The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!

NIST Video Deceit

Analysis of fire and collapse theories and examination of related evidence.

NIST Video Deceit

Postby Miragememories » Fri Jul 24, 2015 5:00 pm

Revised Analysis on July 29, 2015

Did the NIST, after many years of intensive investigation, with the benefit of all its resources and major funding, perform due diligence in their pursuit of answering the question;
WHY DID WTC 7 COLLAPSE?

After combining their years of engineering research with an analysis the day’s events, was the NIST honest or deceitful in the completeness of their final determinations?

The NIST, through their spokesperson, lead investigator, Shyam Sundar, at a 2008 press conference announcing the conclusion of the WTC 7 investigation, uncompromisingly stated that; “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery”, and that the NIST “did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down.”

Dr. Sundar, did admit that his organization had a very difficult time finding an engineering hypothesis to explain what occurred at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11 to WTC 7.

Given the length of the investigation, the wealth of human resources committed to it, and the degree of difficulty understanding the mechanism behind the total structural failure of WTC 7, it is reasonable to expect that all data pertaining to the building’s structural status for its last remaining hour, would be subject to the most intensive, careful, and methodical engineering scrutiny.

The published evidence shows that the NIST’s primary focus was directed at finding support for their column 79 buckling hypothesis, while dispelling contradictory evidence as lacking sufficient credibility to warrant further investigation.

Case in point, involves the observed activity from northwest face windows on the 13th floor of WTC 7 just prior to its complete collapse.

The NIST hypothesis is anchored in the northeast, where they believe column 79 at the 13th floor lost its lateral support, buckled, and revealed its failure through the visible collapse of the east penthouse.

In passing, the NIST in their final report acknowledged some unexplained activity occurring at the other end of WTC 7 saying that; “Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. [13th floor] The event that caused this unusual behaviour has not been identified.

Without any additional data available, this appeared to be a fair assessment. The NIST, using the limited video and photo evidence they had cataloged, determined that there was no visual data to provide an explanation for this “unusual behaviour”.

But was there really only limited video available?

Going over the video evidence provided by the NIST through FOIA, there is good reason to question the veracity of the NIST claim.

A logical place to investigate the NIST contention is to carefully examine the video in question, where “a jet of flames was pushed” from 13th floor windows on the west side of the north face, well away from the east side column 79 location.

Image
Screen captures from the NIST FOIA video. The left frame was captured a few video frames prior to the right frame.

The NIST kept track of all their video data records in a large database.

Video records sent to the NIST were cataloged and identified in this database which was used by researchers to locate and analyze clips of interest.

According to their database records, the video that contained the “jet of flames” that occurred close to the time of WTC7’s collapse, was identified as belonging to CBS-Net Dub5.

The NIST cataloger, as shown from their notes, not only observed the “jet of flames”, but also noted a visible “puff of smoke” partially obscured by scan lines created when the original playback tape was deliberately fast-forwarded while it was being copied.

Image

Given the importance of any dramatic data appearing close to the collapse time of WTC 7, it is very odd that the NIST investigators paid so little heed to the “noted” smoke plume, or the fact that it was deliberately obscured by intentional fast forwarding. All they noted was the “jet of flames”, which were also initially obscured by fast forwarding.

Image
Later in the video recording, the sudden jet of flames could not be ignored when they appeared clearly after the person ‘directing’ the NIST copy decided to replay that portion at normal speed.

Image

But that’s not all.

The fast forwarding obscures an even more significant event.

Behind the obscuring horizontal lines induced by fast forwarding, a series of explosive plumes can be seen coming from beneath the window that seconds later would produce that “jet of flames”.

Additionally, as the plume extends over the parapet of the BMCC building at 70 Murray, a white cloud forms on that building’s rooftop further north.

Image

This should have aroused great interest on the part of researchers, but without the benefit of a clean unobscured video copy, they possibly decided further investigation was pointless.

Image

Had the NIST investigators shown more determination, they would have discovered that there was indeed a clean HQ copy of the very same video, without the intentional image obscuration.

