This may be considered an uninteresting point but I'll raise it for possible comment anyway.

When WTC1 (North Tower) collapsed you could see the squeezing bellows action on the burning floors. For a brief moment, the flames belched forward and then were smothered by the collapsing building.








Why I find this interesting, is that when the fully engulfed in fire, the towering inferno known as WTC7 started it's collapse I never saw a spark.



MM

fully involved.

Enlighten me as to the significant difference e^n??

MM

'Fully involved' is a term used by firefighters to mean a building with significant well burning fires which require large amounts of manpower to suppress.

'Fully engulfed' is a non-specialist term meaning the entire building would be on fire.

WTC7 was fully involved, it was not fully engulfed. Fires spread and died over the period of time before collapse and a summary of fires seen can be obtained in the NIST preliminary report. This included fires on floors 5-7.

edit: Poor source (being wikipedia) but:

As usual, e^n is providing the entertaining yet pointless message of the day. Let's add a little context: The fires at WTC1 WTC2 and WTC7 were not even close to being fully involved, a quick check of the facts is all it takes - do you recall the fireman stating on LC that he thought the fire was almost out, it would take 1, maybe 2 lines to put it out? Quite quite far from "large amounts of manpower to supress". Anyway, but all this is moot, because as has been illustrated countless times on this list "fully engulfed/involved fires" have _never_ taken down a skyscraper. But deniers don't care for facts.

Yeah but that fireman was talking about fire on one floor.. Unless he could see threwout the building with his superman eyes.

Well some might ignore Wikipedia or "pull it" for that matter.

From a Google Search "fully involved fire";

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categ...cookie%5Ftest=1


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_firefighting_terms


http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/a...24§ionId=45



http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/a...nId=45&id=45569


http://www.carsonphotos.net/firefighters44.htm


From a Google Search "fully engulfed fire";

http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/a...nId=45&id=49247


http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/a...ionId=45&id=982



Apparently others seem to think fully involed equals fully engulfed. Hmm..firehouse.com..you would think firemen would know the difference.


MM

Well, he was there, probably on the floor where the fire was *wouldn't* ya think? But don't believe it, he's only the fireman, that's his job, there at the scene, in person.

Unlike the armchair denier.

Again. Engulfed/involved/whatever - these are not words used to describe this fire.

Again - even if it were engulfed/involved -if that was all that was involved (fire) - the bldgs would not have collapsed as they did. Unless you believe in magic. Superman? I'm starting to wonder here, folks. Ah, go back to your American Idiot/Idol/whatever...sheeple.

Actually my orignal intention wasn't to get caught up in a debate over whether common usage meant that in terms of burning buildings, "involved" equated to "engulfed".

My point was, that considering that WTC1 (North Tower) had fires on relatively few floors and would not have been described as "fully involved" or "engulfed", it's interesting that at the time it began it's collapse, the rapidly increasing air pressure in the impact and other fire floors, caused the flames to belch outwards dramatically, albeit briefly. As the building continued it's descent the fires were smothered.

WTC7, was another huge building with fires, but this one was described by numerous firefighters as supposedly "fully involved by fire", in danger of imminent collapse, leaning, fire from top to bottom etc. Certainly we can't assume they didn't mean fully involved by smoke. When WTC7 went into it's high speed descent, you could see flying debris, squibs, broken windows, dust etc. being projected out...but I never saw a hint of flame, not a spark.

Considering how much flame should have existed to qualify WTC7 as a building "fully involved by fire", doesn't it seem odd that no flames were dramatically belched out, even briefly, during this complete building collapse?

MM

Why does the collapse increase the amount of fire as it happens?

The second frame has more fire than the first. The third frame has more fire than the second. Then, the fire decreases.

if demo squibs are going off, the air pressure would punch out that hole and 'bellows' the fire. wtc7 would have been the same, but no fire to accelerate and it would have happened in the basement

Oh pls so what you are saying is that there was only one floor on fire... Give it a break.

