulation was a result of both the high air temperatures that were reached

and the duration of those high air temperatures, not just the duration of local burning.

6

Q: Why would these fires have burned for as long as they did? If beams sagged, buckled, and

pulled they had to be exposed to the fire for more than 20 minutes.

A: The critical issue is the combination of temperatures to which the beams are exposed and the

duration of that exposure. The FSI calculations showed that the floor assemblies were sensitive

to these exposures, reaching 500 °C to 600 °C in some regions. While the metal decking had

insulation on its lower surface, the concrete floor slabs had no fireproofing on their top surfaces.

The floor beams were slender elements and had low thermal mass, and the thickness of the

thermal insulation on the floor beams was less than that on the girders and columns. The

sensitivity to heat was compounded by the very large spans. In the northeast section of the

building there were 2000 ft2 large span floor areas. Our analysis indicates fairly large

magnitudes of sag in these areas.

Q: It sounds like you are questioning the use of spray-on fireproofing for a 2 hour rating on a

wide flange beam as effective fireproofing in the absence of sprinkler systems.

A: What we are beginning to find is that ratings of individual components may not be a

sufficient indicator of the thermal response of the larger structure.

Buried in the final report is NIST's acknowledgement of a period of 2.25 seconds of total freefall, covering a distance of approximately 8 stories. The implications of the sudden total lack of structural support provided by 80 supp part ort columns over numerous stories are not discussed.

Part of the north facade fell at that rate after much of the frame had already collapsed.

Perhaps NIST's report needs to be analyzed in the light of how Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC investigator, interviewed in New York Magazine, summed up the state of the investigation back in 2006:

NIST did have "some preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."

He said that over 2 years before submitting the final report.

######################################################

Rate of Building 7's Fall

WTC 7's Facade Plunged at a Nearly Free-Fall Rate

http://911research.w...wtc7/speed.html

LOL Hoffman has it falling FASTER than free-fall for a while which is not possible, his numbers do not match Chandler's

[Steven Gaal]

Rate of Building 7's Fall

http://911research.w...wtc7/speed.html

WTC 7's Facade Plunged at a Nearly Free-Fall Rate

difference, feet 0 0.0 0 0.0 -0.65 0.0 0.0 1 0.5 0 0.0 -0.15 0.0 0.0 2 1.0 0.2 6.0 0.35 2.0 -4.0 3 1.5 1.0 12.0 0.85 11.6 -0.4 4 2.0 2.4 28.8 1.35 29.2 -0.4 5 2.5 4.5 54.0 1.85 54.8 +0.8 6 3.0 7.3 87.6 2.35 88.4 +0.8 7 3.5 10.7 128.4 2.85 130.0 +1.6 8 4.0 14.2 170.4 3.35 179.6 +9.2

(ESTIMATES OF FREE FALL VS BUILDING FALL PLUS MINUS SECONDS ARE LAST COLUMN, DONE VIA VIDEO APPROXIMATION. SMALL ERRORS AT TWO POINTS ,BUT IM TAKING THE END POINT DATUM<GAAL)

The rightmost column gives the free-fall distances minus the facade displacements. The differences are within the estimated margin of error for the facade displacement measurements for all but the first and final frames. This shows that the facade of WTC 7 accelerated downward at very close to the rate of free-fall in at least its first three seconds of descent,

FALL 94.8775 % of free fall speed. Common sense says demolition.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.thenakeds...p?topic=31152.0

• 
  
• Posts: 5
  
• 
  
  • 
    

Reply #7 on: 02/12/2010 22:35:13

Quote from: CliffordK on 01/12/2010 08:29:21

Ok...

I watched all 3 videos.

These three, right?

(that's part I)

Sorry, my current location isn't cooperating with all the links.

Quote

As far as I could tell, one big issue was the start and end time in the analysis. David Chandler seemed to only look at the video until the center of the building was obscured, while NIST apparently continued until none of the building was visible.

In NIST's report they claimed that the time the building took to fall for the first ~17 stories (the portion you refer to) was 40% longer than it would have taken in freefall, and that is what's being addressed. Please pay closer attention, as that was quite clear in the video (though David refers to it as 18 stories worth).

NIST says ~17 floors = 3.9 seconds if they were in freefall but 'their model' showed it took 5.4 seconds. They blatantly avoid any mention of actual analysis and mention this is the result from their model, at first.

Quote

See discussion around minute 2:22 on second video. A large portion of the building to the right is still clearly visible after David Chandler stopped his measuring.

Again, so did NIST, at least in the aspects of the argument in the videos, "till it disappeared from view between the two buildings seen in the video".

Then they offer the average speed in rebuttal to an acceleration question, an average speed with an additional 1.5 seconds completely fabricated to match their model's number.

Quote

There may have been a period near the start of the collapse where the acceleration was high, approaching 1G. However, the rest of the collapse appeared to fall at constant velocity (nearly zero acceleration).

Are you just making things up as a rebuttal? Neither NIST nor David made such a claim, why do you? Their data shows acceleration. It's the rate of acceleration that is in question.

Quote

Sorry, I have no demolition experience. I do find it interesting that the roof comes down nearly evenly, parallel to the ground, except for the center section that comes crashing down first (and may even completely disappear from view).

Naturally occurring symmetrical collapse from asymmetrical damage in such a well built building would definitely yield some new theories in engineering and physics.

Quote

Many of these skyscrapers depend on a central columnar support (perhaps around the so-called penthouse). If that central column buckled, then it might take the rest of the building down pretty much stepwise as apparently happened.

And do you realize that a collapse of that portion of the structure would lose significant amounts of kenetic energy in order to move the intact, sturdy portions surrounding it?

Quote

As far as what happened to the concrete and steel...

These are huge, massive buildings. I'm showing:

200,000 tons of steel

425,000 cubic yards of concrete.

12,000 miles of power lines.

Anybody volunteer to store that in their backyard?

How about a chunk of land designated to holding the evidence one of the greatest crimes this nation has every incurred?

Quote

At 1¢ to 4¢ per pound, for scrap steel... that is $20 to $80 per ton. That gives somewhere between $4 Million and $16 Million in scrap steel. I suppose just a drop in the bucket when compared to the entire value of the buildings and cleanup, but should the government seize it?

Money should not usurp justice, but many would disagree with me here and take your stance that the money matters more.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with the topic if we are to remain focused, and that is what I wish. It's mostly fallacy and assumptions that can't be made without actually delving into study on the matter.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

FALL 94.8775 % of free fall speed. Common sense says demolition.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Steven Gaal