The NIST cataloged the video source as CBS, but it appears that CBS licensed its use from the rights holder, FOX. FOX through their subsidiary company, ITN, offer a clean preview copy in flash video format (.flv). A 5-year license for an HQ copy is available at a price determined by the purchaser’s intended usage.

Had the NIST or FEMA officially communicated their interest in the video more earnestly they would have easily discovered the availability of this HQ version.

Given the amount of wandering fire that was observed in WTC 7 on 9/11, it could easily be said that one more was hardly worthy of special attention.

But considering the location and timing, in conjunction with the fact that the most plausible explanation for the implosive collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, this event takes on greater significance.

A controlled demolition by implosion would require that the lower core of WTC 7 be blown out through the intensive use of conventional RDX-like explosives, possibly in the wake of a steel structure-weakening pre-collapse mechanism, like nano-thermite.

Studying the clean copy of the video that the NIST never investigated, several things can be observed;

With difficulty (due to the poor quality of the free public ‘flash video’ preview), a very rapid series of west-to-east dark bursts can be detected behind windows on the 13th floor, just prior to the plumes erupting from previously fire-broken windows. (It is necessary to obtain the full quality original that FOX controls in order to validate this observation.)

Upon further study, given the lack of immediate effect on the existing 13th floor window fires, and the apparent upward trajectory of the explosive dark plumes, it appears that the eruptions burst from a floor location beneath the window that would shortly respond with a "jet of flames".

Image

Image
Expanded View

According to the NIST, this is what followed shortly after these events.

“Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. [13th floor] The event that caused this unusual behaviour has not been identified.

YOU CANNOT IDENTIFY THAT WHICH YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY.

The original, X11090122 97672, reference recording, used for this research is only available in preview quality LQ (HQ (high quality) for purchasers), at http://www.itnsource.com.
http://www.itnsource.com/en/shotlist/Fo ... X11090122/
Clip #20

The NIST FOIA release; is available as International_Center_for_911_Studies_NIST_FOIA Release_25, Folder: 42A0122 - G25D33
at http://www.911datasets.org
Miragememories
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:08 pm

 

Re: NIST Video Deceit

Postby SanderO » Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:09 pm

What was so special or interesting about flr 13? Why would anyone choose this floor over many others to place CD devices?

Flame spreads... things catch fire and explode... or flash over. No?
SanderO
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: NIST Video Deceit

Postby Oystein » Mon Jul 27, 2015 11:41 am

The low-quality video that MM scrutinizes so objectively, with such passion that he wouldn't even obtain the high quality version, can be found through this direct link:

http://www.itnsource.com/en/shotlist/Fo ... 090122/#20

The footage of the WTC7 burning starts at 2:20 minutes.
The filming is not continuous. There are "cuts" (is that the right word? When filming stops and resumes some unknown time later) at about 3:07, 3:16, 3:43. The last cut is when the collapse has just started.

The prominent billowing of black smoke starts at about 2:36.
The large flame shoot-out occurs near 3:30.

I can't for the life of me see a "a series of explosive plumes can be seen coming from the direction of the window that seconds later would produce that “jet of flames”", as MM words it. What does he mean by "seconds" later? Again, there is an interruption in filming at 3:16; at that point, the camera is direct at the upper portion of the building. It pans down, and only at 3:21 does the 13th floor come into view. Then around 3:30, there's the "jet of flames". Concentrating therefore on those 9 seconds between 3:21 and 3:30, I look and look ... there is just a rather indistinct smoke haze all the time, no puffs, nothing "explosive" at all.

