WTC7: Did the fires burn long and hot enough?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Did you read the NCSTAR 1-9 analysis of the location and extent of the fires? Did you find anything wrong with it?
Yes to both. I posted here https://www.metabunk.org/posts/41014

The fires are not sufficiently hot or long enough to cause the collapse... let alone a 'uniform, straight down, collapse'... What are the chances of that happening BTW... Any statatitions like to come up with an odds for random office fires in a massive building causing a uniform collapse similar to a demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/letters/nist/W...ents_JCole.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So this looks like bunk to me, they claim that NIST says it would take 4 hours at 400C to cause the damage, and yet no region was at 400C for more than 30 minutes?

If this is correct then obviously the NIST conclusion must be incorrect. Now I doubt that such an error could have gone unnoticed, so my initial supposition is that it's actually bunk.

Oxy, did you go and verify these claims?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So this looks like bunk to me, they claim that NIST says it would take 4 hours at 400C to cause the damage, and yet no region was at 400C for more than 30 minutes?

If this is correct then obviously the NIST conclusion must be incorrect. Now I doubt that such an error could have gone unnoticed, so my initial supposition is that it's actually bunk.

Oxy, did you go and verify these claims?
This is in the NIST Report I posted it earlier myself on this Thread . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is a good place to start:

911Research:
The actual NIST NCSTAR 1-9 section 8.4.1:
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf

Now why would 911Research leave that bit off?

I suspect looking into the full context of all their other quotes will reveal more bunk.
 
Last edited:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
This is a good place to start:

911Research:
NIST:
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf

Now why would 911Research leave that bit off?

I suspect looking into the full context of all their other quotes will reveal more bunk.
So in serial manner the fires would burn a cubical at a time . . . this does not equate to the temperature on the floor being uniform or maintaining itself at the maximum level over the entire floor for two to three hours . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So in serial manner the fires would burn a cubical at a time . . . this does not equate to the temperature on the floor being uniform or maintaining itself at the maximum level over the entire floor for two to three hours . . .
Arguable, however that's not exactly the point. The point here is that the original claim was bunk. They quote a bit of NIST seems to support their case, but leave off a bit that directly contradicts it. Does this make it a good case?

What of the other claims there? Does NIST actually say it takes four hours for fire, but they only account for three? Is that accurate? Did you check?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
This is a good place to start:

911Research:
NIST:
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf

Now why would 911Research leave that bit off?

I suspect looking into the full context of all their other quotes will reveal more bunk.
Perhaps they left it out because it seems irrelevant, contradictory and bunk in itself... as George says "So in serial manner the fires would burn a cubical at a time . . . this does not equate to the temperature on the floor being uniform or maintaining itself at the maximum level over the entire floor for two to three hours . . ."

Of all the columns, NIST put in a non confirmable caveat on column 79?.

It is logical and can be visually confirmed that fires were generally present in a few windows at a time with burned out sections clearly visible as the office fires moved on.

NIST is using made up figures and estimates to arrive at a preconceived outcome and they are finding it difficult.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Arguable, however that's not exactly the point. The point here is that the original claim was bunk. They quote a bit of NIST seems to support their case, but leave off a bit that directly contradicts it. Does this make it a good case?

What of the other claims there? Does NIST actually say it takes four hours for fire, but they only account for three? Is that accurate? Did you check?
I am not sure of what you are asking . . . cherry picking (bad) and selecting small enough quotes to make a point without overwhelming the Thread (good) are often conflicting desires . . . when I first reviewed the report I was not aware there was a simulation portion of the Report . . . my bad . . . at this time . . . are you saying NIST says the temperatures could have been uniform, hot enough and long enough to cause collapse initiated by column 79 and the selected quotes were chosen to deny that?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I am not sure of what you are asking . . . cherry picking (bad) and selecting small enough quotes to make a point without overwhelming the Thread (good) are often conflicting desires . . . when I first reviewed the report I was not aware there was a simulation portion of the Report . . . my bad . . . at this time . . . are you saying NIST says the temperatures could have been uniform, hot enough and long enough to cause collapse initiated by column 79 and the selected quotes were chosen to deny that?
I am asking how accurate is the analysis in Oxy's post (the one I picked to start this thread with).

