NIST Report on WTC 7 - August 21, 2008

[Bolo Boffin]

The Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will hold a media briefing and live public webcast on Aug. 21, 2008, in Gaithersburg, Md., on the findings and recommendations from its building and fire safety investigation of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7). WTC 7 was a 47-story building that fell nearly seven hours after the World Trade Center (WTC) towers collapsed following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The NIST WTC 7 report will present the probable collapse sequence for the building and will provide recommendations for improving building and fire safety in other buildings similar to WTC 7. The draft WTC 7 investigation report released at the briefing will be open for public comment through noon Eastern Daylight Time on Sept. 15, 2008.

Shyam Sunder, director of the NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory and lead investigator for the federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, will present the report and answer questions from reporters at the briefing. The public will be able to view the briefing through a live webcast that will be accessible from NIST's WTC Web site at http://wtc.nist.gov

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/calmed/wtc_081808.html

This appears to be the final report, not the draft report.

[Twist_U_Up]

1. Johnny Gross lie in this report too? Here he is on the first one.....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501

Bush plants that will lie through their teeth. What amazes me is that people still swallow these demons lies.

[SDuderstadt]

3. Since Gross joined the staff of NIST in July of 1983....

I'm just curious how you reason that he is a "Bush plant". Did they know that Bush would be President 18 years later then or, was it accomplished through a time machine? I'd love to know your theory.

http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?firstname=John&lastname=Gross

[Twist_U_Up]

4. whats your take dude? is he lying? let me guess first.....

he is probably the most educated person you have had the pleasure listening to.

how did I do ? close?

he is a repeater, just like you are.
repeaters just blurt out what they have been told to blurt out.
better yet hes a puppet ;-)

[SDuderstadt]

5. Quit trying to dodge the question....

since Gross joined NIST in 1983, how could he be a Bush plant?

[Twist_U_Up]

6. try reading the post dude. oh yea and heres a medal for ya...

In 2001 Dr. Gross also received the Raymond C. Reese Research Prize awarded by the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the U.S. Department of Commerce Bronze Medal Award.

your turn

[AZCat]

13. You do realize...

that the ASCE is not a government agency?

[Twist_U_Up]

7. one more before I am done toying with you.....

9/11: Looking For Truth In Credentials: The Peculiar WTC “Experts”

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/4504636-911-looking-for-truth-in-credentials-the-peculiar-wtc-experts

[SDuderstadt]

9. It's kinda hard to claim you're "toying with me" when you just....

got your ass kicked on your claim that Bush planted John Gross at NIST. As far as the award from ASCE, that just happens to be one of the most prestigious and reputable organizations for civil engineers with some 125K+ members. Of course, your "source" is an anonymous internet poster named "Milton". I think my "side" has a tad more credibility. Unless you think that "Milton" is more credible than ASCE. I know I don't.

[Realityhack]

26. Nice wall of text. n/t

[Flatulo]

30. Someone misplaced their 'Return' key. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Better than being Twisty-One-Note.

One single statement of John Gross, in which he's technically correct (about molten steel) and he's a liar for life, forever impeached, forever untrustworthy, and 100% corrupting of any association he's a part of?

*yawn* Wake me up when you get some new material.

[wildbilln864]

2. I'll go ahead and predict....

there will be no explanation as to why the building continued to collapsed after collapse initiation. No mention of molten steel either which was reported found under all three collapses.
And no pictures of severe damage alledged to have caused initiation of collapse.

[Twist_U_Up]

8. Ya wont make much money in Vegas with those predictions Bill.

almost spot on I presume.

Peace be with you

[Bolo Boffin]

18. The building's collapse will be propogated through several scenarios.

Severe damage is not alleged to have caused initiation of collapse.

You have evidence of molten steel? Actual, verifiable, quantifiable evidence of molten steel? I doubt it.

[Realityhack]

27. You already loose

What has already been reported includes:

1. Explanation of how the collapse progressed vertically and horizontally.
2. Pictures of the damage
3. Explains that the last working hypothesis did NOT include damage as part of the initiation (seriouly do your research once in a while bill).

