Support 911Blogger


Closed Captioning of 2007 NIST NCST Advisory Committee Meeting

I saved the HTML source code from the online closed captioning of yesterday's NIST NCST Advisory Committee Meeting and applied it to constructing this blog. The captioner made quite a few transcription errors but the majority of the text is intelligible.


Please stand by for real-time captioned text.

Please stand by for real-time captioned text.

This is the NIST staff.

And Bud Nelson is on the phone.

Hello.

Hi.

There were four parties on. Who else is on the line?

Hello?

Is somebody else on the phone?

Bill is here.

You cut me off for a while.

No, we did not cut you off. We have about a minute or so until 1:00. We can wait.

Who just joined?

Nelson.

That's odd.

Who joined us?

It's Paul.

Very good.

We have eight people here.

They said there were four people in conference.

It is not clear exactly who is on.

They're is a company providing the webcast service with two lines. One
actually takes the feed and the other is one of their people to
actually listening in to make sure that things are getting picked up
properly. That is the other two lines.

Somebody else just joined us, I did.

This is Richard Gauge, one of the scheduled speakers. I need a new link to access the live broadcast.

If you refresh your web page that link should work fine.

Thank you. Goodbye.

Okay. Who is this? Who joined us now? Oh, well. Hello. Did somebody
join us? I guess we only have Paul Fitzgerald and [ indiscernible ]
Williams from the Committee. Is there anybody else? Okay.

That is right.

Okay. To join us now?

Dave Collins.

Great.

We have three members of the committee now.

I am sorry?

We have three members of the Committee on the telephone.

Great.

We are just waiting for a couple more. We are trying to call the other members so that they can't join the call.

This is Bud Nelson. I am not able to call up the webcast either.

Okay. Steve just stepped out for a second. What he suggested was to refresh the page.

I did.

All right. Let me just check with Steve.

Who just joined us?

Johnny.

Great. We have a quorum. As long as Paul and Dave and [ indiscernible ]
is still here we have a quorum. Since you have a quorum I would suggest
you start.

I agree. With that, I call the meeting to order. Just
so -- for the record I would like to go around with the individual
committee members so that they can identify themselves, and we know who
is here. I am Paul Fitzgerald, chair of the committee. I believe we
will go in the order of people sending in after me.

Foreman Williams, committee member from the University of California at San Diego.

Thank you. Charlie?

Charlie.

We will start the NIST introductions. I am the lead investigator.

Deputy chief counsel.

Research engineer investigator.

Paul Gross.

Associate leader of the investigation.

Michael Newman.

Steve Kauffman.

We are done here.

Thank you very much.

I have an announcement.

Welcome. It has been awhile since we have talked. Are there any
additions or modifications people would like to make? During nine we
will start with the agenda itself. For the benefit of the committee's
members you will note that the committee meeting is scheduled so run
and tell to 25 this of generic. There will be a five minute break to
allow public comments to a call in and participate. There -- as it
stands right now we anticipate that there will be three speakers. We
will have a Mr. Richard Gates represents the architects and engineers.
Mr.James Curley. Mr.Curley is an attorney who represents several
scientists and 9/11 a victim of families. Another attorney
participating. We will take a five minute break. If we finish with the
earlier it might be a little longer, but I would like for all the
committee members to come back at 2:30. I have no other opening remarks
to make. So with that I suggest we get onto the agenda. That starts
with Dr. S. Shyam Sunder. The floor is yours.

This is Dave Collins. I'm sorry. I did not get everything you said.

He represents a group known as the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Any other questions? With that, I turn it over to you.

