NIST Finally Admits Freefall of WTC7 (Parts II & III)

[reinvestigate911]

9/11 Blogger links:
http://911blogger.com/node/18951">WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)
http://911blogger.com/node/18969">WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)

youtube.com links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtKLtUiww80">WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4">WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)

[reinvestigate911]

1. also of interest

this short video of the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c">north tower exploding

[greyl]

2. Of interest because it proves that WTC7 was damaged by that collapse?

You can plainly see debris coming out of 2 areas on our top-right side of WTC7 after falling debris from the tower hit it.

[whatchamacallit]

10. It's stunning how anyone can watch that and think

"Yep, that looks right. Makes perfect sense what they told us; progressive pancake collapse. Three times in one day? Sure why not, it could happen..."

If for a moment you could let go of your bias, clear your mind of the official narrative and the results of the sketchy report designed to support that narrative, and watch this like it's the first time, I bet you'd begin to see it differently. No one here has ever been able to provide a video, or even photos, of something similar that wasn't CD. The inability to provide even marginal historical reference for what we witnessed is usually explained away with statements like, "We've never had airliners flown into buildings before...". Convenient, but useless in establishing or proving causation for the nature of the collapses. The damage the planes caused to two of the structures does not explain the physics of what followed hours later IMO.

[greyl]

15. Misdirection.

www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#digression

[whatchamacallit]

18. You can point me to some random definitions or

maybe you can tell me in your own words what in my post you found fault with.

[wildbilln864]

35. nobody denies it was damaged a bit....

damage on the top doesn't make a building collapse from the bottom. :eyes:

[LARED]

5. What's of interest to me is how

someone has the imaginative powers to see explosions as the cause of the debris being ejected, but lacks the imagination to deduct simple and logical explanations for the phenomena.

[reinvestigate911]

8. no imagination required, merely simple powers of observation.

but of course, we should all believe LARED, not our own eyes.

[reinvestigate911]

9. if you were under my employ to professionally debate this subject, you'd be on the unemployment line

n/t

[LARED]

12. It's rather difficult to debate a subject you insist on keeping secret. nt

[reinvestigate911]

21. it takes a few minutes to watch the video and understand the argument. try harder.

your transparent attempt at "duh, i fail to see what the argument is" is simply ludicrous.
you're capable of more, yet you insist on keeping the blinders on. why?

[William Seger]

23. You know what the problems are with Chandler's argument

... and you should know that Chandler's latest videos ignores them, yet you insist on keeping the blinders on. Why?

[reinvestigate911]

25. please state the problems; or is this more of the DU "I am rubber you are glue" silliness? n/t

[William Seger]

27. Again?

The major ones were stated multiple times in your previous thread on this same subject, and I don't see any evidence there that you even read what I posted, must less understood what I was saying. Perhaps you can read them again, but I can't have any hope that you will understand them any better if they're restated. And sorry, but Chandler left you high and dry with no answers, either. But here you are asserting that other people are playing games...

[reinvestigate911]

28. state your argument or kindly leave the discussion. n/t

[LARED]

29. I watched the first video and am more convinced than ever

that Chandler is a fraud. He does not even take measurements the same way Gross describes in the video. Gross clearly states the measurement is from the parapet to the roof line. Chandler works backwards from somewhere above the roof line so everything from there is meaningless.

We don't even know if the NIST and Chandler are using the same video.

None of this even matters because the whole notion that the building could have been in "free-fall" for a few seconds is clearly explained in the NIST report.

[William Seger]

42. Chandler is not using the same video as NIST

The video he used was shot from 3 or 4 miles away. The video NIST used was shot from a few blocks away. You'd think that if Chandler is going to accuse the NIST scientists of being accessories to mass murder by lying about their data, he'd prove it using the same video. You'd think an honest researcher would at least mention that he wasn't using the same video, too.

Still in question is whether Chandler is using a video that has MPEG-2 "temporal compression" (i.e. some full I-frames and some "predictive" P-frames between, which only give differences from the I-frames if they are above a set threshold). If so, his measurements at the beginning of the collapse are likely worthless. He may have missed the admonition on the Physics Toolkit software download site against using Quicktime or MPEG video (and these days, that list should definitely include YouTube Flash video). Unfortunately, after only one indignant posting on JREF, Chandler seems to have disappeared and left a lot of questions open, most especially how he explains that slow movement at the beginning of the collapse.

[LARED]

3. Cyber space needs an area for sending

these sort of things. Like a cyberland for misfit CT's that make ordinary people say "so what?"

