Part 1: WTC7 and NIST - Shear Ignorance
Part 2: WTC7 and NIST - The Expanding Lie
Part 3: WTC7 and NIST - Tangled Webs
I have just a few questions about NIST's entire theory but I didn't want to sound too daft, but here goes.
1. Why would beams in WTC 7 expand, but the beams in the towers bowed? (outside of NIST's convenience.) Obviously with enough tensile strength to bend
2. Why wouldn't the beams in question expand in both directions? Is it reasonable to even think they would expand nearly 6" in one direction?
3. Wouldn't a beam need to be heated in the center or over its entirety to get such expansion?
4. How much time would it really take to expand a steal beam of this size over 6"? ( I see the premise of another Jon Cole experiment.)
5. None of the animations included concrete. And we know NIST fraudulently opted to not heat the concrete to create "differential expansion." How much more impossible does this make NIST's theory if it could even be quantified and will this fact be included in the final video?
These questions seem like common sense to me from my layman's point of view, but I've haven't seen them raised before. It would seem that these issues would have kept NIST from ever trying to make such nonsensical theory work, but maybe they had no other choice since diesel fuel and building damage was too easy to disprove.
Out of curiosity, are the producers of this series structural engineers? (not that it matters much to me, but just curious) and were the construction plans shown here obtained via FOIA? I truly appreciate the responses.
Again.. great work to all involved with this series. I look forward to seeing the cumulative final video. Major KUDOS!!!
Quote: Out of curiosity, are the producers of this series structural engineers? (not that it matters much to me, but just curious) and were the construction plans shown here obtained via FOIA? I truly appreciate the responses.
Reply: As a contributor to this series of short videos I can say that I am not a structural engineer. I'm just a layman trying to help other laymen understand a complex subject.
We did consult with structural engineers to help us create accurate graphics and to understand the defects in the NIST conclusions.
The plans shown in the series were obtained through the FOIA, but not by our team. Some of the critical points in the video were discovered by this team once we obtained the drawings.
I am actively engaged in obtaining more FOIA records.
I appreciate the reply. Best of luck in your efforts.
One thing that I have trouble with regarding the expansion of supporting beams is that the total length of a given steel beam once heated to a given temperature assumes the TOTAL LENGTH of said beam is heated to said temperature ? What would the likelihood of the beams being this uniformly heated be ?
Therefore if you heat a few meters in the center of a given beam you would get a large Delta T along the total length, perverting your calculations on total expansion/temperature .
continue to amaze me as a physicist.
In their preliminary report summer 2008, NIST stated that they assumed the building came down at constant speed. This was far from the truth, for the building is seen in videos to be ACCELERATING, not constant speed at all.
David Chandler and I independently challenged NIST on their mistake in the report. It is fun to review how they hemmed and hawed at the public hearing (via video) and finally agreed to re-check the video data. Finally!
In their final report, they found what we had found from measurements taken using the video evidence -- the building is accelerating at FREE FALL acceleration, 9.8 m/s^2! This means that NO MASS was in the way of the falling upper floors seen in the videos.
But how does NIST explain the MISSING MASS? Answer -- they don't! They merely refer to their opaque computer model which is NOT available to the public! And when we look at the simulation-video produced by the computer model (that much was made public), we find that the upper floors (in their own computer model) do NOT accelerate downward at 9.8 m/s^2.
This is just one of the glaring discrepancies/problems found in NIST's final report on the fall of WTC7. Their "official narrative" that this building came down due to Al Qaeda's actions on 9/11 when the building was NOT even hit by a jet, just does not hold water, scientifically.
I have discussed these issues in several of my talks, available on youtube and elsewhere. Thank you for continued emphasis on WTC7 -- our community needs to keep bringing attention the official mistakes and lies/cover-up regarding WTC7 and its fall -- which fall was not even MENTIONED in the 9/11 Commission report.
Thank you for your input, Professor Jones.
I find Chandler's measurement of the acceleration of the roof line of WTC 1 at a constant acceleration of 64% of free fall to be of near equal significance -- do you agree? The reason I ask is that I see these two events as completely implausible in and of themselves (or so improbable as to be impossible), and that the two taken together amounts to absolutely astronomical odds against the official 9/11 narrative.
This is a remarkable finding also.
And note that even NIST publicly admitted that the Towers "came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos” ."
 S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. “National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, answers to fre- quently asked questions”, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, August 30, 2006. [Online]. Available: NIST, http://wtc.nist.gov. [Accessed March 17, 2008].
-- Above quoted and cited in a 2008 peer-reviewed and published paper, available here: http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/articles/V002/35TOCIEJ.pdf
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply.
Once again, and beyond MEASURE,
THANK YOU for this CRITICAL series addressing data manipulation at the pivotal moment in the NIST agnotology.
That an 'typo' should be presented regarding KEY data producing 'the walk' at this level, is a tremor throughout the ENTIRE construct and threatens every part . They fcked their numbers at the join and are running to cover ! This is as important a 'correction' as the acknowledgment of FREE FALL. Respect to you !