MM fails to mention that all through that video there is a large fire visible behind the windows all the time from which eventually the "jet of flames" appears to emerge. Here are a few screenshots, with a timeline:

2:21 - video of WTC7 begins. Fire is visible pretty much from the first frame on. For clarity, I waited with the first screenshot till the camera had zoomed in:

2:29 - large fire visible behind windows: Image

2:36 - black smoke begins to emerge from that general area (actually, I think further below, obscured by other building)

2:37-2:45 - smoke rises: Image Image Image

3:07 - a "cut" in the video. Unknown length of time passes

3:07 - immediately after the cut, flames still large and visible: Image

3:16 - a "cut" in the video. Unknown length of time passes. After cut, camera takes a ferw seconds and to pan and zoom back onto region of interest

3:28 - more smoke, but fire still faintly visible behind the smoke: Image

3:29 - flame is first seen shooting up: Image

3:30 - smoke obscures flames momentarily - this is the moment that MM chose to show you! Image

3:31-3:33 - flame shoot-out continues: Image Image

3:43 - a "cut" in the video. Unknown length of time passes. Video resumes with collapse already underway.




So, we see that

a) There are 53 seconds on film between the emergence of a billowing smoke cloud from somewhere below
b) Filming is interrupted twice during those 53 seconds of video, adding an unknown amount of time between the two events.
There is no connection between the two events except that they emerged from a building in which obviously a very large fire is raging. Smoke and flames emerging from a burning building are by no means unusual, surprising or suspect.

c) Nothing that could even with good will be described as "explosive".
d) Both the smoke billowing and the flame jet take several seconds (at least 9 and 4 s, respectively). This is not something "explosive."
e) MirageMemories tried to fool the reader into thinking that prior to the "jet of flames" there was no fire there - I think a very clear case of deliberate deception.

As Sander already noted, common fire events like a flash-over could easily explain events such as smoke being pushed out broken windows or flames shooting out. Another obvious candidate is floor failures - remember, in NIST's simulation, several floor connections had already failed before the final collapse sequence around column 79 commenced.

MM speculates about RDX-type explosives on floor 13 or elsewhere in the "lower core of WTC 7". He forgets what explosives expert Danny Jowenko explained years ago: You cannot possibly have explosive CD charges on fire floors - they, along with wiring and detonators, are destroyed at under 300 °C.

So much work, so much fail. Poor MirageMemories :(
Oystein
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:00 pm

Re: NIST Video Deceit

Postby Miragememories » Mon Jul 27, 2015 7:33 pm

SanderO wrote:What was so special or interesting about flr 13?

Why would anyone choose this floor over many others to place CD devices?

Flame spreads... things catch fire and explode... or flash over. No?

SanderO I thought you had an inquiring mind that was only interested in the truth. No?

The NIST felt floor 13 was special and interesting. No?

I did make an adjustment to my original post. Upon more careful examination of the FOX video, it appears that the explosive plumes erupted from beneath the 13th floor window that produced the infamous “jet of flames”.

Flames spread, fuel is consumed, flames do not return with a ‘jet-like’ vengeance. Yes?

There is a great deal of photographic and video footage of WTC 7.

The FOX video that the NIST chose not to investigate is the best pre-collapse video showing explosive plumes.

The “jet of flames” as the NIST termed it, were the most extreme exhibited at WTC 7, reaching several stories in height and though apparently brief, were more dramatic than the raging fires recorded on the east side of WTC 7.

You and Oystein both reveal your disingenuous interest in the truth by how studiously you both ignore the significance of a person, or persons, directing that during the making of the NIST video that those explosive plumes were to be intentionally obscured.

If they were doing their job honestly, they would have let the tape simply play.

Your gross hypocrisy is noted!!
Miragememories
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: NIST Video Deceit

Postby SanderO » Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:34 pm

MM... I prefer to use the term... "understanding" which is what I am interested in. My observations of the material I have seen does not suggest to me anything but a structural failure... a runaway progressive collapse... due to axial capacity driven below service loads. I don't know much about fires and explosive demo... but I do know all sorts of things will explode in a building burning for hrs.

I don't find NIST's explanation compelling because there is nothing special about floor 13 and I don't think their fire "survey" was terribly accurate. I also think they, for some reason ignored the stored diesel which was on floor 7 I believe and it's hard to imagine THAT fuel not igniting at some point... not to mention the pressurized fuel that was pumped up to replenish the day tanks. I'd like to know the truth about the diesel... Wouldn't you? Tens of thousands of gallons and NIST ignores it... or claims it was "recovered" (mysteriously at some point.)

