http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/

there is the site.

they are still learning about what we know.

read it all , my friends.

don't just accept that excuses for normal office fires is rational and legitimate analsis of the WTC collapse.\

I see, so we're going to compare a barn fire to Building 7. Nice.

I like the fact that you told me to go get the references of Architects and Engineers and when I do, you dismiss them in a hurry.

Once again, I ask, with a Government that has lied so much, just over the last 20 years, what in Gods name should make me just believe them for this, especially when they aren't pursuing the course of action dictated by law, as it pertains to charging Bin Laden with 9/11?

Can anyone bother to address why he isn't being credited with the WTC attacks of 9/11?

If it wasn't just an office fire, then what was the added accelerant?

I'm not even a truther, just a guy with questions and I can come up with stuff that nobody seems to be able to or want to answer, yet you wonder why the 9/11 movement folks get so bent out of shape.
I hate to tell you, but this is too easy, if you don't have more than "my barn fire lost it's steel roof first" then I suggest you at least ask some more questions, before you fall back on the "looney" liberal line.

Here let me help you, since we both know some people won't bother to look at your info anymore than others would mine.


GAITHERSBURG, Md.—The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”

“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,” Sunder said. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building’s construction—namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—did not play a significant role in the collapse.

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.

Citing its one new recommendation (the other 12 are reiterated from the previously completed investigation of the World Trade Center towers, WTC 1 and 2), the NIST investigation team said that “while the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event, we strongly urge building owners, operators and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of the structural system. Of particular concern are the effects of thermal expansion in buildings with one or more of the following features: long-span floor systems, connections not designed for thermal effects, asymmetric floor framing and/or composite floor systems.” Engineers, the team said, should be able to design cost-effective fixes to address any areas of concern identified by such evaluations.

The investigators also reported that if the city water main had not been cut by the collapse of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 (WTC 1 and WTC 2), operating sprinklers in WTC 7 would likely have prevented its collapse. “Nevertheless,” Sunder said, “we recommend that building standards and codes be strengthened beyond their current intent to achieve life safety by preventing structural collapse even during severe fires like this one, when sprinklers do not function, do not exist or are overwhelmed by fire.”

Sunder identified several existing, emerging or even anticipated capabilities that could have helped prevent WTC 7’s collapse. He cautioned that the degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated. Possible options for developing cost-effective fixes include:

More robust connections and framing systems to better resist effects of thermal expansion on the structural system.

Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse, which is the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. Current model building codes do not require that buildings be designed to resist progressive collapse.

Better thermal insulation (i.e., reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel and to minimize both thermal expansion and weakening effects. Insulation has been used to protect steel strength, but it could be used to maintain a lower temperature in the steel framing to limit thermal expansion.

Improved compartmentation in tenant areas to limit the spread of fires.

Thermally resistant window assemblies to limit breakage, reduce air supply and retard fire growth.

The 12 recommendations reiterated from the WTC towers investigation address several areas, including specific improvements to building standards, codes and practices; changes to, or the establishment of, evacuation and emergency response procedures; and research and other appropriate actions needed to help prevent future building failures.

Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.

“When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain,” Sunder explained. “What followed in rapid succession was a progression of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the most eastern side of the building. Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns in the core of the building failed. Finally, the entire façade collapsed.”


(Diagram 1—Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around Column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 44 and 79, and cascading floor failures.)

The investigation team considered the possibility of other factors playing a role in the collapse of WTC 7, including the possible use of explosives, fires fed by the fuel supply tanks in and under the building, and damage from the falling debris of WTC 1.

The team said that the smallest blast event capable of crippling the critical column would have produced a “sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile,” yet no noise this loud was reported by witnesses or recorded on videos.

As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced “large amounts of visible smoke” from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed.

Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.”

The investigation team found that the design of WTC 7 was generally consistent with the New York City building code in effect at the time. The estimated 4,000 occupants of WTC 7 on the morning of Sept. 11 were evacuated without any fatalities or serious injuries.

To reach the conclusions in its report, NIST complemented its in-house expertise with private-sector technical experts; accumulated an extensive collection of documents, photographs and videos related to the WTC events of 9/11; conducted first-person interviews of WTC 7 occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; and performed the most complex computer simulations ever conducted to model a building’s response behavior and determine its collapse sequence due to a combination of debris impact damage, fires and a progression of structural failures from local fire-induced damage to collapse initiation, and, ultimately, to global collapse.

exactly.

my bad for assuming that you had adopted the conspiracies trying to say otherwise.

But I am not sequestering my point to number 7 either.