It seems that claiming 30 minutes by chopping off the part of the sentence that indicates 3 hours is a VERY deliberate attempt to mislead.

I'm trying to focus here. You can't just hand wave and say "never mind that, look over here".

I'm asking if the fires burned hot enough and long enough. We have some quote from NIST that seemed to say no, then they are shown to be taken out of context, and now you move to "it seems to me..."

Why not see what NIST actually said in context? What about the first part?

The 911Research piece suggests " it appears the modeling effort to reach failure mode of the connections required was at least a time of 3.5 hours at a temperature of approximately 400º C." but this is basically a lie. If you read the report (NCSTAR 1-A) it's very clear that they are talking about 3.5 hours into the simulation, not 3.5 hours of sustained 400C. They are very clear that the fire was not sustained in any one location for that long:

 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I am asking how accurate is the analysis in Oxy's post (the one I picked to start this thread with).

It seems that claiming 30 minutes by chopping off the part of the sentence that indicates 3 hours is a VERY deliberate attempt to mislead.

I'm trying to focus here. You can't just hand wave and say "never mind that, look over here".

I'm asking if the fires burned hot enough and long enough. We have some quote from NIST that seemed to say no, then they are shown to be taken out of context, and now you move to "it seems to me..."

Why not see what NIST actually said in context? What about the first part?

The 911Research piece suggests " it appears the modeling effort to reach failure mode of the connections required was at least a time of 3.5 hours at a temperature of approximately 400º C." but this is basically a lie. If you read the report (NCSTAR 1-A) it's very clear that they are talking about 3.5 hours into the simulation, not 3.5 hours of sustained 400C. They are very clear that the fire was not sustained in any one location for that long:

Strange Mick, you criticise them for editorialising and then do it yourself... They actually say...

Now I could say 'why leave out the first bit about NIST not providing input data which forces deductions to be made'?

But let's let that lay.

Where it says 'floor slabs have been removed for clarity'... what does that actually mean?

And what does it mean by 'heating of the lower 16 floors'

What is actually depicted here and how is it arrived at?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Strange Mick, you criticise them for editorialising and then do it yourself... They actually say...

Er, yes, the bit you quote there is what I was referring to. It's a lie, don't you agree?

It's their fire simulation. Calculating the spread of fire through the building. The floor slabs have been removed because otherwise it would be mess of white lines, it's just so you can see the heat map. It's showing how hot the lower 16 floors got. It's all explaining in NCSTAR 1-A

https://www.metabunk.org/files/NIST Building 7 final report 861610_unlocked.pdf
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Er, yes, the bit you quote there is what I was referring to. It's a lie, don't you agree?
Well it seems a cogent deduction from what NIST say... without knowing there input data.

It's their fire simulation.
Yep.. I got that bit :)

Calculating the spread of fire through the building.
What calculations did they use to come up with that depiction and those temperatures?

The floor slabs have been removed because otherwise it would be mess of white lines, it's just so you can see the heat map.
But it is saying up to floor 16. Now not all floors were alight up to 16 and only parts were alight at different times and entire floors were extinguished by being burnt out.
And I am trying to work out whether they are suggesting they took the floors out of the simulation which would be crazy as the floors would inhibit fire transfer and heat transfer. It may sound silly but I wouldn't put it past them to run that. I don't know what the depiction would look like with the floors included, in fact I can't see a method of showing the floors in an overhead view?
It's showing how hot the lower 16 floors got. It's all explaining in NCSTAR 1-A

https://www.metabunk.org/files/NIST Building 7 final report 861610_unlocked.pdf
Can you paste the explanation here because I can't find it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well it seems a cogent deduction from what NIST say... without knowing there input data.
No, it seems like a blatant lie, or at best a serious error based on an out of context quote. They claim that NIST say that 3.5 hours of 400C is required, but NIST just says that the main damage occurred at 3.5 hours into the simulation. Totally different things.

Would you agree that this statement:

Is false?

And hence the rest of the 911Research excerpt you quoted is also false?

For an explanation of the simulation, you can start at section 3.4.3

Remember we are not yet talking about how accurate this simulation is. We are talking about if 911Research was correct in his claims.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Ok... for clarity, your interpretation of what NIST are saying is 'the key structural fire damage, 'thermal expansion', happened in the last half hour'? Is that right?