The failures were structural collapses... much the way CD are structural collapses. But for sure all the columns were not "exploded" over 8 floors as AE claims. That would be a lie.
SanderO
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: NIST Video Deceit

Postby Miragememories » Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:33 pm

Oystein wrote:The low-quality video that MM scrutinizes so objectively, with such passion that he wouldn't even obtain the high quality version, can be found through this direct link:

http://www.itnsource.com/en/shotlist/Fo ... 090122/#20

I gave the linking information at the end of my post.

I inquired about purchasing an HQ copy of the FOX video and was told it would cost me over $500.


Oystein wrote:…So, we see that

a) There are 53 seconds on film between the emergence of a billowing smoke cloud [explosive plumes] from somewhere below”

Between what?

Oystein wrote:b) Filming is interrupted twice during those 53 seconds of video, adding an unknown amount of time between the two events.

There is no connection between the two events except that they emerged from a building in which obviously a very large fire is raging.

Smoke and flames emerging from a burning building are by no means unusual, surprising or suspect.

The NIST placed the the “jet of flames” at very close to the time of collapse.

The “jet of flames” exits from the same window that before that, was exhibiting what I would describe as a dwindling office cubicle fire.

The explosive plumes erupted from a location directly below the window that produced the “jet of flames”.

There was no “raging” fire at that location prior to this.


Oystein wrote:c) Nothing that could even with good will be described as "explosive".

d) Both the smoke billowing and the flame jet take several seconds (at least 9 and 4 s, respectively). This is not something "explosive.


There were a very rapid series of erupting gray plumes.

As you said, “Both the smoke billowing and the flame jet take several seconds (at least 9 and 4 s, respectively)”, which shows how rapid they were.

A non-explosive event, as in a new fire breaking out, would produce billowing smoke that would continue to produce a growing cloud of billowing smoke until the fire was exhausted. It would not suddenly and dramatically erupt and then end after 9 seconds.

The “jet of flames” was seen to make at least two eruptions, of short duration.

Something quite different occurred to suddenly transform those ordinary office cubicle fires.

It was one helluva a coincidence that these very unusual, multi-story, flaming outbursts happened in the same general area as the preceding explosions.

Even without acknowledging those explosive plumes, the NIST recognized that the “jet of flames” represented “unusual behaviour”.


Oystein wrote:e) MirageMemories tried to fool the reader into thinking that prior to the "jet of flames" there was no fire there - I think a very clear case of deliberate deception.



When the video immediately preceding the “jet of flames” shows no fire, I think it is accurate to imply that there was not a lot of fire activity.

What fire there was at that location, was most certainly not “raging” as you like to describe it.


Oystein wrote:As Sander already noted, common fire events like a flash-over could easily explain events such as smoke being pushed out broken windows or flames shooting out.

Another obvious candidate is floor failures - remember, in NIST's simulation, several floor connections had already failed before the final collapse sequence around column 79 commenced.


”Flash-over” from where? Have you looked at the cubicle-based floor layouts in WTC 7? The cubicles in that location were pretty much burned out.

And then you make a big stretch with your bizarre suggestion that a major fire-induced floor failure might have occurred just because the NIST simulated animation of the later collapse indicated such activity.

Indeed. A floor failure may well have occurred, but I would argue that the evidence suggests such a cause was explosive, and not migrating office cubicle fires.


Oystein wrote:MM speculates about RDX-type explosives on floor 13 or elsewhere in the "lower core of WTC 7".

He forgets what explosives expert Danny Jowenko explained years ago: You cannot possibly have explosive CD charges on fire floors - they, along with wiring and detonators, are destroyed at under 300 °C.

So much work, so much fail. Poor MirageMemories :(



Please show me where I speculated that RDX-like explosives might have been planted on the 13th floor?

I did suggest the pre-involvement of nano-thermite which can cope with temperatures above 300 °C.