Please site a source for molten metal under WTC7.

[wildbilln864]

76. WRONG! nt

:rofl:

[Realityhack]

86. Have you ever considered posting content instead of rofl smilies?

How about you actually post what you think I am wrong about along with specific reasons/evidence.

The whole acting like a third grader rather than making a point is getting fucking old.

[jberryhill]

10. " Credentialed journalists who wish to register for the media briefing should contact Ben Stein"

That's kinda funny.

Poor guy should change his name, given that the other Ben Stein is an enormous asshole.

[SDuderstadt]

11. I went to see Stein's movie.....

denying evolution and global warming. He's full of crap.

[jberryhill]

12. Wow....

...I'd have to be strapped into the chair like the dude from Clockwork Orange to watch that.

[mhatrw]

14. 6 years, 11 months and 10 days after the fact.

And about 6 years and 10 months after they cleaned up and disposed of all the physical evidence except for one single, solitary piece that FEMA examined that showed unexplained signs of high temperature sulfidation.

[LARED]

15. 6 years, 11 months and 10 days after the fact and CT'ers

still post utter nonsense like this;

And about 6 years and 10 months after they cleaned up and disposed of all the physical evidence except for one single, solitary piece that FEMA examined that showed unexplained signs of high temperature sulfidation.

[mhatrw]

16. OK, I'll bite.

What makes anything I wrote nonsense?

[LARED]

34. Ok

And about 6 years and 10 months after they cleaned up and disposed of all the physical evidence except for one single, solitary piece that FEMA examined that showed unexplained signs of high temperature sulfidation.

So if I understand correctly you are saying all the evidence was just cleaned up and disposed except for one piece? You mean no steel from WTC 7 was examined except the piece you mention? Really? How do you know that?

[mhatrw]

49. Because that's what NIST told me.

NIST didn't recover a single pice of WTC-7 metal for analysis:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

[AZCat]

50. That's not strictly true.

What they said was "No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7." (NCSTAR 1-3B, Executive Summary)

[mhatrw]

65. OK. So they positively ID'ed some in the interim and analyzed it?

Should I be holding my breath for this?

[Ghost in the Machine]

19. 6 years, 11 months and 10 days after the fact and NIST can only say:

"The NIST WTC 7 report will present the probable collapse sequence for the building...."

They still don't know jack shit... yet the OCTabots and deniers will run around crowing about how this report is the absolute truth....

Checkmate....

[AZCat]

21. Please don't use strawmen arguments.

It should be pretty clear that those of us who are categorized as "OCTabots and deniers" don't think the NIST report on the towers is "the absolute truth", nor will we think the same for the report on WTC 7. Most of us do, however, think they are excellent resources and for those arguing that there are flaws in the "official story" it would behoove them to find out what the "official story" (as embodied in the NIST WTC tower report) actually says.

[Ghost in the Machine]

35. I don't think of *you* as an OCTabot, AZCat.... we have our differences of opinion, ...

but you've always been pretty reasonable to me...

:hi:

Peace,

Ghost

[AZCat]

41. Thank you for that.

I try, although you and I know that sometimes my posts aren't always as clear as they could be.

[Ghost in the Machine]

70. Any time, friend...

I'm not always as clear as I'd like to be either, but at least we can discuss it and figure it out...

:hi:

[jberryhill]

22. I've never seen any engineering analysis that claimed to be "absolute truth"

But when you see someone here call it the "absolute truth", please point that out.

If one is seeking "absolute truth", that's religion, not science or engineering.

What I find interesting are the folks calling it a coverup and flawed before it has been released. Psychics.

[Ghost in the Machine]

37. Religion is a load of crap, there's no kind of truth to it at all...

I don't consider *you* an OCTabot either, Mr Berryhill...

There are a couple here that like to refer people to the NIST report like it's the Holy Grail, though... they know who they are..

:hi:

Peace,

Ghost

[dailykoff]

23. Oh, I think they know.

I think they knew as soon as they saw the tape, and some of them well before.