That really seems like a no brainer... I would narrow it down even more than that and say the key damage happened in the last 5 mins.

Content from external source:

"Paragraph/Sentence: Section 3.4.5 Second to last paragraph. “Figure 3-9 shows an example of the extent of structural damage from the fires, in this case for the 13th floor. At both 3.5 h and 4.0 h, connections, floor beams, and girders were damaged or had failed at steel temperatures that were approximately 400º C or less, primarily due to the effects of thermal expansion. After 4 h of heating, there was substantially more damage and failures in the WTC 7 structural system than at 3.5 h of heating.” And in the next paragraph: “However, it appeared likely the critical damage state occurred between 3.5 h and 4 h.”

The 911Research piece suggests " it appears the modeling effort to reach failure mode of the connections required was at least a time of 3.5 hours at a temperature of approximately 400º C." but this is basically a lie. If you read the report (NCSTAR 1-A) it's very clear that they are talking about 3.5 hours into the simulation, not 3.5 hours of sustained 400C. They are very clear that the fire was not sustained in any one location for that long:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Ok... for clarity, your interpretation of what NIST are saying is 'the key structural fire damage, 'thermal expansion', happened in the last half hour'? Is that right?

That really seems like a no brainer... I would narrow it down even more than that and say the key damage happened in the last 5 mins.
Wow! That must be it Oxy . . . I think you got the jest of it . . . :)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok... for clarity, your interpretation of what NIST are saying is 'the key structural fire damage, 'thermal expansion', happened in the last half hour'? Is that right?

That really seems like a no brainer... I would narrow it down even more than that and say the key damage happened in the last 5 mins.
No. They ran a simulation starting with some fairly small fires at 1PM, and it ran for four hours to determine how it would spread, and what temperature things would get to. The key structural damage happened by 3.5 hours into the simulation. At some point there was a transition from heating and gradual failure (The ANSYS simulation) to the initiation of collapse (the LS-DYNA collapse). That's not the same thing as when the key damage was done. The key damage was done over a period of time, then there was a "key failure event", which combined with the damage up to that point triggered collapse.

NIST
So we've got two possibilites, which we can see here in this diagram.



The damage did not happen at any one point in time, just gradually in the time before collapse (although probably mostly in the hour before, note the significant difference between 3.5 and 4.0 hours).

It's clear from the fire simulation that there was a gradual accumulation of beam and girder failures, and connection failures. Eventually it became more than the structure could support, and a column failed, which led to a cascade of failures which brought down the building.

Let leave the accurace of the simulation aside for a second. I want to focus on the fact that the 911Research interpretation is a totally false representation of what NIST said.
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
They are very clear that the fire was not sustained in any one location for that long:

No. They ran a simulation starting with some fairly small fires at 1PM,
This would suggest they are discounting fires prior to 1pm.

and it ran for four hours to determine how it would spread, and what temperature things would get to.
Ok, so this is the bit we are just supposed to accept without question... If we accept this, everything else works out?

The key structural damage happened by 3.5 hours into the simulation.
All I have seen is some hot spots moving around the building and not spending too long in one place because fire exhausted the fuel source within about 20 - 40 mins and moved on. Are NIST saying that the joints, girders and columns were damaged in each area progressively such that they were weakened enough to collapse without resistance?

At some point there was a transition from heating and gradual failure (The ANSYS simulation)
Like an event horizon?

to the initiation of collapse (the LS-DYNA collapse).That's not the same thing as when the key damage was done. The key damage was done over a period of time, then there was a "key failure event", which combined with the damage up to that point triggered collapse.
Which would be the failure of column 79?


NIST
So we've got two possibilites, which we can see here in this diagram.



The damage did not happen at any one point in time, just gradually in the time before collapse (although probably mostly in the hour before, note the significant difference between 3.5 and 4.0 hours).
It's clear from the fire simulation that there was a gradual accumulation of beam and girder failures, and connection failures. Eventually it became more than the structure could support, and a column failed, which led to a cascade of failures which brought down the building.
But in the diagram below...mostly in the hour before, is designated light blue, (200 -350 C), for most of the area, especially on the left hand side, (east) and south side.