You insult me, but do this by misrepresenting a heroic firefighter. The person you are referring to is Chief Oreo Palmer, he said nothing about the condition of the fire and only "two isolated pockets of fire" on the 78th floor. He was located in the south stairwell at the time and here is NISTs worst case simulation of floor 78:


As you can see, even in NISTs worst estimates the 78th floor fires were nowhere near as serious as those just one floor above.

That's fair enough, wikipedia is hardly an authoritative source.

I took the quote directly from firefighters, you would have to argue with them when it came to what constitutes 'fully involved' in their opinion.

The firefighters who were on the scene seem to disagree with you.

That's a fair point and I can't answer that as I have no idea if any videos exist of the lower levels where fire was as it collapsed.

Because the volume of the space inside the towers is decreasing and as air pressure increases it moves outward to regions of lower pressure. Visible fire (superheated gas) is also pushed out.

Good point.

More like a guesstimate slick...

Guesstimate:

Estimate based on conjecture: an estimate based largely on incomplete information or evidence.

Conjecture:

1. guesswork: the formation of judgments or opinions on the basis of incomplete or inconclusive information

2. something guessed: a conclusion, judgment, or statement based on incomplete or inconclusive information

3. mathematics science unproved theorem: a theorem in science or mathematics that has still to be proved

Without a standing building and burned floors/offices that can be properly investigated, NISTs report fall flat in the fact area. I find it funny how you keep referencing such an incomplete report. It really makes you look like a tool. Have you realized this yet, or are you as ignorant as I think you are?

e^n wrote:

Then let's see the conditions of the floors above. We have here the testimony from two survivors.

Brian Clark was on the 84th floor of the South tower:

So he went down from the 84th floor to the 81st floor, where he met some people ascending from the 80th floor. He did not see a roaring inferno on the 81st floor.

Let's get more details:

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the south tower:

Let's see where stairway A was located and what was so special about the floors they were descending. Fist, see here the location of stairway A, on the north side of the South Tower:




The special thing is that the stairways transferred in the 76th floor:




And so from floor 77-81 the stairways of A and B were located outside the core:



and were transferred back to the inner core on the 82nd floor:




up to the 95th floor:





From the quotes above we could estimate that Clark was about 10-15 minutes after the impact on floor 81 (and not to forget that Ron DiFrancesco went up to the 91st floor and about 10 minutes after Clark and Praimnath descended from there). So we can take the 15 minute figure as reference from the NIST simulation figures, (black box stairway A location):




800 degree ceslsius, seems a little too hot for surviving. Worse on 82nd:


Still not comfortable here:




One might argue that this is only the case in NIST worst-case scenario (D), because in case C, the 81st floor looks like this:




But this wouldn't fit either, when we look at the 80th and 82nd floor of NIST case C:





They could never descend through stairway A from 84th to 79th floor, stop on every floor to look for people, grab someone out from floor 81, experience no high temperatures and see only lingering flames if the NIST estimations (Case C and D) were near reality.

But then again, let's not forget what the NIST figures are: simulations. Not developed to imitate reality as near as possible, but to back up a conclusion already made before the investigations even began: fires brought down the towers.

They were so intense, you could walk through them!!

Before I start, may I point out how nice it is that you backed up your argument? I appreciate that you made an effort rather than reciting previously argued over minor points.

Unfortunately, most of this seems to arise from a lack of clarify from NISTs sources, in NIST NCSTAR 1-5F Appendix A we get to see the floor plans NIST used to construct their model and herein lies the source of the issue:

Indeed NIST seems to have modelled the staircase as being in the 78th floor location for every floor above, here is the schematic diagram of the floor model they used:


As you can see, their location for Stairwell A is clearly visible on every slice you have demonstrated, showing a significantly cooler area located outside the core. NISTs model seems to predict a rather steep temperature gradient but that could also be a result of their modelling technique, it's hard to say. It does appear though that NIST never took into account staircase transfers.