[reinvestigate911]

4. when a reasonable counter-argument can't be found, just ask "so what?" n/t.

[LARED]

6. Counter argument to what?

Analysis showed a portion of the collapse was in free fall. So what?

Perhaps if you took a few minutes to explain why you think this is important, and what theory you think is propped up by this information, I can understand you better and have a discussion.

[reinvestigate911]

7. denying the fact that a conflict exists is not a valid argument. check the links and try again. n/t

[LARED]

11. Your inability to express a simple explanation for the reasons

you think this issue is important says much.

Again, could you explain what conflict you think exists.

[reinvestigate911]

20. the conflict is fully explained in the OP. please check the links. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

13. Welcome to Contradictionland!

I love how it's all about the "facts" until a troublesome one comes along, then it's "so what"

[LARED]

14. Perhaps you can help. Why is this fact important?

No one seems to be able to write a simple sentence or two to help me out.

[whatchamacallit]

16. I'll try

Barring some unknown force clearing the structure and mass beneath the "pile driver" (top floors), there should have been sufficient resistance to keep the collapse from attaining free fall velocity.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. "Barring some unknown force clearing the structure and mass..."

I take it you STILL haven't tried to read the NIST final report where the progressive collapse that led to that precise state of affairs is explained.

[whatchamacallit]

19. Of course it did, it had to

Doesn't mean we have to buy it.

[reinvestigate911]

22. it's impossible for the NIST hypothesis to remove sufficient support in the required time. n/t

[William Seger]

24. That's called "begging the question" (n/t)

[reinvestigate911]

26. subject matter of the original post is not vague. if you have specific arguments, kindly state them.

[William Seger]

30. Good grief, maybe this will help

Contrary to (somewhat) popular opinion, "begging the question" doesn't mean "raises a question." It's also called "assuming the consequent," if that helps: You're simply assuming and asserting the very thing you're claiming to be proving.

I clearly asked you in the previous thread to tell me how much resistance already-buckled columns would present to the falling mass, and to prove to me that the resistance would be detectable -- within the margin of error -- using Chandler's analysis of that video. And that's assuming the columns remained intact as they were crushed; how much resistance would the columns present if they broke? How much additional energy would the falling floors need to contribute if the columns were still intact, but being pulled inward by the collapsing floors?

Chandler needs satisfactory answers for those questions before his CD hypothesis can even be considered half-baked, but all we get is the naked assertion that only explosives can explain that 2.25 seconds of assumed "free-fall." And if and when he has answers for those questions, he still needs some CD-based explanation for that first 1.75 seconds of slow fall (by NIST's measurements, or even 1 second or so, by Chander's). I don't know why you seem to be having such a hard time comprehending why blowing out columns doesn't explain that period of slow fall, or understanding why it's implausible that the plotters would have blown out columns on 8 floors after they had already initiated a slow collapse that looked like a progressive collapse through some other means. And then, if and when some rational and plausible explanation for all that is presented, it would be nice if he could identify some hypothetical explosives that could take out columns on 8 floors without creating the sound and seismic events that accompany a typical CD when only one floor is blown. (And of course, although not necessarily required, it would be nice if there was something resembling an explanation for how explosives could be planted on all those columns with no building occupants noticing. And the icing on the cake would be some plausible reason why the plotters would have brought down WTC7 in the first place...)

If and when these issues are addressed, then we might assess the plausibility of the CD hypothesis as compared to NIST's. As it stands, scrutinizing the actual implications of Chandler's analysis -- rather than his and your naked assertions about the "only explanation" -- makes the CD hypothesis seem even more preposterous than it already was.

But Chandler has made an appearance on JREF, so perhaps he'll do a better job of addressing these issues.

[greyl]

31. See, you should have posted a "random" link that explained exactly what begging the question means.

(Not that it would have actually helped)

[reinvestigate911]

33. where did you get the idea that said columns were "already buckled"? n/t

[LARED]

34. Have you even looked at what the NIST reports say? nt

[William Seger]

36. Um, that 7-foot slow descent ...

... that you and Chandler are so intent on ignoring.