So how do we know, (other than by the fact the building fell), that these columns, girders and trusses were fatally damaged in a moderate heat source which other buildings have withstood for hours and hours?



Let leave the accurace of the simulation aside for a second. I want to focus on the fact that the 911Research interpretation is a totally false representation of what NIST said.
I cannot agree with that assessment at this point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I cannot agree with that assessment at this point.
Then I'm not explaining it very well, sorry.

911Research makes two specific claims:

and:

and conclude:

But the problem is that both their claims, and hence their conclusion, are false.

Firstly, as I explain above, the 3.5 hour time was simply the time into the simulation at which a critical level of damage had occurred to the building as a whole. It was not the time any one piece of steel or any area had been exposed to a particular temperature. The diagram showing the spread of the fire makes this perfectly clear, as they show the fires moving through the building.

Secondly, they missed off the end of their NIST quote in the second claim, which was:
Either one of these claims being false would have invalidated their conclusion. The fact that BOTH are false means it's entirely baseless.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is absurd. You now de facto claim the whole building was ablaze.
No I don't. I claim the fires were as observed, and likely as modeled.

But that's not the point. We are discussing the claims in the top post, and why I think they are false. Read my whole post above, and read NCSTAR 1-A
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This thread is to remain strictly on topic. Off topic posts will be deleted.

If you want to talk about something else, start a new thread.
 

Ron J

Active Member
Yes to both. I posted here https://www.metabunk.org/posts/41014

The fires are not sufficiently hot or long enough to cause the collapse... let alone a 'uniform, straight down, collapse'... What are the chances of that happening BTW... Any statatitions like to come up with an odds for random office fires in a massive building causing a uniform collapse similar to a demolition.
I can see video of flames shooting out of the east wall of WTC7. Those floor to ceiling flames look hotter than 400 degrees. The east wing was where the collapse began.
From video shot on the north side of the building, it looked like the fire worked its way across pretty much the entire north face, from all the blown out windows on certain fire floors. It looks as if the fire worked its way across the area underneath the east penthouse.

Obviously there was insulation, which is where the 400 degree figure comes in, but maybe NIST miscalculated the amount of combustibles and thus the amount of heat that was generated by the fire in that particular area.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Then I'm not explaining it very well, sorry.
No probs, I could say the same myself but I think it has more to do with our differing viewpoints.

If NIST were able to show a progression of which columns, beams and trusses failed where and when and what impact that had individually and cumulatively, we may get somewhere. But to simply say there was a fire which moved around causing damage as it went until it reached a particular column where it dislodged that column which then put more stress on other columns, so they failed; which led to a progressive collapse of other columns.... but all this happened within the building so no one could see it and no columns or girders broke out from the building to give an indication of what was happening inside... but then the whole exterior fell down uniformly looking like a demolition even though the internal damage caused by fires was completely random.

That doesn't cut it for me.

So can you point out any specific damage which NIST identified say an hour into the fire, ( 1 -2 pm would not be hot enough for any structural damage whatsoever as the temp is below 200 C for the first half hour), so I doubt anything much would have happened structurally to the girders by weakening or thermal expansion?

In the next hour... the fires were hotter according to NIST and situated on the east side between about 2 - 3 pm. Now staying with that area... are you saying that when the fire migrated and focused on the North/central area, (around 4pm), the east side would be cooling and steel would recover much of it's strength as it cooled?

Or are you saying that girders joints and trusses were wrecked by an hours fire and could not recover as they cooled and the fire migrated?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No probs, I could say the same myself but I think it has more to do with our differing viewpoints.

If NIST were able to show a progression of which columns, beams and trusses failed where and when and what impact that had individually and cumulatively, we may get somewhere. But to simply say there was a fire which moved around causing damage as it went until it reached a particular column where it dislodged that column which then put more stress on other columns, so they failed; which led to a progressive collapse of other columns.... but all this happened within the building so no one could see it and no columns or girders broke out from the building to give an indication of what was happening inside... but then the whole exterior fell down uniformly looking like a demolition even though the internal damage caused by fires was completely random.

That doesn't cut it for me.

So can you point out any specific damage which NIST identified say an hour into the fire, ( 1 -2 pm would not be hot enough for any structural damage whatsoever as the temp is below 200 C for the first half hour), so I doubt anything much would have happened structurally to the girders by weakening or thermal expansion?

