This skin was created by Cortez of the IF Skin Zone modified by JDX
All views expressed in this forum are not necessarily the views of
Please click on the banner to read the mission statement of

zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums

Learn More · Sign-up Now
Welcome to Pilots For Truth. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:

This Forum Is Now Read Only. New Forum Can Be Found Here. Thank You.


 Nist Hypothesis = Swiss Cheese, Errors and omissions
chris sarns
Posted: Feb 7 2008, 03:14 AM

Active Poster

Group: Members
Posts: 146
Member No.: 223
Joined: 11-November 06

This is a work in process. Comments and criticism welcome.

Flaw in NIST hypothesis, Heat

L-38 [42 on pg counter]
I4.2 Unbraced Columns: If floor systems failed, one or more columns may have lost lateral bracing.
At a floor where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates,
and could support several stories unbraced without failure. This column, .. would be approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 C.

I4.6 uniform steel temperatures of approximately 570 C [1058 F] would result in column failure.

1] Core columns 79, 80 and 81 weighed over 4 tons per floor.

2] Core columns were 2 stories high and the splices were about 3 feet above the odd numbered floors.
For a core column to fail at 3 splice joints, floors 8, 9 and 10, or floors 10, 11 and 12 would have to fail.
The girders between the columns would also have to fail.

3] There were fires on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13, at different times in the area where the collapse began.

user posted image

Fire time line:
NIST L 2226
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: fire on floor 22 on south side
fire on floor 12 burned west to east across the south side
[there were no other fires reported in the east half of the south side]
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.: fires on floors 11 and 12 at SE corner, progressing north

About 3:00 p.m., fires on floors 7 and 12 near the center of the north face
The fire on floor 12 spread in both directions, eventually reaching the NE corner

Sometime later, fires on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face. The fire on floor 12 had burned out by this time.
[NIST did not publish this photo]

Flaw in NIST hypothesis, Frame

L-48 [52 on pg counter]
H1.2 Floors 5 and 7: Floors 5 and 7 were thicker and more heavily reinforced than the typical floor systems, and may have been subjected to a large debris load from a vertical collapse within one or more bays.

H1.4 Truss #2 and/or East Transfer Girder: If one of the diagonals of truss # 2 and/or the east transfer girder was damaged or severed by collapse debris from the vertical progression, there would be a horizontal force developed in the Floor 7 slab as columns 77 and 78 became unstable.
H2.7 Collapse Progresses: The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east. The possible result is a failure of all the columns at their splices, as shown in Fig. L49.

1] Truss #2 was between floors 5 and 7 and supported column 77, which supported 40 floors.
It was many times stronger that the floor beams and girders on floor 7.
The floor beams and girders would fail first.
The floor 7 slab would have to collapse before debris could damage truss # 2 and/or the east transfer girder.
There could then be no build up of debris on floor 7 and therefore, very little horizontal force.

2] Figure L-49 does not include columns 62 and 80, or half of Truss #2.
Column 62 was surrounded with a reinforced slab.
Column 80 would have to buckle in 2 places and break at the splice near floor 3 for Truss #2 to collapse.
There were NO fires in this area.

3] They offer no explanation of how the rest of the core columns failed.

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

Posted: Feb 8 2008, 03:30 PM

Active Poster

Group: Members
Posts: 197
Member No.: 126
Joined: 22-October 06

Whatever! angry.gif
How would they explain about foreknowledge of collapse?
It seems to me this explanation just cause conflicts.
Controlled demolition theory covers all.
It is easy to explain when sun is center instead of earth being center.
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | WTC 7 | Next Newest » - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic Options

Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0301 seconds · Archive