You have again failed to show proof of this, these fire predictions are based on experimental evidence of Heat Release Rates from typical WTC workstations. If you believe they have been manipulated you are throwing some serious doubt onto some well renowned structural engineers and companies.

Your evidence for this so far appears to be a mistake by NIST when it comes to stairwell locations, may I ask what other evidence shows a critical misrepresentation of data?

Why doesn't that happen in WTC 1 or 2, which ever building was the other one we were talking about.

It's a different failure method, WTC1 collapsed rapidly and asymmetrically over approx 2-4 floors, WTC2 collapsed much slower and slightly more asymmetrically over initially only 1 floor. I believe there were 'ejections of fire' but I would have to do more research to answer your question fully.

Exactly!

Pretty pathetic for "renowned structural engineers and companies" :lol:

The problem with you e^n, you think the NIST report is fact... but since most of that report is guesstimates, only proves it's not.

They were supplied the blueprints, you have the name of the company to blame if you wish to raise the issue.

Again you claim that the report is full of 'guesstimates' but the fact is that errors were minimised in the simulation and it did actually match the majority of visible indicators. If it's so full of guesstimates you should be able to show a situation where they have predicted something which did not happen.

Incidentally NK-44 you seem to have misplaced your blocks for stairwell location on your slice images: http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/8090/floor81iq3.png

You can see from the images you quoted and the NIST diagram of floor location that the stairwell was located immediately north of the two westward rows of core columns, your diagram puts it two core columns to the east.

I'm not sure if I follow your confusion as about which building but WTC7 is my primary focus.
It is the WTC7 sub forum after all.

WTC2 wasn't producing the kind of dramatic visible fire just prior to it's collapse as was WTC1. At least I haven't found any any good video yet to grab a comparable series of similar screencaps.

The importance of my series of screencaps (as seen in post 1) taken from the early stages of the WTC1 collapse video, is to illustrate how the upper floors compressed air in the burning floors, much like when you blow on a campfire or use bellows on a fireplace. Only in this building collapse situation, you have a quick all direction whoosh of air and a momentary boost in flames due to a concentration of oxygen. Also, the flames also are pushed outwards in the path of escaping air as you would similarly observe if blowing directly down on a campfire, or a lit birthday cake. This was quickly followed by smothering as floors and dust collapsed and choked the fire.

In WTC7 the skeptics have made much mileage out of all the firefighter quotes about how it was "a fully involved fire", so out of control, that it was too dangerous to fight, in danger of imminent collapse hours before it did etc. etc.

Yet on the opposite side of WTC7, there was virtually not a lick of flame showing throughout the day. There was hardly a broken window as would be expected from super heated air.

When WTC7 did begin it's descent, it was symmetrical, extremely rapid, and maintained a level roof line.

In this squeezed accordion-like collapse, enormous air pressure must have been generated on each collapsing floor, pushing the air a bit down but mostly uniformly outwards, forcing escape through bursting windows all around the building.

If the building contained so much [b]fire as the experts claimed[/b], it couldn't have been located very close to the mostly unphotographed smoky south face of WTC7. Such confinement and 'containment', would have meant it wasn't out of control and thus wouldn't have been much of a dangerous fire, and the flames should have appeared occasionally through the smoke. It would be illogical for unfought, fully involved fire to remain confined, safe from view except for it's smoke, and not spread towards the other building sides feeding on office contents fuel as it progressed. That's what a fully involved fire would be expected to do.

Anyway, we all have repeatedly watched the WTC7 collapse, we've seen windows breaking, debris clouds, etc. but we never see a spark from the flames that constitute this fully involved, out of control, unfought fire.

With air evenly pushing outwards, shouldn't some of this [b]major fire, blasted by rapidly compressed air, and enriched by a concentration of oxygen, have become visible on one of the 3 clearly visible sides of WTC7 during it's collapse??[/b]

This is a very important point, especially considering that when NIST eventually produces their report, it will no doubt claim, as their preliminary statements already do, that they believe WTC7 collapsed due to the impact damage from the WTC1 collapse and the extreme unfought fires that raged iinside throughout the day.