You seem to forget that explosives expert Danny Jowenko was also absolutely certain that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition!

And so Oystein, after all your laborious timings and notes about camera stoppages etc., you totally ignore the topic of this thread.

WHY, rather than just let the original tape play at normal speed and finish the NIST copy, did the authors instead decide to deliberately obscure only that portion that showed explosive plumes occurring?

In spite of your implying that the original in-camera tape stoppages consumed significant time, we know there was a limited amount of fire activity occurring in that general 13th floor window area that late in the afternoon, and we know that the NIST stated their belief that the “jet of flames” occurred very close to when WTC 7 collapsed.

A more mature skeptic other than yourself would have carefully and honestly given consideration to the thread topic and addressed this subject respectfully.

If the people responsible for making that NIST investigative video copy had nothing to hide, they would not have gone out of their way to deliberately obscure the most sensational part of its content!
Miragememories
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: NIST Video Deceit

Postby Oystein » Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:40 pm

Miragememories wrote:...
Flames spread, fuel is consumed, flames do not return with a ‘jet-like’ vengeance. Yes?
...

No.
Flash-over.

Miragememories wrote:...
The FOX video that the NIST chose not to investigate is the best pre-collapse video showing explosive plumes.

Since that video shows NO "explosive" plumes, this settles it then: The entire video and photographic record contains absolutely NO evidence of "explosive" plumes :)

Miragememories wrote:... the significance of a person, or persons, directing that during the making of the NIST video that those explosive plumes were to be intentionally obscured.

You haven't demonstrated that intention or direction, you merely conjecture.

Miragememories wrote:If they were doing their job honestly, they would have let the tape simply play.

There is nothing of interest in that sequence that can be tied to any interesting event with any certainty, even if NIST had used the right tape.

If YOU, MM, were doing your job honestly, you would have shown us that there was a large fire behind the windows from which the jet emerged all along, and you would have clearly informed us that there is no close spacial or chronological connection between the smoke plume and the flame jet right away. If you were honest, you would not call something "explosive" that isn't.
Oystein
 
Posts: 552
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:00 pm

Re: NIST Video Deceit

Postby Miragememories » Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:08 pm

Miragememories wrote:SanderO I thought you had an inquiring mind that was only interested in the truth. No?

SanderO wrote:MM... I prefer to use the term... "understanding" which is what I am interested in.


So rather than preferring the “truth”, you prefer understanding only that which you find of interest.

Since you keep ignoring it, I guess you have little interest in the truth behind the intentional coverup of the explosive activity which occurred close to the time of WTC7’s collapse?

Maybe because it undermines your greater interest, and the amount of time you’ve invested, promoting your own hypothesis about progressive failure.


SanderO wrote: My observations of the material I have seen does not suggest to me anything but a structural failure... a runaway progressive collapse... due to axial capacity driven below service loads.

I don't know much about fires and explosive demolitions… but I do know all sorts of things will explode in a building burning for hrs.


A controlled demolition of the low level central core would definitely create a “a runaway progressive collapse”. No?

The explosions I am referring to, were not those of some over-heated pop machine.

A series of large high-speed plumes were rapidly produced that quickly shot across Barclay and up Greenwich, appearing over the top of the BMCC building’s parapet.

This was immediately followed by a white cloud forming on the BMCC building roof a bit further north.

Image

Unfortunately, the NIST, much like yourself, had a favourite hypothesis and therefore chose not to followup on this contradictory line of investigation.


SanderO wrote:I don't find NIST's explanation compelling because there is nothing special about floor 13 and I don't think their fire "survey" was terribly accurate.

I also think they, for some reason ignored the stored diesel which was on floor 7.

I believe and it's hard to imagine THAT fuel not igniting at some point... not to mention the pressurized fuel that was pumped up to replenish the day tanks.

I'd like to know the truth about the diesel... Wouldn't you?

Tens of thousands of gallons and NIST ignores it… or claims it was "recovered" (mysteriously at some point.)


Ignored?