[reinvestigate911]

37. i see we're finally shifting the clunkety old debunker clown car into gear.

you have two distinct problems in your statement: first, you claim that columns are "already buckled"; and second you claim that there's a "falling mass"; yet you have only NIST's hoax of a "magic column theory" (column 79) to back that up.... oh, that and their multi-million dollar, seven-years-to-produce cartoon.

their mythical sequence of failures--which in turn led to "global collapse"--has no basis in reality. it only exists inside their closed computer model... but here the entire charade is exposed: there's no energy source that could allow for such a rapid succession of failures. fire cannot do this.

so now the onus is on you, mr seger: what caused these columns to be "already buckling" and what initiated the descent of this "falling mass"?

[William Seger]

38. And I see you still don't get it

... or do you find it more convenient to pretend that you don't? Either way, you clearly have no answers to the issues.

Your first "problem" has already been answered: That slow 7-foot descent is much better explained by the columns' initial buckling than by your "explanation" involving explosives -- particularly since you don't seem to even have one.

Your second "problem" hardly makes enough sense to respond to: "{Y}ou claim that there's a 'falling mass'; yet you have only NIST's hoax of a 'magic column theory' (column 79) to back that up." WTF? I thought we had ample videos showing a "falling mass?" At issue is Chandler's claim that the remaining structure should have slowed the fall enough to be detectable in his analysis. I have now explained to you several times that there are at least three possible reasons how that resistance could be "negligible," as NIST says, and you just keep making the same claim like a broken record.

As for "their mythical sequence of failures--which in turn led to 'global collapse'--has no basis in reality," again you're begging the question. That's what you're supposed to be proving.

[reinvestigate911]

40. convenient?

do you mean convenient, as in it was convenient for NIST to deny free fall for 7 years, and then when they were put on the spot by a high school physics teacher they conveniently had this for a response:

"Well...um...the...first of all gravity...um...gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure...um...at...um...applies....to every body...every...uh...on...all bodies on...ah...on...um... this particular...on this planet not just...um...uh...in ground zero...um...the...uh...the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."

is it this kind of convenience that you're referring to? or do you mean that it's convenient that after their seven years of denial of free-fall acceleration NIST then concedes to the measurement and claims after-the-fact of their further denial (upon confrontation) that it confirms their analysis? do you really think NIST lacked the capacity to identify this on their own? i mean, bill... you seem like a smart guy: was it simple ignorance, or did they deny free-fall because they, too, understand newton's third law of motion, just as stated in sunder's quote above? or does it stroke your ego to just call someone stupid in so many words?

it is impossible to have that many columns fail in the split second of time required to allow for 2~ seconds of free-fall AND near-symmetrical collapse without an external energy source. in fact, what we see is the building tilting back slightly, yet the roofline maintains near-perfect alignment horizontally during its descent. i will beg you this question, however, mr. seger: would you agree that as a controlled demolition, it would have required a great deal of thought and planning to pull off?

i would venture that blowing those columns in the 8 floors would be sufficient to unlock enough of the building's potential energy to use the building's mass to crush the rest of it... and with the columns blown out, then yes, certainly, those floors would provide negligible resistance -- because in fact their structural supports would have been completely removed -- just as sunder describes above. without that occurring then, no; no way, impossible. the report is a sham. a lie. a hoax... and a coverup. but you go right ahead believing it, cause you know... everything else about 9/11 makes perfect sense. the WTC 7 report is just anomalous... just an innocent mistake on that free-fall thing. oops.

[William Seger]

43. Broken record?

We're not getting anywhere, but if you wanna just play tag, then you're "it."

[AZCat]

39. I've asked you this before...

What exactly do you mean by "closed" computer model?

[reinvestigate911]

41. what do you think it means? n/t

[AZCat]

44. Instead of playing a guessing game...

why don't you tell me what you mean?

[reinvestigate911]

45. some things really are self-evident

closed computer model means that the computer models which NIST used to simulate the collapse are not available for download, nor are any of the data sets generated by the NIST models available for download. it is a closed model. we cannot know how the software was created, what data sets were fed to it, and we cannot view the output. we simply have to take their report in good faith; of course, people who lie about free-fall acceleration, get caught lying about free-fall acceleration, then stick free-fall acceleration into their report 7 years later after spending $20 million dollars of taxpayer money should be taken at at their word... it's not a matter of faith, that's the scientific way.

[AZCat]

46. Have you asked NIST for the models?

You do remember that they made their SAP2000 model of the WTC towers available to those who requested it, and that other information was available to others upon request (like the database containing information about all the structural elements of the WTC towers)? Just because they didn't put a link on the WTC investigation page doesn't mean the NIST isn't going to share the information that they can (some of it isn't part of the public domain, like the blueprints for the WTC towers). As for the software, some of it is commercially available and some was created by NIST, including the FDS (which you can download here), used by at least one AE911Truth member to compare to the NIST WTC7 report (Chris Sarnes is the AE911Truth member, IIRC).