[Ghost in the Machine]

38. I think you might be right... but I also think we'll never know for sure..

... and quite honestly, I don't think most of the population could *handle* the truth... they really just don't want to know how evil their government is..


:hi:

Peace,

Ghost

[William Seger]

45. What do you think they should have known as soon as they saw the tape?

All I see in those videos is the top half of the building falling because the bottom isn't holding it up anymore. We already know that NIST will explain that as a progressive collapse starting with one or more key interior columns. Tell me what I can see in those videos that justifies your accusation that the NIST engineers are accessories to mass murder.

[dailykoff]

52. They know steel doesn't behave like unreinforced masonry

for one thing, or like wood. The first time I saw that tape (which wasn't for several years after 911) I was 100% certain the thing was demolished and if their job is structural forensics I'm sure they were too.

[AZCat]

53. It's too bad it doesn't.

It would have made all those mechanics classes much easier!

Oh, and make all materials isotropic while you're at it - I can't stand having to worry about orientation.

[jberryhill]

80. There's good money in anisotropy....

If you keep a donation box in your lab with the label:

"Please donate to fight anisotropy"

...every now and then visitors will leave their spare change.

[Realityhack]

84. LOL n/t

[William Seger]

61. Yeah, that's what I thought

You're accusing people of being accessories to mass murder based on nothing but your own impressive ignorance.

[Realityhack]

73. Which tape? What is your basis for your complete cirtainty? n/t

[dailykoff]

78. This one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

There are probably several but they all show the same thing, and it doesn't happen without a lot of explosives and a lot of planning.

[William Seger]

81. That makes no sense at all

The top half of the building has no way of knowing whether the columns below suffered a progressive collapse or were blown out with explosives. The only thing it knows about is gravity, and the only thing we're seeing in those videos is the effect of gravity as supports below fail. If it was a progressive collapse starting with interior columns, of course videos of the top half would look a lot like a controlled implosion, because the exact same thing is happening as far as the top half is concerned. It simply does not matter whether or not dailykoff can understand what a progressive collapse is and why it happens. When you claim that you can tell this was a CD by just watching these videos, all you're doing is demonstrating you own inability to objectively analyze the available evidence and your eagerness to dismiss plausible explanations for no good reason whatsoever. Trying to buttress your case with arguments that amount to "it just couldn't happen that way because it couldn't happen that way" will never improve your position in the slightest; the attempt just makes you look even less rational.

[Realityhack]

82. In addition...

that vid starts well after the collapse starts.

Just because it looks to a non-expert like a CD doesn't mean it is one.

[Realityhack]

28. Loose

These are serious engineers and scientists. They virtually NEVER say anything without a word like probable in front of it. They know full well that they could be wrong and are willing to admit to a level of uncertainty regarding something that we can not be certain of given the evidence available.

[Ghost in the Machine]

39. I never looked at it from that perspective.. and it sounds perfectly reasonable to me..

Thanks for the input...

:hi:

Peace,

Ghost

[Realityhack]

69. Sorry for being harsh ghost.

Sometimes it is hard to remember who on this board is likely to actually READ a post.

[Ghost in the Machine]

71. I didn't think it was harsh... but it was direct & to the point....

That's what it takes, sometimes..... and other times it *does* take harshness to get a point across...

Peace,

Ghost

[dailykoff]

20. Let's see, Olympics, Obama's VP pick, back to school

this should get lots of attention.

[AZCat]

24. That Phelps guy is pretty amazing.

Unfortunately a number of my favorites have not fared as well.

School doesn't start for the universities in Arizona until next week, so we have a few more days of decent traffic (the students are horrible drivers).


On Edit: As for Obama's VP pick, I really like our governor here in Arizona and think she would be a great VP (but wince when I think of replacing her).

[dailykoff]

33. Somebody just suggested Phelps for Obama's veep..

that would make things simple wouldn't it?

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Phelps isn't eligible. n/t

[AZCat]

42. It's not like he has anything else to do.

I mean, really - he's managed to make a serious argument for himself as one of the best Olympians ever, at age 23, by winning more gold medals than anyone else in history. What in the world is he going to do with the rest of his life?

