PDA

View Full Version : The NIST on the WTC7 collapse


Condoleezza
11-24-2006, 11:16 PM
You only have to read ....


Q:
Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

A:
When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.


Condi

CanadianChic
11-24-2006, 11:21 PM
I don't think you're getting the point of threads - different people post their opinions on a singular thread in regards to a singular topic - why are you creating a thread for every singular post you make? Does this system somehow add credibility to your claim? Or do people gradually add you to their ignore list until there is no one left?

Condoleezza
11-24-2006, 11:28 PM
I don't think you're getting the point of threads - different people post their opinions on a singular thread in regards to a singular topic - why are you creating a thread for every singular post you make? Does this system somehow add credibility to your claim? Or do people gradually add you to their ignore list until there is no one left?


I don't post "an opinion".
I am posting excerpts of the official report by 200+ experts.

Condi

CanadianChic
11-24-2006, 11:31 PM
Fine - why don't you post the entire official report as opposed to creating a new thread for every excerpt - do ya catch my drift??

Swissv2
11-25-2006, 07:43 AM
This is in response to thread
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=106988

I would truly like to put this issue to a rest. We are not experts. At the very best, we can copy+paste media links and speculate all day. We can argue back and forth in a civil manner, and perhaps use our very limited experience to help us out. We all have our theories and opinions, that’s fine: that is why our posts have been allowed for open discussion provided it stayed in the appropriate sections.

But the bottom line is we will never resolve this argument unless the scientists and experts involved in this matter have resolved the issue.

If you are SO concerned about trying to force your opinions (even me) on other people - then you have reached a point where you cannot function as a proper member of a forum, MUCH LESS a tennis forum.

But if you are so passionate about your views, take this material to your EXPERTS (professors and professionals) and discuss this somewhere else. It has gone too far.

Condoleeza, you want to continue to discuss this? Come to my forums at http://www.tennis-scheduler.com (http://www.tennis-scheduler.com/) and we can continue our debate. I offer you this proposal, if ANY of your posts get deleted you are free to leave my forum.

I am out.