In the next hour... the fires were hotter according to NIST and situated on the east side between about 2 - 3 pm. Now staying with that area... are you saying that when the fire migrated and focused on the North/central area, (around 4pm), the east side would be cooling and steel would recover much of it's strength as it cooled?

Or are you saying that girders joints and trusses were wrecked by an hours fire and could not recover as they cooled and the fire migrated?
We can get into that, but I want to hear if I've adequately explained my objection to your quote from 911Research, and if you agree that what 911Research said was incorrect.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
We can get into that, but I want to hear if I've adequately explained my objection to your quote from 911Research, and if you agree that what 911Research said was incorrect.
I have very seriously considered your argument but I cannot make sense of it no matter how I try.

Perhaps we can break it down further.

You suggest at https://www.metabunk.org/posts/42254

911Research makes two specific claims:

Content from external source:

it appears the modeling effort to reach failure mode of the connections required was at least a time of 3.5 hours at a temperature of approximately 400º C., or to put it another way, any time less then 3.5 hours or 4 hours would not cause a failure.




and:

Content from external source:

In addition, according to Page 330 Section 8.4.1 (NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 1): “Prediction and growth of building contents fires (Chapter 9) indicated that such fires did not persist at any one location for more then about 20 min to 30 min., which is consistent with observations of fires in the windows (Chapter 5).”





and conclude:

Content from external source:

If the entire analysis of the initial failure event is dependent on temperatures approaching 400º C that must exist over 3.5 hour period, and/or the fires did not last that long in the critical Column 79 area, then the entire foundation of the simulation appears flawed. And if the input of the model is flawed, the output results and conclusions are also flawed.




But the problem is that both their claims, and hence their conclusion, are false.
I agree that if either or both premises are wrong, then the conclusion is likely wrong.

The problem is, IMO, you have not demonstrated either premise to be false.

I suggest we deal with each claim individually, starting with this one.

it appears the modeling effort to reach failure mode of the connections required was at least a time of 3.5 hours at a temperature of approximately 400º C.,
I suggest this is an accurate and proven statement. Can you specify exactly what you deem false about it and why?

NB I note your rebuttal using the NIST quote but please specify the exact part which clearly and unambiguously rebuts the above statement

The argument is then transliterated as;

or to put it another way, any time less then 3.5 hours or 4 hours would not cause a failure.
This seems an entirely reasonable interpretation with the caveat of temperatures in excess of 400 C.

Is this the part that you consider false?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Right. They claim:

That is making the claim that each connection that failed needed to be heated at 400C for 3.5 hours.

Yet the simulation shows the fire moving around, and what NIST is says is simply the time at which a critical amount of failures has happened. 3.5 hours into the simulation. NIST does not say that a connection needs to be heated at 3.5 hours at 400C in order to fail.

Really simple: 3.5 hours into the simulation is not the same as 3.5 hours at 400C

It's just 3.5 hours of the building being on fire.

See the problem here is that you said "The fires are not sufficiently hot or long enough to cause the collapse...", and you then quoted the 911Research piece as evidence of this. However the 911Research Piece is just misinterpreting the NIST report. The NIST report very clearly DOES say the fires burned long and hot enough.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I understand this is perhaps a little complicated, and difficult to communicate. But I think it's very importnat to drill down to these fundamental errors. Once you introduce an error into your argument, and then base other things upon it, then it's corrupted your entire argument. And yet the error then becomes so deeply enmeshed in your argument that it's difficult to back away from it.

It also illustrate how easy it is to take things out of context, and how important it is to look at the entirety of the original source, and to understand that source. It's a trivial matter to pick a couple of quotes that seem contradictory - it's harder to read and understand the NIST report so you can see what the quotes mean in context and why they are not contradictory. This imbalance in difficulty is largely responsible for the longevity of the controlled demolition theory.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Right. They claim:

That is making the claim that each connection that failed needed to be heated at 400C for 3.5 hours.

Yet the simulation shows the fire moving around, and what NIST is says is simply the time at which a critical amount of failures has happened. 3.5 hours into the simulation. NIST does not say that a connection needs to be heated at 3.5 hours at 400C in order to fail.