[whatchamacallit]

25. Once again, the only useful safety recommendation is "Don't let anybody demo your building"

:hi:

[Realityhack]

29. Once again you fail to provide any evidence.

You have been asked to prove that before. I seriously doubt you can provide any serious evidence for it.

[whatchamacallit]

31. My evidence is my own eyes. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Who cares about your personal incredulity?

Experts in the appropriate field have weighed in on the matter.

[whatchamacallit]

43. So every "expert" in the appropriate field agrees on this?

Or just the ones that matter to you... cuz... you know... they support your beliefs?

[SDuderstadt]

46. Name ONE CD expert who believes....

any of the three WTC buildings were brought down by CD.

[Realityhack]

67. Links? n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

79. Who cares about your defective opinion?

Anything you say should be taken with a ton of salt

[Realityhack]

87. Are you actualy claming that...

reset buttons personal opinions based on video evidence carry equal weight as the opinions of experts in the relevant fields?

[Ghost in the Machine]

88. Are you actually claiming that....

boloboffin is an expert in a relevant field?

[Realityhack]

89. That is not what I or Boloboffin said.

Resetbutton: "..."Don't let anybody demo your building""
Me: "...you fail to provide any evidence..."
Resetbutton: "My evidence is my own eyes. n/t"
Boloboffin: "Who cares about your personal incredulity? Experts in the appropriate field have weighed in on the matter."
You: "Who cares about your defective opinion?"

You will note upon further examination that neither I nor Boloboffin made any claim of being an expert. The ONLY point under discussion was wither Resetbutton's personal opinion was of any validity when compared with actual experts in the appropriate fields.

Your last post came across as disagreeing with Boloboffin, thus arguing that resetbutton's opinion is of equal or higher weight than actual experts. I don't think that is what you intended so I was trying to clarify.

[SDuderstadt]

40. It's amazing how you believe that you can tell a building was brought down by CD....

merely by watching it. Tell me something. Did you watch any video of the collapse with sound? If so, where are the rather loud and unmistakable explosions that accompany CD?

[whatchamacallit]

44. I've seen plenty of films of CDs, and yeah it looks like that to me.

Most of the videos I've watched of wtc7 were zoomed in from some distance, so as far as sound is concerned, I can't say if the mics capturing the fall were of sufficient quality, or at an appropriate distance, to accurately reflect the associated audio events.

[SDuderstadt]

47. If you've actually watched these videos....

you'd know the explosions are deafening and can be heard quite some distance away. Please tell me something...how exactly can you tell by watching a video that a building has been brought down by CD?

[whatchamacallit]

51. Crimp at top - pretty much straight down - real fast - one of 3 complete (non-partial) collapses

But hey, why argue with the brilliant scientists, physicists, and engineers of the dungeon? I'm sure the NIST report will finally dispel the CD notion once and for all...

...right?

[SDuderstadt]

54. Where are the loud explosions???

And, more importantly, where are the CD experts who agree with you? Hint: There aren't any. I wonder why that is.

[AZCat]

55. If you turn up your nose at arguing with us...

why don't you call some of your local engineers? There should be plenty in your area. You could try the colleges, or just look in the yellow pages. The state board of technical registration sometimes lists contact info if you want to limit your search to licensed professional engineers, but they might charge you for their time whereas those associated with academics are more lenient. Nobody likes stupid questions, though, so it would be in your best interest to do a little research first.

[whatchamacallit]

57. Ha, is that what you did? I'll bet you did... how are those restraining orders?

:crazy:

[AZCat]

59. What a childish response. n/t

[Realityhack]

68. Do you HAVE a point?

IIRC AZCat HAS discussed this with other engineers. Have you?

[AZCat]

48. Interestingly enough...

while sound intensity varies inversely with the square of the distance from the source, sound pressure varies only with the inverse of the distance.

[whatchamacallit]

56. SPL is not the only variable

sensitivity, polar pattern, orientation (on or off axis), and frequency response are also issues. Did anything obstruct or occlude the sound source? You can't just say it shoulda sounded like this or that. But what the fuck, you guys know everything, so yap on.