MM

Development of the official "lie" about WTC7 including doctored photos of a raging fire. Misleading timeline which shows how an initial column fails "allegedly" occurs several seconds prior to the global collapse.

NIST report with many guesses!!!!!


Shot of the fire which is (non-technical term) pretty bad.
Doctored video of supposed fire

Close up of the penthouse collapse several seconds prior to the global collapse
Penthouse collapse (note penthouse was added to building after final construction.. but why????)

Its all clear...

From the analysis it is clear. NIST are professionals trying to understand and explain an event that is almost incomprehendible. They are doing it using logic and reasoning. Testing ideas. Comparing those test results with observations. Hmmmmm..... Yes, they do seem like a group of co-conspirators.

I'd believe a group of guys watching videos who disagree about meaningless fire terms. They know more. "You see a team of explosives experts were able to sneek into the building and preset charges so when the planes which really weren't planes hit the buildings 300 ft away they could set it on fire so that they could let it burn most of the day without the explosives going off and then say pull it which of course means pull the thingy that makes the explosives go boom and the building will then fall starting from thebottom although they will use a hologram to make it look like the penthouse starts the tumble first.

What's clear is that you are another NISTian with no constructive intent other than to promote your pro Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) agenda!.

Fire terms are not meaningless when they are used by supposedly expert witnesses (firefighters describing WTC7 as "fully involved") in testimony that many people use as their sole determinant as to whether WTC7 fell due to fire, or not.

"A group of guys...they know more." It's people of all ages, professions, ethic backgrounds and all 'walks of life'. They aren't afraid to think for themselves and question what supposed experts publish as unquestionable truth and fact.

We don't claim to know the logistics of how WTC7 was rigged. It's not difficult to see how it could be done but that would be nothing but speculation. The fact is, it could be done, and the observed event clearly illustrates that it was done.

Explosives, depending on what were used, can be packaged and insulated from fire and remote detonated by encrypted radio signal..it's not rocket science. There clearly is no evidence that WTC7 was anywhere near the inferno firefighter quoters like to make it out to be.

You dig up the 'no plane' extremist view so you can use it to mock the majority of 9/11 Truth seekers who do not share a belief in that theory

Your whole superior mocking tone is just begging to be invited to leave this forum. If I was a moderator, I'd give you a few days suspension for that unjustified posting.

MM

you all saw the huge smoke cloud above wtc 1 and 2 (and above all fires, really)

why is there little smoke above wtc7?

because its a little fire.

e^n wrote:

Thanks for pointing that out.

My bad for beeing so naive that i could rely on the nist-stairway figures, as i didn't expect them to get simple things such as a location of stairways wrong.

so again, my bad to not have back-checked this with more accurate sources.

so i "incidentally" placed the stairways wrong, they are on the west-side.

now what happens when they're placed on the right location?

as we can see the temperatures on the west side are lower than on the east side, but still way too high for people surviving them.

placed right, in Case D the survivors would still had to walk through areas 200-500 degrees celsius.

also in Case C they would be still way too high, only the stairway area in floor 81 seems to be passable. but don't forget that Clark left the stairway and pulled Praimnath from an office. for that they have to walk through over 100 degrees celsius (according to the figure about 200 degrees).

and therefore, this argument doesn't count:

they left the stairway and checked every floor for survivors. according to the NIST-figures they had to walk through temperatures of several hundred degrees celsius.and not forget that on the 82nd floor the stairways were transferred to the inner core, expanding the area they had to walk through.
and besides that, walls were cracked and blown, so the stairways weren't confined and seperated areas anymore.

and not to forget that Ron DiFrancesco descended later, between 15- and 30 minutes, when situation became worse.

i know this will not convince you, as nothing will, but in their testimonies, are they talking of intense heat, dense smoke, roaring flames? no, but shouldn't one expect them to do if the NIST-figures are accurate? yes, one would.

but the NIST-figures are not correct.

if the NIST-figures would be accurate, they could not have survived.

but it's true, the NIST-figures are not as much as inacurrate as i initially thought. the reason for this is that also the NIST-stairway-figures are inacurrate.

so thanks again for pointing out that both NIST figures are inacurrate.

dein übliches bla bla, you consider this to be an argument?