I want to take a few minutes to update you on where we are in the
overall investigation. Obviously we release the report on the towers
October of 2005 and had a series of recommendations from it. Beyond
that we have done some work on the seventh as I will say it a bit about
that. So this is an overview. The attorney recommendations that we
made, the private sector organization, basically the standards and
codes and industry organizations have been working very hard over the
last three years trying to understand, and to port, but just and
internalize their recommendations in terms of improvement the standards
and codes and Industry practice. And as a major event that took place
this past May, the adoption by the International Code Counsel which
issues the building code which is the model building code used
throughout the United States, a number of changes, eight specific
changes to their building code based on our recommendations. First the
process that the International Code Council uses is a very thorough
process which includes tinge proposals. Those were written by various
committees and other private sector entities working through the
National institutes of building scientists. And through the technical
committee process and then through the final hearing process all of the
members of the -law government and members of the trestle co-counsel
that represents state and local building officials and the nation will
have majority to adopt the changes. We issued a press release sometime
in June. And the details of those changes are documented in the press
release. I won't go through each one, but there are very substantial
changes in the matter of the evacuation or egress of a building, and
the manner about protecting the building and in terms of assuring the
integrity of the fire protection as well as the structural frame. There
are a number of additional coats changes that are being considered as
well. In addition, to what is happening in to add to national code
Council there are several organizations such as the National Fire
Protection Association, the American Society of Civil Engineers and the
Council on tall buildings and urban habitats that are also a and
actively considering other developing or improving their standards and
code provisions and guidelines. So we are working as we promised two
years ago. Three are working hard with all of these transitions so that
we can provide the technical assistance to them through their volunteer
processes that are in place. In addition, to what has already happened
there are some are on the order of 47 code change proposals that had
been submitted to the 2009 edition of the International Building code.
The addition that I talked about where approvals [ indiscernible ] was
the to dozens of a supplement. For the 2009 edition there are 47
applications currently a proposal. Some of them are new and consistent
with our recommendation. Some of them are editorial in nature trying to
approve what has already been approved. And some of them and try to
make changes to what has been approved, but there are a very large
number of them that are new which include provisions for progressive
collapse clip which also include two proposals. One was put together by
the industry itself which has a great chance of being adopted and also
proposals for the inclusion of all content evacuation elevators in
high-rise buildings would seem to have the strong support of the
international code counsels code of Technology Committee which is kind
of an important group within that body which endorses proposals that
are submitted. So we see a very positive movement on the part of the
private sector based upon our recommendations. These are our decisions
for the private sector because there are very different interests and
prospectus. But they are working very diligently. We are hoping at the
end of the day the changes that are adapted will actually help in the
safety of high-rise building in the teenine States. On a separate topic
1 year ago in August of 2006 there was a release of a frequently asked
questions with answers. We release that because there were a number of
questions that were being asked about the collapse of the World Trade
Center and towers and the findings of our investigation related to the
towers. That comprehensive list has led to more questions. We find that
in many situations there is not a full appreciation of the work we had
done. So we decided to release a supplementary list of such Tripoli ask
questions and responses. And the supplementary list was posted to as
this past Friday. But if you look at our website there is a second list
of supplementary questions. And those are hopefully going to put to
rest the questions that are in play over the past 6-8 months. Now, let
me move quickly through the World Trade Center investigation. We
started this investigation in parallel with the original to our
investigation. It was an element of our overall investigation. But it
was at a point in time and 2,004 -- summer of 2004 after releasing the
pressure poured in Sharon. We decided to stop work on seven and focus
all of our resources, staff resources on the World Trade Center towers
because that was a very challenging analysis that we had to work on.
And so after the release of the reports in October of 2005 we then
began to renegotiate the work on WTC 7. And essentially what we have
done is we have to complete the contract and reassess the scope of the
work and issued a new set of statements of work and a new set of
contracts. Contractors were selected. Taper in place by the middle of
2006. We also have to review a very large number of boxes of evidence,
boxes of information. And as we went through that that process and
started to build these models -- where we are at is what your party get
a teeten overview of. I regret to let her do that. I want to remind you
of our working hypothesis that we are using for the collapse of World
Trade Center seven. I want to say that this is a working hypothesis
that means that the hypothesis has not yet been tested based on the
analysis and therefore these are not the leading hypothesis. They will
be formulated to win our analysis is complete. This work is based on
preliminary analysis that we have done based on simple models we have
built and engineering judgement. And that is what a hypothesis means.
This was actually released in 2004. And if you look at the second slide
in my presentation of the third slide the first three bullets under the
symbol define what was in the chair in 2000 for progress report.
Nothing has changed. We are still dealing with the same working
collapse hypothesis. It has three steps. An initial local the year
bridge where the floors below 413. That was far and degree of
structural damage. Recall that the initiating event. That particular
call supported a pretty large for a with an area of about two dozen
scurfy which is kind of unusual and buildings. The second step is the
vertical progression of the initial local fair which went all the way
up to the [ indiscernible ] below 413 all the way up and progress all
the way up to these bentos. And then as it became unstable and unable
to redistribute the load it brought down the structure below these
penthouse. The third step is triggered by the terrorists to the
vertical failure. The horizontal progression what acrostics or floors.
In the region of floors five and seven that were much thicker and more
heavily reinforced that the rest of the floors. And that horizontal
progression resulted in the did proportioned collapse of the structure.
So all three events led them to the overall collapse of the structure.
So that is what we said in 2004. That is still our current working
hypothesis. We have a little bit more detail on this particular working
hypothesis than we had before. This is the first step for regard but
the initial local beer. We now have a better feeling for what the
initiating event sequence should be. It leads to that initial local
failure and is based on prior induced failures initiating in the tenth
floors. The tenant Flores basically our forest about seven.

Now.
Where are the tenant farmers. So 8-47. So the three steps of this
initiating event sequence are the first point to 54 beams and
connections [ indiscernible ] Berkeley and at higher temperatures than
the columns. That is the first observation. The second observation is
that the elevated temperatures and the four elements need to thermal
expansion, sagging, and weakening that results in failure of the for
connections and we're buckling of the four beams. Said that is a second
point to make. The third and final point is that when sufficient for
component failure happens, either in connections and work teams, that
results in at least one a long unsupported, because of the failure of
the four components. That then that leads to the initiation of global
collapse. So that is really the sequence, of the fence that the to that
initial local fair of a column below 413. I have to again stress that
this is a working hypothesis. Now, three other points are worth making.
While we still have found what he said when we have frequently answered
questions, we had found no evidence of blast or controlled demolition
event and that we are evaluating the gratitude of a hypothetical blast
scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more
critical elements. That statement still applies today. We have found no
evidence of the blast were controlled demolition event, but we continue
to evaluate the magnitude of hypothetical blast areas that could have
led to the structure of the year of one or more critical elements. The
working hypothesis that we have now is based on the initial local fair
that is caused by normal building. These are not fires from leaking a
pressurized fuel lines were from fuel in the tanks that are in the
building. So there is a double bed of this hypothesis. We do not make a
statement on what we thought -- what we're the first the pressure
actually involved in the process. And finally of course we have to
caveat this by saying that this may be modified were supported or a new
hypothesis may be developed where the course of the investigation to be
it and as -- this is a working hypothesis. But when our analysis is
complete with the two leading hypothesis. And when are the hypothesis
-- when we read our report the leading hypothesis then becomes a
probable collapse sequence. So those are three steps. I just want you
to know that this is step one. Let me now very quickly turned to the
overall schedule for the project. We will go through many of the
factors being considered and we will be able to explain to you the time
is taken for us to get rid we are.

It is the concert. You made a
statement that the initial local fair your was caused by thermal
building fires. What do you mean by normal building fires?

What
we mean by normal building fires is building fires in spaces where the
combustible [ indiscernible ] and the ventilation was the normal
building ventilation and there were no other kinds of combustibles such
as in this particular case fuel. The fuel that was in the -- from the
day tanks on every floor and the fuel in the large tags and the bottom
of the building that were actually powering the generators in the
building. So and this particular case that is what preemie. In the case
of the towers of course the jet fuel was the key source of fuel. But
there again we talked about the whole building fires that played a
role. C. jet fuel was brought within a matter of a few messages. It was
really fires that were -- it was typically the normal building content
was the airplane content.

But they were ventilated fighters.

