Village Voice : NIST hiring contractor to study WTC7

[Contrite]

http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/runninscared/archives/002374.php

Hey Buddy: What Brought WTC7 Down?

Of the many mysteries surrounding 9-11, few have been of as much interest to as broad a range of people as the fate of World Trade Center 7, the 47-story office building that was the last to fall and appears to have been the first steel-framed skyscraper to collapse due solely to fire. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, which this fall issued its final report on what happened to the Twin Towers, was supposed to report on WTC 7 at the same time. But that got pushed to December, then to this spring, and lately to the end of 2006. Now, NIST is soliciting a contractor to try to come up with the best explanation for why the building came down.

(more at link)

[Bolo Boffin]

1. 10:47 PM, January 25, 2006

One from the vaults.

[Contrite]

2. Yes, I know it's a year old.

What happened to it?

[The Lone Groover]

3. Perhaps...

They've been waiting for the Steve Pak video.

[Twist_U_Up]

5. nice lol

very nice.

[Contrite]

6. LOL--Excellent

[LARED]

8. Lastest update from the NIST

hidden in plain sight

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf

A little over two months old.

[Grateful for Hope]

9. Investigation is on-going

no conclusions at this time. Now they are saying Spring, 2007. We'll see.

[JackRiddler]

10. "It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by Spring2007."

Still non-commital enough to allow yet another delay. Almost two years since the Towers report.

I'm willing to bet on a further delay.

[LARED]

11. I don't find it surprising or

unusual that there is an anticipated date to issue a draft report rather than a date set in stone.

[greyl]

13. If they're part of the conspiracy, why would they delay it? nt

[Contrite]

14. Who says they are part of a conspiracy?

They are merely trying to meet the requirements of a specific task; i.e., to come up with a plausible explanation.

Their last report left a lot of unanswered questions. It will be interesting to see what questions are left unanswered in this one.

[greyl]

15. CTists.

NIST already has a generally plausible explanation, but as a scientific organization their standards are set quite a bit higher than the standard CTists. They are after more than a plausible hypothesis, they want as much detail as possible.

Working Collapse Hypothesis

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster(Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

•An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

•Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up tothe east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

•Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors)resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation.

[Contrite]

16. Still, it's a hypothesis.

They admit it.

They have ignored key pieces of evidence. As well, NIST’s scientific data contradicted their own theory:

* Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"
* Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)<37>
* Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging.
* No floor collapse
* "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."<38>

All of this NIST data directly contradicts the stated collapse hypothesis. The scientific method demands rejecting a thesis if the evidence contradicts it.

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/281006_scientific_vs_political.html

[greyl]

17. You haven't read the December 12, 2006 NIST report, have you?

When they offer a final report, will you accept it as the diligent work of experts in the field?

Also, quoting shit from Kevin Ryan and Alex Jones is no way to get taken seriously here.

[Contrite]

18. It depends.

On whether or not they fully explain everything, and I mean everything.

Until then, no.

Also, that "s**t" was written by arabesque at 911blogger

http://www.911blogger.com/node/4136

The 12/12/06 report regards WTC7. I did read it.

8/06 Awarded contract to ARA (with CDI and SGH as subcontractors) for analysis of hypothetical blast events and assistance with structural analysis of initiating events.

Any idea who these contractors/subcontractors are?

[greyl]

19. It looks like arabesque was quoting Kevin Ryan.

Henceforth, I'll include arabesque in the same asshole club as Alex Jones.

[MervinFerd]

21. "Explain everything, and I mean everything" Wow! That's a severe standard.

You aren't going to believe them no matter what they say.

Are you?

[Contrite]

22. Yes, if they explain everything, as I said.

What is wrong with that?

[MervinFerd]

20. "It's a hypothesis. They admit it." Do you admit you never beat your wife?

They don't --admit-- their collapse scenario is an hypothesis.

Their --job-- is to form plausible hypotheses and test them against known facts.

Unlike certain people I won't name, who imagine impossible scenarios and believe them despite all facts being to the contrary.