I agree with you that the NIST’s fire survey was inaccurate but I do not understand how you can justify the your diesel fuel claims.

The NIST’s report did certainly not ignore the diesel fuel and included this in their report;


”The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel.

The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building's loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor.

In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor.

Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.


Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks.

NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totalled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure).

The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor.”

SanderO wrote:The failures were structural collapses... much the way CD are structural collapses.

But for sure all the columns were not "exploded" over 8 floors as AE claims.

That would be a lie.


The level of your denial makes me wonder about your sanity SanderO?

The lie is in your refusal to acknowledge that your hypothesis is faith-based and not science-based.

You would be wise to show more interest pursuing the truth and stop seeking solace in a comfortable “understanding”.
Miragememories
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: NIST Video Deceit

Postby Miragememories » Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:59 pm

Oystein wrote:
Miragememories wrote:...
Flames spread, fuel is consumed, flames do not return with a ‘jet-like’ vengeance. Yes?
...

No.

Flash-over.

Flashover?

How plausible do you believe it to be for a fire from an unseen cubicle to flashover to a cubicle that has been burning its potential fuel for quite some time?

Flashover normally requires the subject area to be enclosed and allowed to build up to 500°C or greater. Don’t you think that broken window would make your belief of flashover problematic?


Miragememories wrote:The FOX video that the NIST chose not to investigate is the best pre-collapse video showing explosive plumes.

Oystein wrote:Since that video shows NO "explosive" plumes, this settles it then: The entire video and photographic record contains absolutely NO evidence of "explosive" plumes :)

Image
In a matter of a few seconds, the first plume bursts across Barclay Street and up Greenwich and spills over the BMCC building parapet where it is quickly joined by rapidly formed peripheral eruptions which continue as the camera zooms back.

This was not slowly billowing smoke rising from a new fire.

Like SanderO, you Oystein, sadly, show no integrity in your responses.

Miragememories wrote:… and Oystein both reveal your disingenuous interest in the truth by how studiously you both ignore the significance of a person, or persons, directing that during the making of the NIST video that those explosive plumes were to be intentionally obscured.

If they were doing their job honestly, they would have let the tape simply play.

Your gross hypocrisy is noted!!

Oystein wrote:You haven't demonstrated that intention or direction, you merely conjecture.

You have not addressed, or attempted to explain away, my assertion that whomever directed the making of that video copy from the original WTC 7 recording, willfully obscured a key portion of that video through tape playback speed manipulation.

It is not conjecture. It is an easily proven fact.

I have time-lined the whole tape dubbing process.

That kind of work was a part of my job for over 37 years which makes it quite easy for me to ‘read’ and time the actions of the person making the NIST’s dub.

Miragememories wrote:If they were doing their job honestly, they would have let the tape simply play.

Oystein wrote:There is nothing of interest in that sequence that can be tied to any interesting event with any certainty, even if NIST had used the right tape.

You don’t think video redacting is is of interest?

As a layperson, you have no idea how the results of the NIST investigation might have changed had this data not be withheld from frontline investigators.

Oystein wrote:If YOU, MM, were doing your job honestly, you would have shown us that there was a large fire behind the windows from which the jet emerged all along, and you would have clearly informed us that there is no close spacial or chronological connection between the smoke plume and the flame jet right away.

If you were honest, you would not call something "explosive" that isn't.

Large fires?

There were fires I admit, but not that large until the infamous “jet of flames” occurred.


Screencaptures from FOX low resolution preview copy
Image
2m2s _____________________________________2m33s [same window fire, pre-explosion]

Image
2m52s [13th floor window 1st plume]______3m16s [after camera edit, fire ebbing]

Image
3m28s [following camera edit]_____________3m30s [tip of 1st jet of flames]

Image
3m32s [2nd jet of flames]_________________3m34s [no visible flames]

Image
3m36s [still no visible flames]_____________3m44s [camera edit, EPH just collapsed]
Miragememories
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: NIST Video Deceit

Postby SanderO » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:18 pm

I don't think it was the weakening of columns caused by heat from fires... but the destruction of connections AND more importantly the expansion of steel beams which were able to displace unrestrained column ends... causing loss of continuity of load paths... ergo destruction of axial load capacity.