In the case of the tire -- towers there was -- in both cases the delays
and was probably somewhat limited. In the case of the towers the
windows continued to break and therefore the oxygen continue to be
supplied. In the case of seven of course we have information on when
the breakage. But it is not as detailed as we had in the case of the
towers.

Thank you.

Okay. In terms of the overall schedule
our hope is that the analysis -- there are two kinds of analysis. One
is the WTC thermal analysis using [ indiscernible ] wish to receive the
initiating event sequence. The second one is a global analysis which
includes air vertical and horizontal progression of fears of the steps
of the process. What is the initiative even specified. And that is
using [ indiscernible ]. At this point the analysis of the initiative
event will be completed in January of 2,008 which is about a month and
half from now. We expect to finish the global analysis see the
initiating event by March. And at that stage we will then identify a
leading Costa prothesis which will then these to the drafting of our
reports for internal review by the technical team followed by at a
revised draft that is shared with the advisory committee. That is you
folks. As well as reviewed. We have a normal quality control for all
publications released. It is called the editorial review board. And all
publications before they are released are reviewed by that independent
body. And that review will be done concurrently with the advisory
committee review sometime in June and we expect to release the draft
report's for public comment sent after that in July. And there will be
a period of public comment similar to what we had for the towers at the
end of which we will release the file reports. So that is really the
overall schedule. If there are any questions I would be happy to
answer. If there are none then we will just move on.

This is all.
What will be that by Massoud of the file report. Is it going to be a
sizable amount of documentation like we have for the towers?

In
the case of the tires we have something like 10 doesn't pages. And this
case I guess it to be a thousand pages worth less, probably on the
order of it a little less than that. It could be half that. It could be
as much as 1,000 pages. It will probably be on the order -- we are
trying to keep it the three reports. We still have not fully finalized
whether we want separate volumes or appendices in some cases. We are
still struggling with that.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. The floor is yours.

Thank you. I am going to go over the technical approach and the status
of our investigation says we reported to you last December. Let me
start by going slide -- there are numbered in the bottom left-hand
corner. I will start with restating what the objectives are in the WTC
7 investigation. Of course it is to determine why and how WTC 7
collapsed. To determine what procedures and practices produced in the
design, construction, operation, and make amends and doing a very
thorough investigation of the procedures and practices. It is very
important to our understanding. After we are done with the first we
want to identify as specifically as possible areas and current building
and fire code that weren't revision. This would be something similar to
the recommendations of grade after the tower work. If are finding
warrants any additional recommendation we will identify those and
include them in our report. And again. The slide number three is going
over the overall investigation approach. We have four primary steps.
Obtaining information on the building construction and content as well
as identifying the condition of the building on the 9/11 following the
events related to the towers including damage, fire, and the sequence
of collapse that were observed. And this information was obtained from
an additional evidence, a witness accounts, photo and video. We have an
extensive collection of documents. We do not have as many photos and
videos for NCST as we had for the towers. The second major step was to
identify possible initiative and even some areas including the location
and type of local failures that could have led to the collapse as it
was observed based on the photos and videos from the exterior building.
Thaw and as part of that we have considered fair events, but those
observed and some hypothetical events and hypothetical black students.
And the third step in a was to develop a series of models, all fire,
thermal, and structural malls where we could conduct analyses of the
secrets of the deaths that occurred including the possible initiation
mechanism. We had to consider how the fire grew and spread, how the
heat transferred to the structure and how the sequence of failure
events at the component level led to what was observed. And given the
input we are looking to determine the probable collapse sequence that
led to the fans as they were observed on their 9/11. You have seen this
graphic on slide for before. This is intended to give you an idea of
the interdependency of the analyses that we are conducting. As part of
understanding the condition of the building we evaluated the impact
from the closing hours. That provided input to three of our analyses.
We had an input to the thermal analysis which reported commission on
the fire damage occurred. And that provided a series of structural
temperature changes and the structure response to the damage. Now, for
the modeling of the structural response we have to analysis. The first
part of the analysis is looking at the structure response to fires and
the lower floors between 47-14. Fires were observed. And creating an
understanding through modelling the response to the structure to the
temperature is reached of what the possible initiating events were that
were not visible from the outside of the building, but let to the
series of events resulting in the global collapse. Part of that is also
considering higher in advance and blast events which we have been doing
in trying to understand what the initiating events would be. We have a
model from the ground up to the penthouse of the entire 47 story
structure. And it takes as an input the results from the [
indiscernible ] from 47-14. Psst and it is intended to use the
initiating event and allow for failures to propagate and determine as
best we can which initiating event that is input will best reflect thesequence of events that led to the global collapse has was observed.

Is everybody still on the line? We just want to make sure we did not lose anyone.

Charlie is here.

[ indiscernible ] this year.

Paul is still here.

We just heard a goodbye.

Great.