[AZCat]

58. Explosions should be nondirectional, right?

I don't know fuck about mikes, but I do know a little about acoustics.

I'm sorry - I missed where I claimed to know everything. Maybe you would be kind enough to provide a link to the post where I did? Nor did I say anything about what the explosion "shoulda sounded like" or whether sound pressure was the only variable. For fuck's sake, please try to make intelligent responses. This could be far more interesting if you did.

[whatchamacallit]

60. Wrong, it totally depends on distance.

At sufficient distance, pretty much anything collapses to a directional point source. You never said you knew everything, you just pretend to. It's inferred by the bits and pieces of incomplete knowledge you guys throw up every time you wanna "prove" something.

[AZCat]

62. Bullshit.

Whatever you read into my posts is dependent on your biases, not any "scheme" of mine to pretend to know everything. I have never pretended or tried to promote such an idea. Maybe if you didn't have such a fucking problem understanding my posts we wouldn't have this problem.

Most of the acoustics I deal with is at distances <50' (room size). All I really do is tell the architect/client "Line the ductwork" or "Isolate the equipment". Our current office building has this horrible low-frequency (16 & 33 Hz octave bands) noise - up to 70 dB in some places. We went up to the roof and guess what? The package equipment is not on spring isolators, and they are all right in the middle of the trusses (one has an unbalanced fan, which doesn't help). It's really fucking annoying.

[whatchamacallit]

63. Sorry, that was unfair.

Sorry about the douche bags who installed your air too. Good luck with that.

[AZCat]

64. We'll survive.

It's supposed to be a "temporary" move while we build the new office building, but I'm pretty skeptical when that will happen (although the steel is up now). It's been bad this summer because the units have been running almost continuously (it gets pretty damn hot here). Once it cools down it shouldn't be that loud.

Thanks for apologizing. I know I can be a prick but I try to be honest about what I do and don't know. I'm genuinely interested in these issues and love to talk about them (vastly preferring intelligent discourse to yelling) but sometimes it is difficult to get a post to say what you mean. As Ghost In the Machine and I have found out, it is easy for two people to misunderstand each other yet both be well-intentioned.

[whatchamacallit]

72. It's all good

You guys (on both sides) know a whole lot more than I do about this stuff.


Peace... 'til the next flamefest ;-)

[OnTheOtherHand]

95. a civility outbreak!

Good on you both.

[SDuderstadt]

75. How far away were the videos of the collapse shot?

If you could answer that question, then your claim might begin to remotely make sense. Of course, a far better explanation is there were no sounds of explosions, nor the acconpanying flashes. It would also be nice if you could post the list of CD experts who agree with you or upon whose works you're relying.

[SDuderstadt]

74. Okay, wiseguy....

where were the explosive flashes that accompany CD, let alone the sound? Do you have any proof at all of your goofy claim? In a word, no, just your sense that it "looked" like CD. Where are all the CD experts who agree with you?

[Realityhack]

66. oooohhhh scientific PROOF!

Do I need the sarcasm tag at this point?

Peoples eyes told them the world was flat and the sun revolved around it too.

[loslobo]

77. Do I need the sarcasm tag at this point?

"Peoples" are also told the world was created in 6 days. Do you believe everything your told?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

[Realityhack]

83. No. Please point out where I did.

Hint: You can't.

Just because it looks like a CD in one aspect doesn't mean it is. If columns fail at their base that is what happens. No explosives necessary.
Other evidence points away from CD.

You have failed to provide any credible evidence beyond an untrained observation of what something looked like.

[Bolo Boffin]

85. Damn.

I need a cigarette.

[Ghost in the Machine]

90. I bet you do, after the fucking you just took...

"According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.

Aren't you the one who has been claiming that WTC7 was "built on a unique, super special cantilever design" for a couple of years now?

:rofl:

[Grateful for Hope]

91. I wish NIST had simply said

that they do not know why WTC7 fell because they did not have the evidence they needed to determine the cause. I would have had more respect for them if they had.