This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.
-------------------------------------------------
That's right, it never happened before and has never happened since. Let me present:

No steel framed high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire - due to the high temperatures that would be required to weaken structural steel past it's critical safety margin - even though very large, very hot, and very long-lasting fires have ravaged many steel-structure high-rise buildings. These buildings are all in use today:

• Caracas, Venezuela, Oct, 2004, 56 story building,
burned for 17 hours over 26 floors
• Los Angeles, May 1988, 1st Interstate Bank, 62 stories,
burned for 3.5 hours over 5 floors
• Philadelphia, Feb, 1991, Meridian Plaza, 38 stories,
burned for 18 hours over 8 floors
• New York, Aug, 1970, New York Plaza, 50 stories,
burned for six hours

--------------------------------------------------
Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down
--------------------------------------------------

How is this possible, by looking at footage from 9/11 you can see that there are only 2 fires on 2 seperate floors and they were certainly not burning white hot. Without some sort of accelerant added to the small, isolated fires, this is just ridiculous.
--------------------------------------------------

By the way, if you are using CPU simulations to prove your point, excuse me if I remain skeptical. CPU simulations are only going to do what the programmers tell them to, in no way does some one creating graphics on their CPU rate as proof to me. In fact, the debunkers on this site themselves like to mock anyone who presents evidence posted on youtube, why should this not merit the same ridicule?
-------------------------------------------------

Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.

“When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain,” Sunder explained. “What followed in rapid succession was a progression of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the most eastern side of the building. Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns in the core of the building failed. Finally, the entire façade collapsed.”

-------------------------------------------------

Okay, but NIST previously attributed the collapse of building 7 to the corne of the building being "scooped out", so I reiterate my previous query, if the core of the building started to fail, then it stands to reason it would fall in the direction of the huge chunk that had been torn from it, not collapsing nice and neat into it's own footprint.
-------------------------------------------------
Your turn.

OK

break all the windows, open all the doors and free air to travel from floor to floor.

and there you go.

I don't know what you are implying except argumentative justification for assuming that building number 7 is somehow not a contingent consequence of the WTC 1 and 2 falling down around it.

If I have this right, 7 would be fine, were it not for that fact.


But it can fall when integrity is breached.

It is ignorance to fuel the speculation for a conspiracy being iuncumbent on 7 after the fact.

How about the owner torching and leveling it so that its unoccupied status post wtc1/2 wouldn't bankrupt the owner? That is just as ridiculous.


The NIST cannot conclude, but only suggest or surmise that 7 didn't fall due to fire alone.

But there is no credibility given to the breach of the integrity of the building envelope in 7 which is more than likely. It is realistic.

and the scale of building integrity is much different in the two buildings, anyway.

see the link I gave and study what the bfrl at nist is actually doing these days. The pointers are there, and the impeetus is not to cry wolf, but understand better why buildings fail and what do do aboiut the future, including additional retrofitting for building safety moving forward.

If they were so convinced of their own "conjecture" as they call it about there findings concerning 7, then they wouldn't bother.

it only stands to reason.


Point stands unhindered and unanswerable by the facts.

They all fell due t the failure of the superstructures whoch were compromised by fire, wind and weight.

period.

no conspiracies except the one promulgated by the islamacists and their malevolent mentors.

"They all fell due t the failure of the superstructures whoch were compromised by fire, wind and weight.

period. "


So this happened, just on 9/11 and never before or since?

That doesn't make sense, physics relies on indicators that are easily proven plus has been seen or done before. That these laws of physics somehow just decided to apply to the North/South towers and building 7, but not to any other building before or since is quite a leap for me.

I still want to know why Bin Laden hasn't been charged or at least attributed with 9-11?

fires do this all the time to buildings made of steel.

Ever seen a fire collapse a steel studded home prematurely?

I have.

Caifornia likes to resist them when possible. they collapse too easily. The fire safety professionals want more time for occupant egress than that here.

as far as osama goes, it's not over yet.

to charge him would mean that the prosecutor would be subject to "speedy trial" laws and bin ladin wouldn't show up for that.

As a criminal matter, accrued to the misconceptions harbored by the looney left's view of this issue of bin ladin's culpability, it is a law enforcement burden of due process.

But as far as I am concerned, Bush is right. It is an act of war.

No criminal indictments are due from the feds on this one.

But military tribunals are ready to accomodate issuance of his rewards if bin Ladin makes it that far. LOL

They've had no trouble charging Bin Laden in absentia, for WTC '93 or the USS Cole.

Steel studded houses are not comporable to a industrial grade steel and concrete skyscraper.

Acts of war can only be made by Governments, one nation against another. Otherwise, Mexico is at war with us right now. If a group of thugs committed this act, how can you charge an entire Religious and ethinic group with the act? Thats what we've been doing. Does that mean then that we've been committing acts of terrorism, every time one of our gang members mugs some chinese tourist?

Does that mean we should prepare to be "justly" invaded by the Chinese government?

Then again, that would be karma biting our hyper nationalist mentality right in the keister wouldn't it?

If no criminal charges are necessary, then we're no longer a nation of laws, are we?

great postings warmachine

Thanks.
To reiterate, I'm not saying it's a total inside job, but if I can poke wholes in the official story, then whats going on here?

Oh I agree something is going on what it is I dont know, the cast of CSI could tear this one appart in one episode

LOL, First it would help if I had spelled holes correctly!

Secondly, the cast of Sesame Street could make a laughing stock of the official story.