Errors and omissions in NIST report (gee...what a surprise).

yeh its a big statists only club and I aint in it!

 

Inside a jet engine, there is no evaporation as such. Inside the towers, the fuel was aerosolized by mechanical action, so this is, again, not a consideration.

 

name calling?




yeh they are full of "experts" just like here!

thats why you have me on ignore.

You are just smarting from the the beatings you have to endure when you try to pedal trash science like these other "experts".

- - - Updated - - -

its sprayed in, there is still further evaporation.

 

Hog wash. They have not come up with verifiable evidence to the effect that anything other than what is in the official narrative occurred.

 

yeh the government destroyed the verifiable evidence.

 

Yup. The steel failed and dropped stacks of floor slabs onto other floor slabs and started an unstoppable cascade.

For example the ruins of the Windsor Tower picture above. You can see that the frame is sagging. You can see some parts have fallen. You can see twisted metal and so on.[/QUOTE]
Actually, all the steel elements above the concrete mechanical floor, which served as a fire break, collapsed. What you see left is concrete. It is irrelevant to the twofer case. It just proves that steel, stripped of heat-resistant coatings, collapses rather quickly in a fire.

Well, DUH! First of all, no other building at all like the WTC buildings that collapsed have ever caught fire after being struck by kamikaze jet liner pilots or having parts of a sky scraper dropped on them. Secondly, there was no aluminum involved in the freeway fire or Windsor Tower. There was some molten brass, aluminum and lead around the WTC, but no molten steel. Fallacy of language. Some dimbulbs called red-hot steel "molten." whoop

There is nothing magical about the back drafts in the elevator shafts in the WTC towers. Happens a lot.

 

of course you didnt, just the rest of the world did LMAO

 

Actually, no. No puddles of iron. That simple.

 

doesnt mean there was no molten (*)(*)(*)(*) that was the same temp as molten iron. DUH!!

 

Actually, it does.

 

so our resident fire expert does not know how temperature can be visually assessed.

what if anything do you give correct answers for out here? anything?

 

Yup. Nothing at the melting point of steel was photographed.

 

sure it was, you know you need to stop claiming you are an expert because you have been shown this many times.

 

Yeah, you've shown us that crap before and it does not show what you think it shows and it has sod all to do with your case. So a bunch of copper and lead melted and ran out the corner of the building.

So freaking what?

 

[video=youtube_share;Sz7v8EgCzJM]http://youtu.be/Sz7v8EgCzJM[/video]
I thought this video might clear up the issue of the stiffener plates for some on here.

 

Who (by name) has put the stiffener plates to NIST?

Looks like just another attempt to poke holes in the collapse hypothesis, whilst carefully offering no "alternative" collapse hypothesis. Even if you managed to prove the NIST hypothesis is in error, that does not prove that therefore, it must have been a controlled demolition. Far, far from. 5 years since the NIST wtc7 report, and no truther has offered a coherent collapse hypothesis.

 

I kind of agree with you actually. This is an attempt to poke holes in NISTs hypothesis of thermal expansion, and it actually kicks a huge hole in it. These elements were not included by NIST in their analysis and are crucial. I would say that the first step to finding out what really happened to WTC7 is to examine the official account and this has been done, and it has been found seriously wanting. Whether we are talking about controlled demolition or an unprecedented collapse due to fire, it is important from a safety perspective that we get to an explanation that follows and satisfies the scientific method.
As for contacting NIST, the group that put this, and the other videos mentioned at the start of this thread have contacted NIST on 4 occasions now asking for clarification of this specific detail. As I mention in the video, it is clear to see why their response is silence, as they understand the relevance of these elements, and the trouble they would give themselves if they even mention them.

 

The inclusion of the stiffener plate is irrelevant to the Floor Framing model. Because that component is absolutely irrelevant to any of the 8 failure events that derived from the simple analysis.

1. First shear stud failure
2. Both seat bolts of girder to Column 79 had failed
3. Both top clip bolts of girder to Column 79 had failed
4. All but three shear studs had failed
5. Both seat bolts of girder to Column 44 had failed
6. Northmost floor beam began to buckle laterally
7. Both top plate bolts of girder to Column 44 had failed
8. All floor beams began to buckle

 

These 4 short videos address the above http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQI6gOw9y-c&list=PLCNHhi-NaAuz2439IKEyMgNrRwm7sq3Wl would be interesting to hear your comments.

 

No molten steel huh? Then what is in this photo?

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/708/g7xo.jpg/

http://imageshack.us/f/136/slide146pngyq3.jpg/

 

Mostly concrete dust, plastics, office debris and ash bound by the heat and compression of collapse. No molten or melted steel has ever been found in any of the debris of the WTC collapses... to include the "meteorite."

 

Given the color and resinous luster, plastic. Normal fire debris, to anybody other than a lunatic who thinks he has made a discovery that will set him apart as other than a dismal academic failure. That is some of that moron Jones' crap.

 

The NIST report is open to errors.