NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse

[Plane]

A fire, NO FIRE, can cause a building to suddenly collapse neatly into its footprint.  Never has, never will.

The proof that the building was destroyed on purpose is evident in that they found molten metal under the building.  No NORMAL FIRE CAN EVER MELT IRON.

My blacksmith grandfather would argue with that.

[Michael Tee]

The team found that the design of WTC 7 in the 1980s was generally consistent with the New York City building code in effect at that time.

I don't believe that either WTC 1 or 2 was deficient in adherence to building codes, either.

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

The WTC towers were both noncompliant with the NYC Code in several key respects -

1.  The structural steel was not encased in concrete columns for insulation but had insulation sprayed on it, which was not compliant with the NYC code;

2.  The stairwells were all clustered around the central elevator shafts to provide more rentable space, whereas the NYC code required a wide dispersal of the stairwells, out towards the four corners of the building and away from the centre.  For those on the upper floors of the towers, all four stairwells were blocked by debris; had the stairwells been dispersed as per the NYC code, at least one was likely to have survived the blast unplugged.

3.  The steel on many floors was devoid even of sprayed-on insulation, as the swaying of the buildings over time had caused it to crumble off the columns.

[Amianthus]

The WTC towers were both noncompliant with the NYC Code in several key respects -

I believe that the codes you mention were all dated AFTER the construction of the WTC.

[Michael Tee]

<<I believe that the codes you mention were all dated AFTER the construction of the WTC.>>

That's a new one on me, but I'll check it out.

[Amianthus]

That's a new one on me, but I'll check it out.

As part of the Investigation, it has been determined that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were constructed in accordance with the Building Code of the City of New York (BCNYC) that was enacted by Local Law 76 for the year 1968.

NIST NCSTAR 1-1E: Comparison of Codes, Standards, and Practices in Use at the Time of the Design and Construction of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 (PDF)

[Michael Tee]

The document you produced is over a hundred pages long and would undoubtedly require a half-day to a full normal working day of concentrated reading to absorb.

Not being an engineer and thus being unable to quarrel with the report's methodology or conclusions and not having the time anyway to read the report, I certainly don't intend to plough through that document.  That's why we have a popular press.  The New York Times book, 102 Minutes, to which I referred earlier in the thread, will have to remain my primary source of information.  I would assume that the authors did their homework, but I can't assume that the document you produced was available at the time of the book's going to press.

As of this date, I don't recall any retractions or apologies from the authors or publishers of 102 Minutes, and so I assume they are standing by what they wrote about the collapse of the Twin Towers and the non-compliance of their builders with the NYC building codes.  Of course it is also possible that I misunderstood or garbled the conclusions of the book.  I don't think I did.

In the circumstances, we can only agree to disagree.  I will continue to rely on my understanding of 102 Minutes, right or wrong, and you of course will continue to rely on the report you were kind enough to post here.

[Amianthus]

In the circumstances, we can only agree to disagree.  I will continue to rely on my understanding of 102 Minutes, right or wrong, and you of course will continue to rely on the report you were kind enough to post here.

The conclusion that I quoted is on page 1 (which is actually about 30 pages in, after the index, glossary, preface, etc). This is one of the reports of the NIST team that was charged with the investigation. It's fairly standard to put an executive summary and conclusions at the beginning of reports.

[Amianthus]

The New York Times book, 102 Minutes, to which I referred earlier in the thread, will have to remain my primary source of information.  I would assume that the authors did their homework, but I can't assume that the document you produced was available at the time of the book's going to press.

102 Minutes was published in 2004. NIST released their report in 2005. Interesting that the authors drew conclusions about it when the team of engineers that were studying it still had not released their conclusions.

[Plane]

A fire, NO FIRE, can cause a building to suddenly collapse neatly into its footprint.&nbsp; Never has, never will.

The proof that the building was destroyed on purpose is evident in that they found molten metal under the building.&nbsp; No NORMAL FIRE CAN EVER MELT IRON.

http://www.chemeurope.com/lexikon/e/Iron
Iron
Melting point 1811 K
(1538 °C, 2800 °F)

http://www.webelements.com/iron/
http://rabi.phys.virginia.edu/106/1999/PS8a.html



As iron approaches 1000 degreesit begins to glow red ,at about that same point it looses its ability to attract a magnet and half of its bearing strength.