Really simple: 3.5 hours into the simulation is not the same as 3.5 hours at 400C

It's just 3.5 hours of the building being on fire.

See the problem here is that you said "The fires are not sufficiently hot or long enough to cause the collapse...", and you then quoted the 911Research piece as evidence of this. However the 911Research Piece is just misinterpreting the NIST report. The NIST report very clearly DOES say the fires burned long and hot enough.
But that makes no sense Mick. It appears you are saying that 3.5 hours into the simulation... undisclosed or all connections will magically fail wherever they are in the building and irrespective of how hot they have gotten or for how long they have been at that temp.

Ergo, even a connection that has little or no fire will collapse at that point 'due to fire damage'... It is illogical.

BTW, I don't think they are saying that all connections that failed had to be fire damaged for 3.5 hours. But those that were not would fail at different rates due to different forces transferred and imposed by those that did collapse. in which case you would not expect a symmetrical collapse at nearly free fall speed. More likely a partial collapse on one side.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But that makes no sense Mick. It appears you are saying that 3.5 hours into the simulation... undisclosed or all connections will magically fail wherever they are in the building and irrespective of how hot they have gotten or for how long they have been at that temp.

Ergo, even a connection that has little or no fire will collapse at that point 'due to fire damage'... It is illogical.
No, that's not what I'm saying.

The connections fail gradually, one by one, over time. Different connections fail at different times as the fire moves and grows. Each connection requires a certain individual exposure to high temperature in order to fail.

Eventually (somewhere around the 3.5 to 4.0 hour point in the simulation) enough connections have failed that column 79 has lost lateral support (support from the sides, which keeps it straight), and it buckles and fails.

It's like playing Jenga (a game where you make a tower of blocks, and then removed them one at a time, trying not to be the person who makes the tower fall). One connection failing (on block removed) does not make the tower fall. But as you remove more and more the tower (column 79) becomes more and more unstable. Eventually it's so unstable that pretty much removing any block will make it topple (buckle and fail).

All the 3.5 hours number is saying is that after 3.5 hours of simulated fire in the building, column 79 was just weakly supported, and ready to fail. After 4.0 hours it was really weakly supported. At some point it buckled.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
No, that's not what I'm saying.

The connections fail gradually, one by one, over time. Different connections fail at different times as the fire moves and grows. Each connection requires a certain individual exposure to high temperature in order to fail.

Eventually (somewhere around the 3.5 to 4.0 hour point in the simulation) enough connections have failed that column 79 has lost lateral support (support from the sides, which keeps it straight), and it buckles and fails.

It's like playing Jenga (a game where you make a tower of blocks, and then removed them one at a time, trying not to be the person who makes the tower fall). One connection failing (on block removed) does not make the tower fall. But as you remove more and more the tower (column 79) becomes more and more unstable. Eventually it's so unstable that pretty much removing any block will make it topple (buckle and fail).

All the 3.5 hours number is saying is that after 3.5 hours of simulated fire in the building, column 79 was just weakly supported, and ready to fail. After 4.0 hours it was really weakly supported. At some point it buckled.
Ok, so you are suggesting that as the fire traveled, it fatally damaged columns and connections in each area in a short time frame of under an hour, (like removing jenga blocks), until it reached column 79 and when column 79 gave way the interior of 7 collapsed because there was little left holding it up?

Is there anywhere in the NIST report that says connections, columns, beams etc will be critically damaged by fire around the 400C mark in 20 to 30 mins which is apparently NISTS estimation of how long the fire remained in different locations?

And further, if that is what NIST meant, why did they not say it?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok, so you are suggesting that as the fire traveled, it fatally damaged columns and connections in each area in a short time frame of under an hour, (like removing jenga blocks), until it reached column 79 and when column 79 gave way the interior of 7 collapsed because there was little left holding it up?
Not exactly. Column 79 itself was not damaged much by the fire, nor were the other columns. It was their lateral support (the horizontal girders, and their connections) that were gradually damaged, one girder or connection at a time.