[AZCat]

92. Have you read the report?

Please explain what evidence you think is lacking from their investigation.

[Grateful for Hope]

93. No I did not read the report

But, I did hear the conclusions on C-Span.

I am not an engineer, AZ.

Can you explain your understanding of the report?

Thanks.

[AZCat]

94. I only had a chance to skim it at work.

I am on dial-up at home and it would take forever to download, so I had intended to download it at work and then transfer it here. Unfortunately I forgot my thumb drive, so all I was able to do was read quickly through the report during lunch. If you don't intend to read the whole report, I recommend at least browsing the NIST WT7 FAQ, which provides answers to a number of questions, including this one:

Your entire investigation included no physical evidence. How can you be so sure you know what happened?
In general, much less evidence existed for WTC 7 than for the two WTC towers. The steel for WTC 1 and WTC 2 contained distinguishing characteristics that enabled it to be identified once removed from the site during recovery efforts. However, the same was not true for the WTC 7 steel. Certainly, there is a lot less visual and audio evidence of the WTC 7 collapse compared to the collapses of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers, which were much more widely photographed.

Nonetheless, the NIST investigation of WTC 7 is based on a huge amount of data. These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous, state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building’s collapse. These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred. In addition to using its in-house expertise, NIST relied upon private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs and videos of this disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001, and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.

[Grateful for Hope]

97. Thanks, AZ

So, they did have a great deal of evidence, it seems. This makes me wonder even more why they did not conclude with something more definitive than they did.

[AZCat]

99. You're welcome, Hope.

The amount of evidence isn't as much as one would have hoped (I too think steel samples would have been nice) but sometimes you have to work with what you've been given, and I think the NIST did the best they could under the circumstances.

If by "not conclude with something more definitive" you are referring to their use of "probable" as an adjective for "collapse sequence", then I can only respond that I think this is the appropriate attitude for the NIST. Since they were not able to confirm the collapse sequence by inspection of failed components, the hypothesized collapse sequence remains unconfirmed (although the available video and photographic evidence helps strengthen the claim). An interesting comparison is the Kansas City Hyatt Regency walkway collapse. The investigating bodies were able to examine the points of connection between the support beams and the tie rods and the construction documents (both the original design and the revision). As a result, their conclusions were firm enough to justify the removal of engineering licenses from the engineers involved (but not enough to convict them of criminal negligence).

[Realityhack]

96. You are concluding they lacked enough evidence based on a c-span summary?

That's seems a little stupid.

[Ghost in the Machine]

98. I agree that that would have been a much better statement to make

... much better than the BS they're putting out with this report..

:hi:

[Realityhack]

100. What BS?

come on over to the technical issues forum and inform us as to what BS they are putting out. Site a specific mistake they made. Did they do a load calculation wrong? Did they calculate expansion wrong? What? Come on give it up... what BS are they putting out?

[SDuderstadt]

101. "BS" to a "truther" is code for...

"I don't remotely understand this and I certainly can't debate from a technical standpoint, so I'll try to win the 'debate' another way". Pathetic.

[Realityhack]

102. Yeah I understand that. The thing is...

I am sure the reports are not perfect. Nothing ever really is. So I always hold out just a tiny bit of hope that someone will come along with some intelligent criticism of them. Probably nothing completely refuting them but even something that just makes me think and look some stuff up so I learn something.

Occasionally I get to do that for well refuted arguments I haven't seen before but I would rather see a serious technical debate. NIST seems to have done a fairly good job though so I don't know if there even IS anything substantial to argue about.

Maybe AZCat will spot something fun.

[vincent_vega_lives]

104. No not just Bolo

And the truss system didn't cause the collapse. It would have collapsed regardless apparently. The truss system resulted in horizontal progression of the collapse.

[vincent_vega_lives]

103. This will solve zip

in the truth-be-told world.

It's like watching creationists explaining how the discovery of dinosaur fossils are accounted for in the bible.

[Realityhack]

105. LOL. Of course not. But then that isn't the point...

Good comparison.