I suspect the failure in WTC 7 was failure of truss connections of diagonal truss members... leading to truss failure not by weakening the massive members with heat.. but destruction of the connections' bolts by heat/shearing displacement etc.

There simply was not enough heat to weaken the steel to lead to collapse in my opinion... as a complete lay person.

+++++

smoke "proceeds" easterly because there was a brisk NW wind in case you forgot MM.
SanderO
 
Posts: 1976
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:29 am
Location: ny

Re: NIST Video Deceit

Postby ozeco41 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:46 am

SanderO wrote:I don't think it was the weakening of columns caused by heat from fires...
Almost certainly true Sander - weakening by reduction of axial compressive load capacity was NOT the primary mechanism in WTC7. So a contrast with WTC1 and WTC2 where failure due to axial overload WAS the major factor in the initiation stage. And high temperature weakening a necessary contributor to those column failures. What part heat played for each column indeterminate given the complexity of load transfers in the cascade failure process. The mechanism does not require all columns to be affected by heat.

The "big picture" knowns for WTC7 are:
1) There was no CD - therefore failure was due to unfought fires on a steel-framed building - failure in such circumstances highly probable; AND
2) Column 79 and associated structures supporting EPH failed - dropping EPH. Given that there was no MHI (AKA "CD") there are only two viable alternative causes of such failure:
(a) Removal of horizontal bracing increasing the effective length subject to buckling: OR
(b) Addition of massive weight at the EPH level or slightly lower.

No evidence for weight addition THEREFORE bracing removed.

From there we go into speculation as to how Col 79 had it's bracing removed.

I'm not persuaded of connection failure as a cause - the key causal issue IF connection failure was the result is "What caused the connections to fail?"

SanderO wrote:There simply was not enough heat to weaken the steel to lead to collapse in my opinion... as a complete lay person.
That comment is unclear OR untrue. Try reversing it - look at the logic in the opposite direction - "Whatever the mechanism the level of temperature needed to cause failure was present." The real issue I suspect you are referring to is that there was no obvious mechanism which demanded raised temperatures. So another contrast with the Twin Towers where some heat effects were required. (I can prove that if you need it.)

SanderO wrote:...smoke "proceeds" easterly because there was a brisk NW wind in case you forgot MM.
You are discussing "truther smoke" (Which pays no attention to wind) - not "normal people's smoke." (Which blows downwind.) :mrgreen:
ozeco41
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:03 am

Re: NIST Video Deceit

Postby kawika » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:38 pm

FACT: NIST disseminated a defective copy of the FOX news video.

The original version has no FF/RW effects on it, therefore either 1) NIST obtained a defective copy, then made FOIA copies, or 2) NIST created the defects themselves and made FOIA copies.

If #2, this is criminal tampering with public records.

If #1, negligence.
LIFE!
LIBERTY!!
PROPERTY!!!
kawika
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: NIST Video Deceit

Postby Miragememories » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:49 pm

Image
This is a rough composite of what the NIST FOIA video showed.

Image
This is a rough composite of what the FOX low quality video showed.
Miragememories
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: NIST Video Deceit

Postby Miragememories » Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:40 pm

SanderO wrote:I don't think it was the weakening of columns caused by heat from fires... but the destruction of connections AND more importantly the expansion of steel beams which were able to displace unrestrained column ends... causing loss of continuity of load paths... ergo destruction of axial load capacity.

I suspect the failure in WTC 7 was failure of truss connections of diagonal truss members... leading to truss failure not by weakening the massive members with heat.. but destruction of the connections' bolts by heat/shearing displacement etc.

There simply was not enough heat to weaken the steel to lead to collapse in my opinion... as a complete lay person.

+++++

smoke "proceeds" easterly because there was a brisk NW wind in case you forgot MM.