Is there anywhere in the NIST report that says connections, columns, beams etc will be critically damaged by fire around the 400C mark in 20 to 30 mins which is apparently NISTS estimation of how long the fire remained in different locations?
But that's not what they said, as was explained earlier. 911Research left off this bit from their NIST quote:

And further, if that is what NIST meant, why did they not say it?
They did. Just 911Research misquoted and misinterpreted them.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Not exactly. Column 79 itself was not damaged much by the fire, nor were the other columns. It was their lateral support (the horizontal girders, and their connections) that were gradually damaged, one girder or connection at a time.



But that's not what they said, as was explained earlier. 911Research left off this bit from their NIST quote:



They did. Just 911Research misquoted and misinterpreted them.
Mick . . . in the area simulated there was not a uniform distribution of fire and stress . . . the real question is what was required to weakened or compromise a connection and/or support beam and were enough compromised? Also, there is a question as to once heat is sufficient for weaken in 20 - 30 minutes but the heat is then lessened or removed because there is no more fuel . . . does any structural strength return?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Not exactly. Column 79 itself was not damaged much by the fire, nor were the other columns. It was their lateral support (the horizontal girders, and their connections) that were gradually damaged, one girder or connection at a time.
Does NIST make that distinction? Can you paste it?

But that's not what they said, as was explained earlier. 911Research left off this bit from their NIST quote:

This is completely irrelevant to your argument which on your interpretation doesn't even need extended duration in any one spot and which NIST even acknowledge... did not occur. Further 'could' is a pretty big assumption... there 'could' have been thermite there but what the heck without evidence it doesn't exist right? :)

They did. Just 911Research misquoted and misinterpreted them.
No, you just said it... that is your interpretation of what they said and 911Research and I and others interpret it differently. What we need to establish is 'because they have been so appallingly vague... what exactly were they trying to say'? That can only be done, (if at all) by an in depth analysis and debate.

But you must admit, NIST is extremely vague and ambiguous which is what everyone who questions 9/11 is moaning about and up in arms about.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Is there anywhere in the NIST report that says connections, columns, beams etc will be critically damaged by fire around the 400C mark in 20 to 30 mins which is apparently NISTS estimation of how long the fire remained in different locations?
A bit more on this

Besides the obvious problem that NIST actually said the firs burned around col 79 (and hence the connections to col 79) for two hours. There's the issue of "400C", which comes from this quote:

So the questions are:

A) How long goes it take to get to 400C?
B) How long does it take for thermal expansion sufficient to damage the member?

NCSTAR 1-A, page 21:

NCSTAR 1-9 page 84:


Which shows that 400C is reached for all beams in under an hour (3600 seconds), and for the lower flange of some, in under 20 minutes.

How long does it take to expand? Well with gradual heating like that, the expansion happens with the heating - directly in proportion, so by the time it's at 400C, it has thermally expanded. For ever 1 degree rise in temperature it expands. Nothing magical happens at 400C.
 
Last edited:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Mick, where in the NIST report do they specify how hot and how long it takes to have a lateral connection fail? Remember theses were covered in fire proofing material. . . no aircraft collision separated the fireproofing from the columns, etc. . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Does NIST make that distinction? Can you paste it?
Yes, they make the distinction MANY times. Here's one detailed example in the context of the original quotes:

They then go into vast detail, and more simply state in the summary:


This is completely irrelevant to your argument which on your interpretation doesn't even need extended duration in any one spot and which NIST even acknowledge... did not occur. Further 'could' is a pretty big assumption... there 'could' have been thermite there but what the heck without evidence it doesn't exist right? :)
They did not say "could", they say "would". It would have had sufficient combustibles. I don't agree it's irrelevant, because my argument here is that the 911Research quotes are incorrect. Also the graphs I just posted show it can take an hour to reach 400C.


No, you just said it... that is your interpretation of what they said and 911Research and I and others interpret it differently. What we need to establish is 'because they have been so appallingly vague... what exactly were they trying to say'? That can only be done, (if at all) by an in depth analysis and debate.

But you must admit, NIST is extremely vague and ambiguous which is what everyone who questions 9/11 is moaning about and up in arms about.
The NIST reports are very long and complex. I think this can perhaps come across as "vague" as it is sometimes difficult to find information in them. But in this particular case they are quite precise about what they know, and what they do not know, and the range of uncertainty. But again, the point I'm making here is that the 911Research excerpt is wrong. It does not support your assertion that the fires did not burn long enough, and it's so wrong it seems like a deliberate attempt to mislead.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, where in the NIST report do they specify how hot and how long it takes to have a lateral connection fail? Remember theses were covered in fire proofing material. . . no aircraft collision separated the fireproofing from the columns, etc. . .
See above. 400C, about an hour. But actual events are quite complex.