There were some significant factors or events during the last year that
we think are worthy of mentioning. We had an additional 80 boxes of
documents that reflected the modifications made. This was apparent
tenants that came into the building after the original building
construction and also included inspection reports of construction.
Additionally as Shawn described we elaborated be initiating event
sequence for the collapse hypothesis. And this required adding possible
failure mechanisms to both art [ indiscernible ] and analyses. This led
to extensive analysis at the component and connection level to make
sure that we understood the mechanisms and that they were adequately
capture. We acquired drawings of the connections. There were a
substantial number of drawings that gave us the details of all the
connections. And of course this led to extensive revisions of
connection details in both the finite element lot. Given the vet out
lines in items two and three here this led to significant [
indiscernible ] to develop, debug and enhance the efficiency of,
verify, and validate these models to make sure that they were still
functioning as we expected them to for both the thermal and structural
responses. Sean has already cover the working collapse hypothesis, but
what I want to emphasize is that this initiating event sequence
capturing the possible initiating event sequences that could have led
to a global collapse required a number of improvements that I want to
specify a bit more to the structural model. And I do want to emphasize
that we have gone through a great deal of care to take a highly
rigorous approach to capturing these better mechanisms that we are
identifying. And the rubble of analysis we are conducting is advancing
the state of competition analysis. B. significant improvement that we
have made to the mall is focused around capturing for years and the
connections. If you look at the First we identified and incorporated
failure mechanisms. The first syllable it is related to connection. All
the possible failure mechanisms and the connections in WTC 7 are listed
there. They were all started with the shop drawings, and calculations,
component models and finally a corporation and the larger 16 and 47
story models. And of course we also had to take a look at the lateral B
effort of the beams and columns and the global analyses. As part of
doing that user defined break elements were incorporated between floors
eight and 14. And connections were some models. Let me just explain
that in the model primarily uses key elements for the framing. This
model uses primarily shall elements for both Libya and slab. So the
modeling techniques so far had little different reflecting the details
of those two types of models. But the basic idea is the same in terms
of capturing the behavior of these better mechanisms in both types of
analysis. So each element then contains multiple failure mechanisms
which were models using the elements, contact elements, not near
Springs and [ indiscernible ] because we had a recess of sure
connections were p.m.-beam and framing. We have seven types of peering
connections and we had [ indiscernible ] connections between the steel
beams. And just to give you an idea of the extent of the modifications
that pervade the total of 12,900 elements were added to the model to
capture these behaviors and connections. And 13,900 connections some
models were added to the data model basically for all the teams and
girders. The addition of this connection and a failure mechanisms
greatly increases the competition all demand. We found that it is the
analysis when a bus number of these break elements began to fail. So
there has also been some time spent looking at the level of detail and
the mall and optimizing it to maintain mottling Fidelity while
capturing the failure mechanism and minimizing competition all time as
best we can. This is a brief highlight summary of what we have
accomplished since last December. We have elaborated the initiating
event sequence. We reviewed the plan and tape for much of the day of
9/11. We completed the analysis of fire on 47-13 that was observed. And
this is based similar as was done and that Towers on photos and videos
and information about the floor layouts. We have completed the thermal
analysis for transferring temperature results and structural elements
with the structural analysis. For two of the three possible cases for
both [ indiscernible ] and the three possible cases are based on the
results which coalesce temperatures. They include the F T S results and
either a plus or minus 10% adjustment. This is created.

I just
want to say that the plus and minus 10% both represent the realistic
representations of the fire. They are reasonable representations.

That is a very good point. We had a lot a discussion to make sure that
this was within the bounds of what could be expected to occur in a
building given the observations we had and the information. We have
completed analysis of hypothetical blast events. We have completed
analysis of the fifth floor fire scenarios. And the addition of the
possible failure mechanisms due to be initiating events that were
identified required expensive analysis and compile a connection to make
sure these mechanisms were adequately captured. And as we just
discussed incorporating the connection data has also been completed.
Structural analysis of the initiating event for two of the three
possible for more cases is nearing completion. The structural analysis
of vertical and horizontal progression, it is in progress. So the
remaining items that we have -- and this helps explain the schedule
that Sean presented, we are completing the initiating event analysis. A
and b are well underway. It will be started shortly. We will complete
those and identify e sheeting events based upon those results. After we
complete the analysis and identify initiating events we have to
transfer the data. This includes the temperature files at the time of
the initiating event as well as it's list of all the damaged and felt
connections and components from the analysis. We then run the 47 story
building analysis for each of identified initiating event. And they are
numbered here because it could be that two of our thermal cases did
similar structure responses. We don't want to necessarily make a 1-1
link between the formal cases and the initiating event based upon those
results we will develop the probable collapse sequence and of course
dark -- document our work. And a number of these sections have been
drafted and are in various stages of review. Path that is all I have to
present to you today. I am happy to address any questions you may have.
I suggest for the committee members that we do it in a roundabout
way. I will just call each individual committee members name at random.
If they have any questions they can ask them. Let me start with you,
foreman. Do you have any questions?

Well, I don't really have any
specific question "what was talked about. They are moving along in the
analysis. I was just wondering about some of its general feeling. I
mean I think it is a good idea to chase down these possible initiation
scenarios. That is good. I've been the fires were initiated. Then they
continued to burn for most of the day before the building finally came
down to it so -- and there was no fire fighting efforts during that
period. What is the general feeling? If fires are started in the
building -- I will take it in the broader context of how we design
buildings. Popcorn popped that is really the test method which is we
subject the components of a building -- up of the structural
components, but partitions and so forth, to a prescribed standard
idealized time, to return exposure. It become up with the treaty. The
system as a whole will survive that. The implicit assumption in all of
our fire testing is that when you have a situation where the sprinklers
don't function you actually at par out without collapse. Even though
that it's sort of an implicit assumption there is nothing in the
current procedures that are used that in sure that. And therefore it is
not surprising that different buildings were performed differently
based on a are will build a fire to which they are exposed obviously
there are buildings designed more conservatively which would mean that
we have a lot where petitions and compartmentation with most of
lifespans at work as a structural, but with greater redundancies.
Obviously it will perform better than a structure that aspect very
large open four plants with a very few fire departments preventing the
spread of the fire. We have few and far between columns. We have large
floor space. And this particular case we of columns. To the square feet
of floor. And. The we have less redundancy and the structural system
pipit their will be differences in how those but perform to it so it is
not surprising -- it should not be surprised because we haven't really
got the sides to a point Kirby actually designed to beat this
performance objectives apart out without collapse. In fact that was the
recommendation that we made and that Towers report, if you remember. It
was based on a suggestion that we ought to say a target for Dart to
would be to out part of that collapse. In fact, that is a proposal that
was submitted to the International Code Council. It was not approved.
It is getting resubmitted. There are two proposals that addressed that
particular and the answers that you wanted, we would actually be
enshrining or building in that answer to all buildings, not just on a
case by case basis.

The point that I would make is that the time
that the fires will burn must be influenced by the fuel load. And so it
is not just a question of building design but also a question of
building content. So it would seem to be that perhaps the objective is
to design a building so that they would burn out without collapsing.
Then perhaps you would also need to absorb restriction on the amount of
fuel and that could be put into the building after it is constructed.
Has not been given to that?