[Contrite]

23. Sorry, unclear. I meant the WTC7 study is a hypothesis.

From their site:

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

*************
All of the NIST data directly contradicts the stated collapse hypothesis WTC1-WTC2. The scientific method demands rejecting a thesis if the evidence contradicts it. Therefore, it does remain a scientifically proven hypothesis.

[Contrite]

24. Too late to edit

I meant UNscientifically proven hypothesis.

[hack89]

25. So where is the experimentation that proves

the truth movement's hypothesis? Whoops - my bad, I forget the only ask questions. Doing actual science is asking too much.

[Contrite]

26. Way to shift the topic.

I don't need to prove an alternative when I'm merely arguing that the explanation offered doesn't hold up or that there is in fact no explanation at all for certain events. But, in reality, the way it stands, there is inadequate "proof" all around. A big part of that is that the evidence was carted away and no one was allowed to do an independent forensic analysis of the site and the debris.

[hack89]

27. And I am merely pointing out what the scientific process really is ..

you have no clue what a hypothesis is and how it fits into to the scientific process, do you? You appear to use it the same way that fundies do to attack evolution.

Fire engineering is not a new science. We know how buildings burn, how hot the fires get and how building materials respond to those temperatures. All empirical data produced by actual experiments in labs. What do you think fire codes are based on. Base on this huge body of work, it is clear to fire safety professionals that fires could have brought done WTC7. Having formed their hypothesis, they will test it with experiments. From there they will undoubtedly refine their hypothesis until they understand the collapse completely.

[Contrite]

28. I recently read up on hypotheses and requirements of the scientific process

It's not hard to understand.

You are using NIST's argument that "fires did it". They have not proven this, they merely asserted that the fireproofing blew off on enough columns to allow fires to weaken them. They also assert that sagging trusses pulled the exterior columns inward. UK experts Lane and Lamont have said, emphatically, that there is no way this occurred.

"NIST maintains that all three building collapses were fire-initiated despite the observations above, particularly the fact that fire endurance tests with actual models did not result in collapse. In a paper by fire-engineering experts in the UK, we find:

The basis of NIST’s collapse theory is… column behaviour in fire… However, we believe that a considerable difference in downward displace between the <47> core and <240> perimeter columns, much greater than the 300 mm proposed, is required for the collapse theory to hold true… lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse… The is swamped by thermal expansion … Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has NOT been described as yet . (Lane and Lamont, 2005.)"

As for WTC7, they do not have the fires to use as an excuse nor do they have plane impacts to "knock off" fireproofing. What are they going to come up with given that the fires were no where near the intensity or duration required to bring down that 47-story building, and particularly since it collapsed nearly symmetrically at almost free-fall speed, going from standing relatively intact after only a few fires were reported and only one corner was damaged. I'm sorry but that just makes no sense at all. You say they will "refine their hypothesis"; does that mean they will tweak it to match up with the results their experiments produce--or will they tweak the model to get the desired results as they did with their twin towers report?

[MervinFerd]

29. "NIST data directly contradicts the stated collapse hypothesis"--REALLY?

-YOU- see this, but all those engineers with all their years of training just are too stoopid to figger' it out.

WOW!

The arrogance.

[MervinFerd]

4. Great coverup! Take out an advertisement in the trade journals.

They were uncertain about certain issues, and said so. That's the responsible and professional approach.

What's your point?

[Contrite]

7. Speaking of cover-up

Where IS the WTC7 report????

[BeFree]

12. Where, indeed.

Ya gotta feel sorry for those guys at NIST, they've been handed a big problem and no matter what they come up with they are gonna piss somebody off.

Why, if they covered all the bases the OCTers will be pulling their hair out and bushco will be wanting to send them all to Iraq. They keep a coverup going and their peers will be all over their butts 'til the day they die. They just can't win.

Now, if we ever have a real investigation, bushco would be left powerless and the truth would finally eke out a spot on the pages of the NYT. And if that's what being a truther means, well, put my name right there.