Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
what part of column 79 don't you get simple simon ?.. One column
but that's silly. According to the nist analysis, the building fell down sequentially. That is, a part of it went, then the next, then the next in sequence. But you troofers insist that it all went down as one giant fucking unit as one would see in a controlled demolition.
So pick one. Either the building went down in a sequenced series of collapses or it went down effectively as one controlled demolition drop. Which one?
If you agree with nist that it went down sequentially, then there's really no reason to disagree with them that it went down due (primarily) to the fire. If you insist, however, that it went down as one unit (in effect a controlled demolition), then you disagree with nist.
But you cite to nist only when it suits you.
did the entire building collapse essentially as one unit as in a controlled demolition or didn't it, you flaming asstard?
Beyond question ..NIST concluded a single blast to column 79 would initiate the collapse sequence
Stepnoski, Ventura, Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen..........
Actors Rosie O'Donnell & Charlie Sheen
NFL Player Mark Stepnoski
You seemed to forget (on purpose)
Senator Mike Gravel,
Governor Ventura,
Democratic Party of Japan lawmaker Yukihisa Fujita
German Defense Minister Andreas Von Buelow
I could add more. This pretty much sums up how you are just a nuisance to these topics, and are fearful of the truth.
On the contrary. This exhaustive experiment proved that fire cannot weaken a steel structure sufficiently to allow it to collapse.So that's "none".kerosene fuel does not burn at high temperature it just sounds dramatic to say "jet fuel" and no jet hit wtc 7
The point is, to you and your paranoid friends, that there is no precedent for this kind of event and no feasible way to reenact it to make the unequivocal determination that it is impossible.
That guy would make a PERFECT AGW scientist!
you are also a fucking moronHe is a useful tool in showing the ignorance of debwunkers and keeping 9/11 threads active and in the mass consciousness
He is a useful tool, I agree.
no kidding, the moron claims Oxygen to be 1/3rd component of air, when pressed on it he changes it to 1/3.7, when i fact oxygen is just barely over 1/5th partyou are also a fucking moronHe is a useful tool, I agree.
Actually he insults effing morons!
NIST concluded that the failure of column 79 under any circumstance would initiate the collapse.....sequence
In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.
Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NISTs lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object has no structural components below it.[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.
A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NISTs initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7s destruction, NISTs claim contradicted a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.[iv]
Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7s free fall descent could have occurred.
However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]
In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.
Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:
What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesnt build up gradually. The graph [measuring the buildings descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.
Secondly:
The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.
Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:
The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.
REFERENCES
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 Draft for Public Comment, Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf
[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NISTs Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False, GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009. The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven
[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center
[vi] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related
On the contrary. This exhaustive experiment proved that fire cannot weaken a steel structure sufficiently to allow it to collapse.So that's "none".
The point is, to you and your paranoid friends, that there is no precedent for this kind of event and no feasible way to reenact it to make the unequivocal determination that it is impossible.
His models are about as realistic.
dipshit, what percentage of the air is Oxygen?
21% Oxygen, 78% Nitrogen, 1% Other
Oxygen makes up 1/3.7th of air.
You can melt steel inside of a blast furnace, BECAUSE YOU HAVE PURE Oxygen.
Pure Oxygen Enviorment allows you to get to 3,000oC.
In air, you have 1/3rd of the Oxygen you would normally have.
You have to heat up molecules of Nitrogen & others in order to get a hydrocarbon based fire to reach steel's melting point.
You can only get 1/3rd of the temp needed to melt steel OUTSIDE of a blast furnace, BECAUSE the OXYGEN in the AIR is NOT enough.
You can only get to 1,800oF Degrees in a carbon based fire inside of a building.
Reason: because you need to heat up the OTHER molecules, but DO not have the oxygen to do so, because AIR only consists of 1/3rd Oxygen.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_QWk2fFUzw[/ame]
Congratulations, you have so completely discredited yourself as to have been rendered invisible. For your information a simple house fire (pre flashover) can attain 2300 degrees.
This is without the wonderful fuel of Jet-A.
"There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.
The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature."
Temperatures in flames and fires
In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.
Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.
A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]
Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]
“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”
Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:
“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”
Secondly:
“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”
Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:
“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.
REFERENCES
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 – Draft for Public Comment,” Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf
[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,” GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009. The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven
[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center
[vi] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related
You made a claim that no fire can get hotter than 1800 degree's. I posted a firefighting link that showed a regular house fire can attain 2300 degrees. Care to address that mr. physics.
LOL holy shit
since when is 21% even close to a third?
and btw, you don't need a blast furnace to "melt steel"
You cannot get 2,800oF* Degrees with any Hydrocarbon Fire
Air only has 21% oxygen in it, that is a 3rd of what is needed to create 2,800 degrees with Fire.
you claimed "pure O2 was required for a blast furnace"LOL holy shit
since when is 21% even close to a third?
and btw, you don't need a blast furnace to "melt steel"
You cannot get 2,800oF* Degrees with any Hydrocarbon Fire
Air only has 21% oxygen in it, that is a 3rd of what is needed to create 2,800 degrees with Fire.
The molten steel story is pure crap because the people who said they saw it said it was molten ONE MONTH after 9/11. How much energy would it take to keep it molten for a month?LOL holy shit
since when is 21% even close to a third?
and btw, you don't need a blast furnace to "melt steel"
You cannot get 2,800oF* Degrees with any Hydrocarbon Fire
Air only has 21% oxygen in it, that is a 3rd of what is needed to create 2,800 degrees with Fire.
In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.
Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NISTs lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object has no structural components below it.[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.
A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NISTs initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7s destruction, NISTs claim contradicted a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.[iv]
Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7s free fall descent could have occurred.
However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]
In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.
Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:
What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesnt build up gradually. The graph [measuring the buildings descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.
Secondly:
The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.
Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:
The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.
REFERENCES
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 Draft for Public Comment, Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf
[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NISTs Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False, GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009. The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven
[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center
[vi] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related
You made a claim that no fire can get hotter than 1800 degree's. I posted a firefighting link that showed a regular house fire can attain 2300 degrees. Care to address that mr. physics.
2,300 degrees is 500 degrees off from the point needed to create molten steel.
You can't freeze water at 532 degrees can you?
You can't create molten liquid steel at 2,300 degrees can you?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-with-any-hydrocarbon-fire-2.html#post3155323
Air only has 21% oxygen in it, that is a 3rd of what is needed to create 2,800 degrees with Fire.