NIST made an investigation about the collapse of the towers without examing the collapse itself. this proves that they never serious considered an alternative theory like demolition, as any signs of demolition only appear in the collapse. not before, nothing will happen to the building unless the button is pushed.
so to verify this thesis they had to look into the collapse. but they haven't, they just had a look into the collapse initiation (and of course people like you will say that they had not to look into the collapse, because after initiation global collapse was inevitable).
this means that only the fire-thesis was considered to be the only possible explanation from the very beginning of the investigation. any real investigation would of course include all observable facts, and of course the collapse itself.

so, count the pages of the NIST-report which are dealing with the collaps itself.
and then tell me how many of the 200+ "renowned structural engineers" have looked into the collapse of the building. none, one or two, 200+? please name names. as then we could exclude all others, as their research didn't contribute to the collapse itself and are therefore not in a stage to make adequate statements about the possibility of a demolition.

the most detailed adressing of the demolition theory NIST made was not part of the NIST report, but of a FAQ-sheet released August 2006.
(NIST FAQ)

Who wrote it? Did all 200+ signed it before? This is the most detailled answer of NIST regarding the demolition thesis and we don't know who wrote it and who supports it.

(Besides that, the argument why they exclude demolition and therefore did not seriously examing this thesis, is one of the stupiest i ever heared:

IF the collapse of the towers was a demolition, it's not too farstretched to assume that it should not look like any normal demolition. Or does NIST know any demolition which pretended to be none, but was executed like a normal demolition? for that, IF the towers-collapse was a demolition, which should be considered as a thesis in a real investigation, then it's not scientific to dismiss this thesis because it doesn't look like a normal demolition. it's obvious that IF it was a demolition it COULD NOT look like one. they exclude the demolition-thesis because the collapse did not look like a normal demolition!! that's not scientific, it's plain stupidity (of course it's actually not lead by stupidity but by the motive to dismiss any thesis other then the one already concluded before the investigation.) )

maybe it's for legal reasons that NIST didn't examine the collapse itself and therefore would not to be blamed for a demolition-cover-up, as they could say: all signs of a demolition occur during collapse, but we never examined the collapse itself. and it was not our job to do so. our job was to deliver scenarios which back up the predicted fire induced collapse.
this implies of course that the overwhelming majority of NIST scientist did not have to be 'in it'
, as none of their work is adressed to the collapse itself, and only a minority with the initiation part.
and for collapse initiation, only a few parameters had to be exaggerated (like the damage to the South tower core, the exaggeration of temperatures, the reducing of the ability of the fireproofing to withstand, etc).


Some revealing facts about the NIST investigation:

got that? leading NIST scientists participating in different investigations which result in different explanations!!!

and not forget NIST John Gross, who denies the existance of molten metal in the basement. two questions come to my mind: did he read the fema-report? did he read the NIST-FAQ sheet? obviously, no.

now let's see how experts, some with ties to NIST or at least supporting their conclusions, made absolute exaggerations, outside the realm of reality, before the investigation begun to make people believe in the fire-thesis.

Matthys Levy, the chairman of Weidlinger Associates and one of the engineers on the study team,

yeah, steel melts in uncontrolled office fires. and that's why blast furnaces were invented.

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

again an incredible expert. but as this was printed on september 12., maybe he was in shock as most and forgot all he learned before about fires and steel melting points.