Yes. We are the key about that. I
will point out one thing. We have to be careful because the fuel
loading by itself or combustible loading buckets of doesn't tell the
whole story. In the case of the towers the movement of the fires in
Building one between dependence was. Consistent with a fire based on 4
pounds per square feet of fuel load. As you probably will agree many
older buildings, office buildings have at 10 pounds per square feet of
both materials. And it does particular cases we had small span
buildings with greater redundancy. So we have to come by -- and in this
particular building and the case of 217 the analysis of buyers that we
have done suggests a defective fuel loading of something on the order
of 4 pounds per square feet. It is not heavily loaded in terms of fuel
loading. I think we have to look at that fuel floating in the context
of and everything else to it.

So I guess what you are saying is
that 4 pounds per square feet is an assumption that comes closest to
the program, but calculations with what is not about the observations.
In fact I guessed there is considerable uncertainty in what the actual
fuel loading was.

It accounts for that in the sense that it can be off by a couple of pounds.

Testing is between the total about of come possible organic material on
the floor and the fuel load review C. the teachers. There may very well
be reaps of paper and metal file cabinets that given enough time may in
fact if the Julie smolder and brought out, but over the type skills to
prop we are talking about accessible fuel and the furnishings and the
finished material or about for a half-hour so that may be why the upper
seems lower that what others might have said.

And in WTC 7 it may well the peak hours.

That's correct what the rate at which the heat is being released will
obviously be much less the PR restricting the amount of air that can
get into a boat captain.

I do want to add to this. I think you
recognized it on the rate at which the fires actually spread. So the is
a check on the effective -- build call to get accessible fuel load that
was operated on the day.

That certainly is true. On the other hand there could be residual bring.

Possibly. We don't disagree.

Okay. Those are the only comments I had to beg.

The key. To a?

I disagree a little bit about the assumption at buildings remain
static. I think there are within the structure of our. That is why we
live in the Heights areas of certain types of occupancies so that we
don't -- certain types of art seized at structures so that we don't
have a catastrophe associated with those kinds of events. We can
address the needs of the occupants should the structure eventually
fail. And that is done within a reasonable amount of time. I think most
of the code as we have them today and so there is cord to be some
measure for fire protection in a facility if it is part to remain
viable. If that doesn't happen that we have some evidence of
substructures that have had burned out as far as. But even some of them
had intervention either by chemical means whereby the fire department's
response to a just what was happening within that structure. I did we
lose structures on a do basis. Residences are a great example of that
kind of structure. And I don't think that the codes are ever likely to
mandate that we are quick to have a complete per out of those kinds of
buildings without family. In your remarks on page nine you talk about
cased a kebab the currency. Temperatures to be completed 16 story
analysis. And then and the next bullet you talk about temperature files
for 40 seconds to recalls. Maybe you could describe how the two are
interconnected and why what is 16 and one is 47 to back.

I would
be glad to. It is used to try to determine possible initiating Yvette's
based on the prior cases that we went through the analysis given our
best information about the content. And we do have a fair understanding
of what happened up each of those wars where fires were observed. And
there are a few areas where we could not get information, but overall
we at a good understanding of the layout and content to it and from
that we generated the fire with its route based on studies that shot
was discussed that did a good match to the progression of fires
available from total and videos on the east, west, at and that has cut
up provided are based analysis. We looked at that and said, but the
fact that there are uncertainties. The fact that something may have
been happening farther inside the building that we could not see from
the exterior, we decided to [ indiscernible ] by increasing
temperatures by 10 percent or decrease its debt by 10% to get us a good
range of what the elected to bridge or and that is where our 8B and C
caper. Now kaput is focused on identify what local failures occurred at
the for the bulls. So we are focused on porous 7-40. So log all runs
from the ground up. We then take that into action. And put it into the
model which is from the grout to the pet shops. Then we use that
initiating event as an initial condition. We have a dynamic analysis
that keeps track of bad had things that cretonne for the aircraft
impact analysis. So we will take an initial condition at the analysis
run and see if we can simulate what was observed as the vertical.

That want to add to read this model that was mentioned, it is not just
a 16 story traded. It is 16 stories to drop the bottom 16 stores were
the details.

Originally I thought that the fires were initiated in seven when the Park Tower came down. Is that still true to about.

Well, what we know is that when the North Tower came down there were
large pieces of structural degree. Debris of their is including
structural components from the tower that actually fell on building
seven. But we that when the South Tower fall to cut it has been awhile,
but there was some dust particles that went into the building. There
was a fire alarm condition that was reported, but not heard because the
fire alarm system in seven was a test that so -- and of course as most
people and the fire broke no there are many eggs that can cause
ignition because there are so many electrical outlets in a building at
so many places we're short circuits or other kinds of things can happen
to ignite a fire. So we have not tried Corby to drop it is projected to
figure out when exactly the fires themselves or initiate it. But in
fact we follow the fires as they develop and progressed through the
building so be it is the collapse of the north tower that initiated the
fire, but there could be other factors as well and in the 59 slide
there is mention of the house tags and diesel fuel and the price
system. But I am confused because you said eight minutes ago that a
4-pound per square foot fire and the broad trade centered round started
and stopped within 20 minutes. So if you don't of fuel how could fires
have burned for a spot as they had and taken out this major structure
that had good fireproofing?

Well, first of all the fires in --
the towers did not stop after 20p. It moved from location to a
vacation. That means that the fight crowd was in a particular location
to it at any given location the combustibles took about 20p to be
concerned. And therefore the farmer thought would then progress to
other areas where there were combustibles available. Then of course it
would want to have the insulation. And the ventilation or air would
escape from the wreckage of the woods. So you have the right conditions
for the fire fought to keep propagating through the building. At a rate
of but it wasn't that the fire stopped. In that same range in the case
of building seven there were fires on multiple floors that were and
many of these flowers and fires every from east-west or from west-east
to the southeast side, those fires where are actually moving at a
particular rate. The observations we have suggested that the movement
on those multiple floors which is 8-14-the report said were moving at
that rate of about 20 back from vacation desecration.