Remember I'm trying to keep this focused on the claims in the first post here. Please look at that again, and my objections to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West How Hot Could The WTC7 Fires Burned, and How Hot could the Steel be? 9/11 2
Oystein Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study 9/11 24
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
Mick West TFTRH #25 - Jason Bermas: Producer of Loose Change, Shade, Invisible Empire Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Mick West Sept 3, 2019 release of Hulsey's WTC7 draft report: Analysis 9/11 183
Pepijn van Erp WTC7: Determining the Accelerations involved - Methods and Accuracy 9/11 41
Mick West A wider perspective on the WTC7 collapse 9/11 2
Mick West Some New-ish WTC7 Photos (and video?) Corner Damage 9/11 6
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West WTC7 South Side Photos 9/11 2
Mick West WTC7 Smoke Movement Before and After Penthouse Collapse 9/11 7
John85 How could the interior collapse in WTC7 Move West Without More Visible Exterior Damage 9/11 63
Mick West WTC7: Is AE911's (and NIST's) Focus on A2001 Justified if it Was Not "Key" in NIST's Global Model? 9/11 181
Mick West WTC7 Penthouse Falling Window Wave 9/11 65
Jeffrey Orling The Role of Diesel Fuel in WTC7 9/11 12
Mick West First Interstate Tower Fire - Comparison with WTC Towers and WTC7 9/11 5
Mick West Kai Kostack's WTC7 Collapse Simulation using BCB and Blender 9/11 10
Mick West Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7? 9/11 12
gerrycan Did NIST examine Steel from WTC7? 9/11 16
gerrycan Movement of Column 79 as Expressed in WTC7 UAF Presentation 9/11 13
Mick West Debunked: UAF Study Shows WTC7 Could Not Have Collapsed from Fire 9/11 43
Mick West Debunked: CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: ‘We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11’ [HOAX] 9/11 12
Whitebeard Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons 9/11 84
Cube Radio What is this woman hearing as WTC7 collapses behind her 9/11 40
Mick West How Buckling Led to "Free Fall" acceleration for part of WTC7's Collapse. 9/11 127
benthamitemetric Other WTC7 Investigations: Aegis Insurance v. 7 World Trade Company Expert Reports 9/11 39
Oystein Debunked: "WTC7 Sound Evidence of Explosions" by Chandler/AE911T 9/11 31
Oystein AE911 Truth's WTC7 Evaluation Computer Modelling Project 9/11 1340
Cube Radio Sulfur at WTC7: how could it come from gypsum as the BBC claimed? 9/11 75
jaydeehess Why little to no analysis of steel from WTC7? 9/11 45
gerrycan AE911 Letter to Inspector General Claims NIST WTC7 Report is Provably False 9/11 161
Ron J WTC7 Firefighting 9/11 48
gerrycan WTC7 - Can YOU Spot The Difference? 9/11 52
Cairenn The plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11 9/11 429
Oxymoron How much of the Smoke Around WTC7 actually from WTC7? 9/11 20
Mick West What would a new WTC7 Collapse Investigation look like? 9/11 127
mynym WTC7 and other Buildings, the Significance of Sheer Studs 9/11 1
Representative Press WTC7 Fire Temperatures and effects on the East Floor System 9/11 58
Representative Press Significance of WTC7 9/11 36
ColtCabana FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro's statement on WTC7 9/11 135
gerrycan Critical Errors and Omissions in WTC7 Report Uncovered 9/11 841
Alchemist How could WTC7 Possible have fallen like it did? 9/11 319
Josh Heuer The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse 9/11 528
Oxymoron WTC4 fire photo labeled as WTC7 on 911 memorial timeline site. 9/11 60
Mick West Debunked: WTC7 vs. Chechnya's Tallest Building Fire (Grozny-City Complex) 9/11 24
Mick West Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
Mick West Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis 9/11 175
Tazmanian Debunked: 9/11 Melted cars near WTC7 9/11 79
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top