Not so, Eduardo Kausel, M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering, made this statement a month afterwards:

and a lot of other 'experts', like Elmer Obermeyer, John Knapton, Chris Wise, Richard Ebeltoft made the molten steel claim.


now, they're that kind of experts 'debunkers' referring to from the very beginning, and still do:

In Mark Roberts latest paper you could find some of this experts still linked:
NIST & FEMA reports, 9/11 WTC Tower Collapse Analyses

if you make a poll on the streets you will find that there are a lot of people who will, asked why the towers fell, tell you that this was because the fires melted the steel. this unsientific explanation was pressed into the mind of the people to make them believe the official version, by so called scientists.
and as this happened, 'conspiracy theorists' showed that this would be impossible, but were dismissed, not taken seriously (hey, they're not experts...). but as the 'conspiracy theorist' were succeeding in breaking this false unsicentific dogma, the official explanation shifted in a way, that now 'conspiracy theorists' are labelled as using straw-men tactis. 'nobody claimed that steel melted' are the defenders of the official version now saying. though the 'conspiracy theorists' were right in the first place, the defenders of the official version are trying hard to suggest that 'conspiracy theorist' are using straw-men, stupid accusations. though we all know who brought up the 'steel melted' bullshit. we 'conspiracy theorist's have not and will not forget about these so called experts who deliberatley lied to us to make us buying the official version.

Welcome the 'Official Expert-Gang', they examine a collapse of a building without examing the collapse of the building. they participate in different investigations which lead to contradicting results. they claim the existance of molten steel though none existed, and deny the existance of molten metal (in the basement) though it existed.



I have not to prove that the NIST figures are wrong. This is proven fact by the very existence of Brain Clark, Stanley Praimnath, Ron DiFrancesco.

Instead, it would be on the NIST to prove the accuracy of their figures when they are in conflict with eyewitness testimonies.

As long as the testimonies from Clark, etc are not debunked, the NIST figure is debunked.

Sorry, MM, for hijacking this thread.... B)

It's okay NK-44.

I have a high respect for your research.

MM

Be prepared NK-44, Gravy on JREF is counselling e^n and he's refuting your reply.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2653882#post2653882

MM

Ron is a very lucky fellow. He literally got out just in the nick of time.

Scroll all the way down to the bottom.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

We do not see any explosions from WTC 7 because the building was brought down from the bottom between the 5th and 7th floors. Unfortunately, there are no video or images available of this part of the building during the collapse. There may have been fire balls but with the evidence available in the public domain, we have no way to know.

What we see in WTC 1 at the start of the collapse are fire balls from something exploding in the core. After that the dust from the concrete and the cascading plumes covered up the other interior explosions.

Listen to some of the 911 tapes of people who were on the phones when the building collapse. They didn't get squished, they got fried.

Well I can't say that you are wrong, but I'm not convinced you are right, that it was flame burst from an explosion, and not compressed air. Watching it as video it didn't seem characteristic of an added explosion. It looked like the original flames were receiving a rush of air as the upper tower collapsed downward.

Certainly proof of an explosion would be of more interest though.

I've only heard one recording of a man on cell phone during a collapse so I can't comment on 'what' people appeared to face their last moments. I'd be interested in any links you could pass on?

MM

You are mistaking models with one another, the model you are referring to is a small section of the WTC and the source they used could only provide them with the floorplan for floor 78. You can argue this with the company that provided the plans if you want but it is a genuine error and one that is likely irrelevant to the conclusion.

To be fair, your source was NIST NCSTAR 1-7, occupant egress, instead of the report that you are taking temperature slices from which detailed the floorplans in Appendix A.

No, you got the staircase location wrong according to all sources including yours, I used 'incidentally' to mean it was an additional point I was tacking on to the end.

Bear in mind these are upper level temperatures, they refer to the temperature 0.4m below the ceiling:

Lets not forget that NISTs 82nd floor was not accurate, NIST themselves may have noticed this discrepancy and couldn't explain it:

Still, what you are having a problem with are the upper level fire temperatures which don't represent what anyone would be walking through. I don't have any exact figures but you can see the sort of boundary expected:


I'm not sure if NIST did provide a slice in the other axis at any point, i'll check it out.

So far you have failed to provide any evidence that NISTs simulations are inaccurate. Tell me, how exactly did they characterize the fires and what does NIST say about the fires in that area at that time?