Let me ask another question. How what does a 4-pound per square foot combustible office building fire to relate back to back.

Is one hour.

So again, why would these fires have burned for a spot as the dead in
order to check out this rather well fireproof to have the robust
structure to back.

What I am saying is -- I guess I am not to be
getting well. Any one location the fire is concerned in 20 minutes. But
then it moves to the next place where there are more combustibles.

But if you saying that the been side and buckled and ," that had to be
exposed to the fire for the temperatures at which the beans are exposed
that is the critical issue to your. It is not how and of course beams
and slaps the fireproofing. The beans are much worse under in terms of
their are Basque. Of course the fireproofing on the beams is much less
than the fireproofing on the girders and of course the columns. And so
when you go through the analysis for these fires which are building a
route from vacation to the commission on those particular floor beams
you see considerable amounts of temperature increasing. In fact UC
temperatures getting up to 5S600 degrees to get out what compounds this
is that you have these key elements and three art stands in the party's
side of the building. As we said before there or to dozens graffiti. So
those Spence where in fact sagging. And we are seeing evidence do our
analysis of these three large buttons to upset.

It sounds to be
like between the [ indiscernible ] you are questioning are preparing
for it to our rating on 8W21 being as an effective fireproofing in the
absence of spec but systems.

Can I add -- you can have an
ignition you can't quite early in the process in which the buyer does
not burn robustly but smokers and is at all like the towers are you
have so much pule distributed with the fire spread quickly you can have
a fire ignited at not rule very fast which reaches a certain critical
size and begins do it. That is what the. So that could literally be a
better and our two were in could be parting Reese low and then burst
out into a full-fledged for fire. The second thing is don't forget that
once it passes you still have a lot of heat there. So buckle down.
Following the consumption of the fuel is still very hot and will last
for a couple hours. So that adds to the heating of the structure.

That is a very good point. The fire front groups, but the heated
elements don't cool I ran down the same question as Charlie did some
time ago. The basic point is that this was a [ indiscernible ] Farquhar
it the temperatures studied by using the ball, the fire text editor all
and the temperature Pohjola -- it was more like a series of birders
come back on at 20 but at intervals. At the airport just pumping heat
into the building. At the ball kicked up far that the reason. The
transfer of the temperature on the backside of the corporate and then
compare those to the properties of that steel or concrete as the case
may be and fed into the structural model these changes.

I think
that is an important point. We aren't making assumptions. Models are.
Detailed. So the data base model gives us information on gas
temperatures. The which is the structure of all models of fireproofing.
And the structural elements -- so based on the temperatures we are
predicting the rise in temperature in the field through the
fireproofing hoped. And that is done with considerable detail. Then at
that point the structural model comes into play St.

I am not
questioning what you are doing. I am requesting the way that architects
and structural and assistive by building. I think you are basically
coming out with the conclusion that maybe doesn't work.

I think I
will quote off on making a recommendation at this point your input is
certainly very equal to us. As we go forward here at the end of the day
when all of this analysis is financed and we can't conclude
definitively what we have actually accomplished at that point I think
we will be in a position to make a statement upon design practice.

I have just one last question. As the to do with WTC 7. At the to with
"Trade Center for about five, and sex. I have the understanding that
the portions that were about we're the portions were the stars came
down. And the rest of the portions, but they get experience complete
part out with sagging appealed to but not collapse to beat is that
true?

Actually rose Trade Center five have some interior there's.
We notice it because what we put up the group was intact, but there was
a section on the east side of the building where four beams had failed
to add connections. They had teased sticking out from the column and
the connections were made several feet away. And those have failed in a
number of places.

Okay.

You are right. The damage there was due to the towers lot.

Okay.

Thank you. Bob?

Text. I don't have a specific question. I have I appreciate all the
efforts. And based on the stories that we heard I am quite pleased
there will be some questions compiled -- and I am looking forward to
reading the documentation that describes and supports would become big
delay or read the last couple of years. It is quite to the three
important and conclusions that come out of this could have far reaching
effects. We have to be a very careful that we don't pass something of
great import. That is essentially by comment.

We agree with you wholeheartedly, and I think it is or we will probably always -- also agrees with that.

The key. It is there anything else.

What last combat. It seems to me that as a structural engineer who
designs Larkin at our report that we better be paying attention to the
fire brick street.

You're damn right.

I just out what
question to be it the connections could be -- have a considerable
impact on how this bill the performance could could you talk to be it a
bit about what the captions were and how they were far proved to back.

There were two basic types -- one is a sheer connection with the
connection was basically between the beams and columns. And the
connection was made either with single or double and how they used
those either on the call or on the beam identified three types of
connection. And then the larger members of Carter's which often
supported the piece because they carried larger boats, when they fired
into the combat they had what we call a eight [ indiscernible ]
connection. So there was a desirable constructed to look like an egg
will were supported off of the call. The spade a seat for the quarter
to set want to read that additionally we have some sort of what we
called a glove. That was mostly to provide collateral stability of the
building was under construction rather than a real transfer of
structural load once the building was functioning. And of course at
creations on those we had to consider the ankles. These but sure to
draw particular geometries might also have been changed in the sizing
of different elements. That would change the codes or loads at which
better.

And how was -- what was up fireproofing on those connections?

That try we received did not specify any information about
fireproofing. So what we have been using in that regard, we have
photographs of the building then we have and the extent of what
standard practice is.

Are you suggesting that there is no absolute concrete information as to whether fireproofing was applied or not?

I have not. I am saying if you aren't looking for specifications such
as a certain thickness being applied to the people, there is the
specification.

This is terribly. I assume that the average engineer witnessing it is the same.

That is sort of how it happens. That is sort of how it is also done in
the field. The architecture of drawings don't really describe the
fireproofing on the connections. In fact that is one of the reasons why
-- plus we don't really know how connections be a in terms of the
testing that is done. The third.