It isn't likely that much of the Steel beams melted , when they collapsed the fire was crushed and the heating was reduced , but the collapse happened at a tempreture far cooler than melting for most of the beams , at the time that so many of the beams became hot enough to become plasticand deform under the weight they could no longer support.

[Michael Tee]

That's what 102 Minutes claimed, the heated beams lost their ability to bear weight.

[Brassmask]

Your grasping at straws.

You want to believe that all the beams in the building were white hot and melted all at exactly the same time and the building simply collapsed perfectly into its footprint as all the beams in the building perfectly simoultaneously gave out at exactly the same time.

Sorry, I ain't buying.

Eyewitnesses (serious investigators) report MOLTEN METAL under his very same building with beams SHEERED OFF at the same angle as if they had been cut.

So, quibble over what temperature those beams all melt at all day long.  The building was PULLED.  The building was brought down by SOMEONE and not by simply catching the building on fire.

You're simply denying, denying, denying on the part of the Bush "administration" and whoever it was that participated in the murders of 3,000 innocents on 9.11.

Keep  it up and in 40 years, just like with JFK and RFK, people will call you traitors and collaborators just like we do Hoover and LBJ and the Secret Service.  Hey, it's a free country.  Believe and say whatever you like just remember that you're full of crap and in denial.

LOL

Have a greater day.

[Michael Tee]

<<102 Minutes was published in 2004. NIST released their report in 2005. Interesting that the authors drew conclusions about it when the team of engineers that were studying it still had not released their conclusions.>>

They're like Bush.  They drew their conclusions based on the best intel available at the time. 

The NIST report sounds interesting.  I'll take a look at it if I ever find the time.

[Amianthus]

So, quibble over what temperature those beams all melt at all day long.  The building was PULLED.  The building was brought down by SOMEONE and not by simply catching the building on fire.

Yeah, with the newly developed "quiet explosives" that make no noise when they destroy buildings.

ROFL

[Brassmask]

So, quibble over what temperature those beams all melt at all day long.&nbsp; The building was PULLED.&nbsp; The building was brought down by SOMEONE and not by simply catching the building on fire.

Yeah, with the newly developed "quiet explosives" that make no noise when they destroy buildings.

ROFL

Thermite doesn't have an explosion.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html

[Plane]

Your grasping at straws.

You want to believe that all the beams in the building were white hot and melted all at exactly the same time and the building simply collapsed perfectly into its footprint as all the beams in the building perfectly simoultaneously gave out at exactly the same time.

Sorry, I ain't buying.

Eyewitnesses (serious investigators) report MOLTEN METAL under his very same building with beams SHEERED OFF at the same angle as if they had been cut.

So, quibble over what temperature those beams all melt at all day long.  The building was PULLED.  The building was brought down by SOMEONE and not by simply catching the building on fire.

You're simply denying, denying, denying on the part of the Bush "administration" and whoever it was that participated in the murders of 3,000 innocents on 9.11.

Keep  it up and in 40 years, just like with JFK and RFK, people will call you traitors and collaborators just like we do Hoover and LBJ and the Secret Service.  Hey, it's a free country.  Believe and say whatever you like just remember that you're full of crap and in denial.

LOL

Have a greater day.

They do not have to have been destroyed equally , if some few were entirely melted that would not be enough damage , and if some few were entirely undamaged that would not be enough strength .

There came a point at which enough beams were enough weakened to no longer bear the load , after that point there was no preventing a collapse.

If someone were trying to destroy them as a part of a conspiracy or inside job , why would they be neat ?\

Thermite produces mainly heat and molten iron, but it also produces a lot of Alumina slag. There was very likely a little bit of accidental thermite reaction , just because the molten aircraft parts would react to any rust that it contacted in a thermite reaction. Not enough tho to make a major difference.

I think that if I saw a bunch of guys placing explosives all over my workplace I might take notice , ever see the documentaries about how that is done? They use hundreds of charges strung together with det cord, it could not possibly be done in secret.

I wonder if any very tall building has ever collapsed in any other way? I am not sure , but I don't know that collapsing into its self isn't the most usual mode of building collapse.