Fair enough, Zdenek P. Bazant has determined that there was adequate energy in the falling upper block to cause global collapse. Gordon Ross disagrees with him but is not a structural engineer and does not understand buckling it would seem.

I can't honestly believe you're making this assertion. You are actually complaining because with refined models and more understanding, people have been able to determine a more likely failure mode? Are you suggesting that unless an engineer is involved in a project that gets it right initially, they have no right to be involved in later research?

I cannot possibly understand where you are going with this. Science dictates that if evidence does not match your predictions, you must re-evaluate your hypothesis. This has clearly been done and a mode of failure supported by the majority of the data and computer modelling now exists.

Or perhaps it is just because their simulation was crude and overpredicted damage? Have you seen their impact analysis compared to NISTs? It is a million miles away from accuracy.

Because one simulation was less accurate and predicted different results. Why is it you seem so fixated on the people involved?

I believe he denied the existence of molten steel, not metal but I am not sure about that.

How many of these are experts when it comes to upper level fire temperatures? How many of them still believe steel melting was the cause of collapse?

So wait, these people lied to you about steel melting to make you buy the official version which is "steel melting was not the method of failure"?

Why don't you contact NIST and ask them about this? Or any of the 3 men you have mentioned? Perhaps you would be able to get some clarification on fire teperatures at lower areas and how hot it actually was and at what time? That way we could clarify this without resorting to baseless accusations?

:huh:

dude, i've not only admitted that i misplaced the stairway location because i relied on misleading NIST-figures, i also thanked you for pointing that out. And my thanks (though my second 'thank you' contained its irony) were meant honestly, as i appreciate it when people prevent me from repeating mistakes.
and as you know i used only NIST-figures. but as the NIST stairway figures are wrong, my stairway-location was therefore also wrong.
so by debunking my stairway location you actually debunked the NIST figures which were my source. and i got that already after your first response, now you hang on it the third time. for me it's the last time: thank you.
if you want to make a 'screw NK-44' paper out of it or make a movie you're of course free to do so.

yes, we all know that heat rises up. though i never tried, i doubt it's possible to walk through a room with several hundred degress under the ceiling but not experience any remarkable heat. furthermore, the stairways have no ceiling every floor, so you could descend/ascend in a continuing space. and as the walls were cracked or blown, we could assume that heat would also enter this space.

and the picture you provided gives an idea how heat spreads, but according to the picture they had to crawl through the floors, which they haven't.

this would be of course usefull. so thanks for checking this out as i don't have the time to do so.

i don't see how this helps your case anyway. besides that, they're not talking in specific about floor 82.
furthermore, now you're saying their figure wasn't accurate. but if i say so you disagree.

and let's not forget that the survivors left the stairway also at least from the 80th to 76th floor, looking for survivors.

i don't think so that i failed. and why should i tell you, how exactly did they characterize the fires and what does NIST say about the fires in that area at that time?

as far as i know Bazants paper was not part of the NIST investigation (though NIST referred to it, afaik), so correct me if i'm wrong. and to Ross paper, though he's not a structural engineer he argues on the basis of common physic principles. you can dismiss this in an pretty arrogant way and saying he doesn't understand buckling, i'd recommend for everyone else to check it out for themselves:

Gross paper

however, my argument still stands and your response did not change that in anyway:

so again: NIST made the conclusion what brought down the towers before the investigations even began. otherwise they HAD TO look closely to the collapse itself, as again, all signs of a demolition only occur in the collapse itself.

how many of the 200+ NIST-experts have researched the collapse?