To permit.

So our recommendation, we have to look at the context of this report.

Actually, that is where I was going, but you do have to address that issue.

Is there anything else from anyone? Well, hearing nothing about to take
you for your usual excellent report. We look forward to finding out
more. You have the copy that I sent out with Bob suggested editorial
comments. I personally have no problem with any of them and would prove
that we accept the comments as they exist.

I agree.

We have one more editorial today.

What do you have to back.

Are for being so picky.

He picked up all of my comments and I thought would work .3 revision. At the end appeared to it says code body during.

I don't think during belongs there.

I don't believe it does. And that is what I did not see.

During those meetings. That is what I had time.

I see what you are saying. I will add that and if everyone is
agreeable. "I hear no disagreement. I accept that as agreement. Any
other comments?

This is Dave Collins. At the end of the report I
actually had suggested some language that I think the 17 is likely to
have even greater impact than what we saw from the initial study
reports because of the causal association with more normal
circumstances within a building other than being hit by an airplane.

I actually agree with you. I did not put anything like that and there,
but I am certainly open to the idea of mentoring that. How do a book
but deepest feel about that?

Well, or greater impact, would you like to say that?

I tasted to say it is even larger impact the code change is developed to present to the code by.

Bob?

I guess my concern is not having the results. It is hard to anticipate.

I think it is better to say a similar or greater impact.

Well, my only comment was that the direction we are headed with the
reports -- I think there was and continues to be concerned with that
many of the industry's that defense would add to work caused by an
airplane in Baghdad we're there for not as directly tied to what we see
in a typical bill but to it whereas seven is obviously not that kind of
event. So I think it will have the opportunity, at least more directly
to the back what we do on that day to day basis and design and
construction as opposed to a special kind of event that one and two
were riveted to.

I don't have a strong feeling. That is no big deal to me.

This are the?

Pipeline.

So people take out somewhere and put in greater. Okay. Just for their
record there were a few editorial comments are received. I thought many
of them happen to be with capitalization. My stock. There is one thing
I would change if it happens to be the third paragraph of the last
sentence but I used the word future twice and the same sentence. I
would like to drop the first one at put and the board committee instead
so that the sentence reads committee membership can be determined by
technical expertise required by in the future investigations.

I agree.

And because I always get these things in the next paragraph doubt
second, it says it affecting construction changes. And that can't be
pointed out that I'd made a grammatical error there. It should be in
effect construction changes. Other than that there were changes of
capitalization which should be space.

Do you want to change in 82 in E to back.

Basically, yes.

We should let the English people decide.

The meetings are different. It has a applicants are or brings about. To
be what to say it brings about construction take this or has an
infant's care about what do you want to say to back.

Effecting is certainly the structure were.

I prefer effecting.

I can't hear the difference between the eight and the e.

I apologize. In Boston there is no difference.

We can tell that.

So if there are no objections I will make that change.

Fight.

Okay. With that I accept motion that we accept the report as a did during this meeting.

Sobered.

Second.

All in favor?

Eye.

That includes the committee acted portion of the beating. We are
writing about 10 minutes behind. I would suggest that we take a -- let
me say a 10 minute break and come back.

To be any up and call back and?

I did that were put your line on you. I am just wanted you to my mind to it.

Can we cut this break for just five minutes if you don't mind?

I don't.

Yes.

All right. Poe opera, a

And over 100 steel high-priced most of them. But at large and long
lasting, not one has ever collapsed. It behooves all of us to look at
real alternatives that might have been because of these collapses that
start with temperatures recorded on the top by NASA's equipment on the
whiteboard runs. Such temperatures can not be achieved by an oxygen
starved hydrocarbon fire. They burn only 4-there is no fire on top of
the pile. These words of this heat was far hotter than 1340 degrees.
But look accept put the president of controlled demolition says who was
hired. Literally molten steel was discovered more than a month after
the rubble was being dispatched. 21 days after the attack the fires
were still burning in and of the deal was still running. Fire
department personnel are recorded on a video. Molten steel still
running down channels would like lot of from eight will kick in. He
said it was dripping from this only begins to melt at about 3,000 which
is about three times the temperature up the broad trade center fires.
What melted the steel? Let's take a look. We at rapid oxidation and
enter credit but melting. Eight with Baxter of on space ARS causing
intense corrosion keeping holes and beams. The New York Times called
this the deepest mystery of all periods yet week left zero of this
crucial forensic evidence out of your report. To last year Doctor
Stephen Jones, a physicist and two other physicists and a geologist
analyze this and in these samples of the previous molten metal finding
molten iron, aluminum, sofer, manganese, and fluorine, the chemical
contents of thermite, a high-tech incendiary countercharged use by the
military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. The
byproduct of thermite is molten iron. There is no other possible
source. One of the key ingredients is sold for which can form a liquid
he technical and/or the melting point. Now, World Trade Center seven
catastrophic structural failures showed every characteristic of
explosive controlled demolition. You can see all of this at our web
site 9/11 Truth. At the onset of destruction. The first responders when
this explosion about a second Pryor. We have a symmetrical free-fall
did their greatest resistance of 40,000 tons of steel designed to
resist the slowed. It went straight down into its own footprint. This
required that all calls failed within a fraction of a second of each
other. That is perimeter as well as -- fire cannot do this. Fire
produces large gradual the affirmations and asymmetrical collapses.
Thermite can with when shapes charges. We also have time discloses the
you can see on our website on the network for your recordings. Now how
long must we endured the cover-up of the truth of building 7's
destruction. Americans including the 230 architects and engineers and
to order the others demand that you come clean with a full throttle
fully restores and transparent forensic investigation of the evidence
of the controlled demolition of building seven.

Thank you. Our next speaker is an attorney who represents several scientists and 9/11 victims' families.

Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I should clarify that
although I do represent something to tell family members and several
scientists in a request for a correction on the Data Quality Act that
is still pending I am appearing here today as a member of the public.
With that I would also like to say that I concur with basically
everything Richard just said. Although I would not jump to quite the
conclusion he did because you still have an opportunity to issue your
final reports that it does tell the truth. And in that final report as
we pointed out an our request for correction with regard to the World
Trade Center towers you have some obligations under the Data Quality
Act. And those obligations include the following. Your release must
have integrity. That means that it should be safeguarded from improper
access, modification or instruction. And it also must be objective
meaning that it must be accurate, reliable, and unbiased and must be
presented in a clear and complete and unbiased manner. With specific
regard to this report it will be highly influential. Under the did
Quality Act a volatile sides of the information is subject to even
stricter standards. Those standards are that the generally required
sufficient transparency that an independent real analysis could be
undertaken by a qualified member of the public. That was not Don and
the case of the World Trade Center towers and I truly hope it will be.
Especially given the import that you guys have just stated that the
report will have. The second point out with the to make is that I am
still a little unclear on whether you're actually going to take
urinalysis beyond to the collapse initiations and carry it forward all
the way through the birth the building is completely and utterly
destroy it and if you are going to carry it to that point I am curious
as to why he didn't do it for the World Trade Center and towers. There
seems to be a disconnect for why it would be required for one building
and is not the other two. Ops the third point I would like to make is
about these hypothetical blast some areas. It is also curious. You say
you found no evidence for any controlled demolition scenario pops "if
you are running the experimental of analyze a hypothetical class
defense? Folks and the and just curious as to how good group to
incorporate that in your report in some way other than to just
discredited completely without giving any serious consideration. And
the final point I'd like to make is that there were major mainstream
media reports about fire alarms inside Building seven being turned off
very early in the morning. And I sincerely hope that someone --
something else will make it into your report. That's all I have to read
appreciate the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

My name is
Jerry Lee part. I am an attorney. I also represent individuals who have
presently pending request for a correction that are in various stages
of processing as well as individuals who have presently pending
lawsuits relating to the preparation of indices are one. And together
with the ongoing investigation of WTC 7. And I concur for the most part
with the comments made by the previous two speakers which to serve to
place on notice that the lengthy and often delayed report on what
caused the destruction of World Trade Center seven is a matter of
extreme importance to the public. We are somewhat perplexed by the
repeated delays in the preparation and going forward with that report
we note that in the commentary on the status of the reports, it's quite
frankly does not appear as if the very much progress has been made and
that the indications that certain parts of it will be ready for review
as early as January with a complete draft done as early as July of
2,008 see no more realistic than any of these prior time estimates for
conclusion of that report. My particular comments will be supplemented
pockmarked the mailing of the comments as is permitted by the
regulations of of governing today's session. Those comments will focus
on the issue of how the investigation is frames. The investigation is
framed as determining why and how all World Trade Center seven building
collapsed, but that is an incomplete statement. The World Trade Center
seven building collapsed or was destroyed in a manner that resulted in
any he, that is to say, a pile of rubble, that did not even spread car
across the adjoining street. It was a trapezoidal buildings that
self-destructive in a manner of 6.6 seconds superior. It came down into
that heap on asymmetrical basis. In addition, to the remnants of that
building have included her steel beams that were visible even
transformed and virtually disintegrated. Accordingly, all of the
discussion had today concerning temperature assumptions, concerning
working hypothesis that have still some six years later not yet
resulted in even a leading hypothesis and small wonder home computer.
They all serve to demonstrate that the investigation into what caused
the destruction of World Trade Center seven is seriously off target and
a mishap and should probably be halted pending a determination of why
the status of that investigation can get no further than that of a
working hypothesis and this is some six years later. Thank you.

Thank you.

This is Steve. If I could I just ask or three presenters if they could
be so kind as to submit their written comments to me so that they can
be accurately reflected. I greatly appreciate that. I believe you all
have my e-mail address.

Thank you very much.

Thank you
very much, and thank you for your comments. We appreciate it. That
concludes the formal part of the agenda. Is there anything else to come
before the committee? Hearing nothing I accept a motion for
adjournment. The you all when the wish you all a a great holiday
season. We appreciate the participation of everybody in the meeting and
look forward to our next get together.

Thanks, it's great having (at least) acces to this.

I like the openingstatement of Dr. Sunder.
He manages to tell absolutely nothing in sentence after sentence for quite a while...
Read it (or listen to it), it's actually almost funny.

What a contrast with Mr Gage; visible, audible, touchable facts, after facts...

(I have empathy for the NIST-people actually, I hope they soon realize that they are being used.)

Where does Sunder say that the diesel tanks...

we not involved in all? I did a CTRL-F for "diesel" but couldn't find the quote in question.

Does anybody have the exact quote?
-----------------
“Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery.” - Milton Friedman from Capitalism and Freedom

diesel fuel tanks

Here is a link to the entire event. It is at the 19:00 mark

http://origin.eastbaymedia.com/~nist/asx/nist-wtc-121807.asx

He states that the intial event was caused by and I quote "NORMAL BUILDING FIRES", and that the fuel lines and tanks were not part of these fires that caused the initial event.

Thanks for posting this.

Thanks for posting this.

Good to see one of the questioners ask about whether the NIST WTC7 report will go beyond collapse initiation this time.

Gage was great!

And also the two other lawyers at the end were good. I expected to hear Gage and others address the NIST panel and ask questions. Then the panel would try to answer those questions. But no. The NIST bored me on and on til finally the real questions were brought out. Then, the end. WTF!?

International Code Council

He mentions that --

"And as a major event that took place this past May, the adoption by the International Code Counsel which issues the building code which is the model building code used throughout the United States, a number of changes, eight specific changes to their building code based on our recommendations."

So this is the body that is buying into their story to make the claims "real" and change the building codes. Maybe some of them are unaware of the statements that Richard and others made to NIST and need to be informed.

International Code Council
http://www.iccsafe.org/

The Board Members are here --
http://www.iccsafe.org/news/about/bod.html