You do not believe the columns were weakened by “heat from fires” and I have shown you in my last reply that the NIST thoroughly explored and negated the possibility of diesel fuel-fed fires on the floors where your truss connections were located.

Yet, without any proof, you place your faith in a belief, that mysterious, un-evidenced fires, attacked the fire-protected steel of those massive trusses with sufficient virulence to fail their connecting bolts and create a total structural collapse which included 8 stories of freefall acceleration.

May I remind you of this statement you made in your last post?

SanderO wrote:I don't know much about fires and explosive demolitions


What credibility do you lend to your far-fetched belief?

And regarding “smoke "proceeds" easterly”. Yes I am well aware that all smoke was moving from west to east.

There are two interesting points here;

The explosive plumes that formed below the window that produced the “jet of flames”.


Image


Image

And the fact that those plumes did not behave like billowing smoke carried by the wind.

They erupted rapidly and against that NW “brisk” wind.
Miragememories
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: NIST Video Deceit

Postby Miragememories » Thu Jul 30, 2015 2:24 pm

ozeco41 wrote:…The "big picture" known for WTC7 is:

There was no CD - therefore failure was due to unfought fires on a steel-framed building - failure in such circumstances highly probable;


Controlled demolition is the easiest, and only known method, that could inflict this kind of devastation on a steel-structured office tower such as WTC 7.

Unfought office cubicle fires, never have, never could, and never will, demolish a building such as WTC 7 in the manner that occurred.

Your arrogant, personal incredulity fails as a logical argument.



ozeco41 wrote:From there we go into speculation as to how Col 79 had it's bracing removed.

I'm not persuaded of connection failure as a cause - the key causal issue IF connection failure was the result is "What caused the connections to fail?"


Anything other than controlled demolition is speculation.

Clearly, if it was not a controlled demolition, than it had to be connected to the only other destructive force that was known to exist inside WTC 7 on 9/11, randomly migrating unfought office cubicle fires.

Unfought fires that for the first time in history managed to induce the complete simultaneous failure of all the supporting structural steel columns over an area the size of a football field up to a height of 8 storeys.

Now if that isn’t a fairy tale, I don’t know what is.


SanderO wrote:There simply was not enough heat to weaken the steel to lead to collapse in my opinion... as a complete lay person.
ozeco41 wrote:That comment is unclear OR untrue.

Try reversing it - look at the logic in the opposite direction - "Whatever the mechanism the level of temperature needed to cause failure was present."

The real issue I suspect you are referring to is that there was no obvious mechanism which demanded raised temperatures.

So another contrast with the Twin Towers where some heat effects were required. (I can prove that if you need it.)


If you can really prove what you say, you would not be asking for permission first.

There is a logical explanation for what happened to WTC 7; controlled demolition, and there is an illogical explanation for what happened to WTC 7; unfought office cubicle fires.

Due to your personal incredulity, you refuse to accept the logical explanation, so therefore you are compelled to blindly believe in the illogical explanation.


SanderO wrote:...smoke "proceeds" easterly because there was a brisk NW wind in case you forgot MM.

ozeco41 wrote:You are discussing "truther smoke" (Which pays no attention to wind) - not "normal people's smoke." (Which blows downwind.) :mrgreen:


I notice neither you Ozeco41, SanderO, or Oystein wish to address the theme of this thread.

The deliberate obscuring of important video evidence.

Such pointed avoidance of the thread subject is what I would expect from those who wish to support such a cover up.

It is no secret that the internet is riddled with agents, protected by anonymity, whose sole purpose is to prevent ugly truths from becoming known.

The real question you refuse to discuss, still remains;


Image

FOX Low Resolution Flash Preview Copy

IF THERE WAS NOTHING INCRIMINATING IN THOSE EXPLOSIVE PLUMES WORTH HIDING, WHY DID SOMEONE DELIBERATELY HIDE THEM?


Image
NIST FOIA Low Resolution Public Release Copy
Miragememories
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:08 pm

Next



Return to WTC7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

suspicion-preferred