my accusations came not out of the blue. again:
"Why do the same five or so individuals turn up in investigations relating to terrorist attack, when, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), there are 1.5 million engineers in the US?"
and now to your argument, i consider 'experts' who making false claims over years (FEMA truss-failure) not to be the best for following investigations (besides conflict of interest). they proved to got it wrong so why not take some of the other engineers, there are over a million for choose?
instead taking the very same, though they made it wrong. they not only made it wrong but defended their slurry investigation against all debunking-attempts from 'conspiracy theorists'. 'conspiracy theorists' pointed it out long ago that the FEMA investigation got it wrong, but of course they were dismissed (from the very same people who are now saying such things like you...) with the argument, that they are no experts.
though FEMA was wrong, at least they tried to give an explanation of the collapse. instead of the NIST, who avoided this issue like der Teufel das Weihwasser.

why is the government so fixated on these people when it comes to terror-related investigations?

this has nothing to do with the point i made. it's not about what they believe today. it's about that they made false claims in the days after 9/11 which helped to convince the minds of the masses that it was fire. remember how many people, though shocked and traumatized, in the days after 9/11 remarked the curio of how symmetrically the towers fell, and such things? i do. and the 'molted steel'-message was to impact the minds of the people to buy the fire story.
if they were not experts, why should the media take their word? but if they are experts then they should have known that an uncontrolled office fire (even if ignited by jet-fuel) could not melt steel.
so why claim that though they knew it better? and if they didn't know it better, than they're not experts and by making claims of things they don't know of (especially related to the greatest terrorist attack in history), they show that they have no sense of responsibility.
what they believe today is completely out of interest when it comes to their behaviour and their statements in the media after 9/11.

again, they made this absolute exaggerated statements before any investigation happened. and the reason for it was to make people believe that not a demolition, but fires, brought down the towers. regardless of what the investigations will later claim, this has nothing to do with the purpose to make people believing the official version immediatelys after 9/11 and not to wait a year for investigations.
make a poll on the street, ask why the towers fell and then look how much people say 'because fires melted the steel' or say 'inward buckling of the perimeter columns initiated glbal collapse'.
technically speaking, most people don't know what the (current) official version is, but believe in it because they were feed with the molten steel bullshit. therefore, the whole 'molten steel' operation was successful and resulted in the paradox, that most people believe the official version without knowing it. but that's what counts!
that they don't question anything happended on 9/11. and who cares if this could be carried out with claims, that years later will be revealed as not to be accurate?

why should i? if NIST locates the stairways wrong (or provide other inaccurate figures) it's on me to contact them? r u serious? and what would it help if i contact the three man? do you really think that their testimony will be more accurate almost six years later then in the days after 9/11? i don't think so. besides that, would you follow such advice the other way round?
imagine, in their testimonies it's stated that there was an intense heat, thick smoke and roaring fires. which would back up your case. what would you think when i dismiss it and say: Why don't you contact any of the 3 men you have mentioned? Perhaps you would be able to get some clarification on fire teperatures at lower areas and how hot it actually was and at what time? That way we could clarify this without resorting to baseless accusations?
and do you really think NIST was never ever contacted by sceptics before?
do you really think it had escaped their notice that they never investigated the collapse itself?
so i should contact them and saying: hey, ever noticed that you did not examined the collapse? NIST: oh, ahh, you're right, so, it was , because, you know, we made an investigation of the collapse of a building,ahm, so why should we investigate the collapse?

And later they used the steel melted claim as a strawman argument.

They win at every turn.

A lot of very informative stuff in your posts, nk-44. Thanks.

It should be obvious to most that the reason they didn't do their jobs like they were supposed to and investigate the collapse itself is because there are too many things they could never explain.

Lying cowards.

Experts? You mean like the firefighters whos job it is to recognize and fight fires?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjvlO3PEVz4

Looks like a lot of smoke to me. But to answer your question...you dont see alot of smoke ABOVE WTC7 because the wind pushed it South, just like it did with 1 and 2

You don't see a lot of smoke coming from WTC 7 because it was not coming from WTC 7. It was mostly coming from the raging fires in WTC 5 & 6 and from the Pit.

Sorry, wasn't trying to ignore you or anything. Just haven't been able to put my hands on the link I was looking for. Someone put out a video with a 'live' shot of the Towers, while the guy was talking until the building collapsed. If anyone else remembers that one?