For someone who claims to know so much about the work of the NIST, you seem to be strangely ignorant of some of the more basic answers.


ETA: As far as things being "self-evident", I long ago learned that 9/11 conspiracy theorists have a language all of their own. Rather than assume someone's intended meaning, it's far easier to just ask for clarification.

[AZCat]

69. Still waiting for some sort of retraction...

I'm not holding my breath.

[reinvestigate911]

73. have i requested anything from NIST? no, but FIOA forms have been filed and denied. fact. n/t.

[AZCat]

79. Not that's a stupid claim.

Because FOIAs have been denied, you're allowed to make up whatever slander you want about NIST? Did you ever think that maybe these FOIAs were written by idiots and deserved to be denied?

[Bolo Boffin]

32. That is not true. Read the report. n/t

[david_watts]

47. Another post applicable to this post

(Comment edited at 12:18 1-7/09)

This NIST proof applies directly to the videos referenced in this post.

9/11: NIST Provides the Proof 9-11 was an Inside Job / False Flag Attack.


The following simple proof regarding World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) comes from David Chandler’s excellent and invaluable video series, “NIST Admits Free Fall.”


NIST’s proof that 9/11 was an inside job / false flag attack goes like this:

I. Given that a crumpling or naturally collapsing building absorbs energy making free fall impossible (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth);

II. And Given that NIST agrees: Free fall is impossible in a building crumpling or collapsing naturally due to structural resistance (Shyam Sunder, NIST);

III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural resistance for a building to free fall.



IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall; .................

Full proof:
http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=11488

[Bolo Boffin]

48. Is there a reason you posted this here after starting a thread on this same post of yours?

There is a certain amount of blogwhoring allowed around here, but come on.

[david_watts]

49. I only commented here because it applies directly to the post.

I only commented here because it applies directly to the post. I was trying to tie the two together. I thought it might add to the discussion. Sorry if you think that is inappropriate. Perhaps it is.

[reinvestigate911]

53. don't be bullied; it's on topic. n/t

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

51. Thanks, that makes it easier to spot the flaws in the argument.

Specifically, since assertions I and II are both false, there isn't any reason to go any farther.

In a "crumpling or naturally collapsing building," there is no rational reason to assume that the structural resistance will be constant. The structural elements will only present resistance up to their failure point, after which there will be a brief period of virtual free-fall until the falling pieces encounter the next set of intact elements. So, if you look at any collapse with enough granularity, you should expect to see periods of free fall, punctuated by periods of resistance. On a large scale -- e.g. on the scale of the initial NIST report: the fall down to the 29th floor -- Sunder was exactly right. If you want to beat up on Sunder and NIST for not looking at the collapse with enough granularity to detect that 2.25 seconds of free-fall -- which didn't happen until after the total collapse had already begun, at much less than free-fall -- then go ahead. But that doesn't make assertions I and II true.

Not only has Chandler failed to prove that the 2.25 seconds of free-fall can only be explained by explosive demolition, he hasn't really made any attempt whatsoever to prove it -- not even a half-assed attempt. He just asserts it, while completely ignoring the possibility that columns buckling or even breaking over a height of 8 floors might well explain it. He invites people to fall for a logical fallacy: If NIST was wrong about some detail, then Chandler's demolition speculations must be right. That's bullshit.

And I still have yet to see any CD-based explanation for that first 1.75 seconds, 7 feet of falling, before Chandler's "sudden onset" of free-fall, by the way. Got any?

[reinvestigate911]

52. what makes you think chandler has to offer an alternate hypothesis in order to disprove NIST's?

that's a logical fallacy and a rather dumb assumption.

it's not necessary to prove controlled demolition in order to expose NIST's fraud.
also, the 1.75 seconds is irrelevant. it means nothing in relation to free-fall.
and your claim about free-fall "on a large scale" is completely false: it is impossible for the near-symmetrical collapse (roofline collapsing at near perfect parallel to the horizon) and have "periods of free fall, punctuated by periods of resistance". this is utter bullshit and you should be ashamed for promoting such mumbo-jumbo.

finally, you seem to forget that:

1. NIST vehemently denied free-fall for seven years
   
2. when confronted with evidence of free-fall in a public forum, they back-pedaled with some ridiculous grammar school explanation of the affect of gravity on "all bodies on this particular planet" making themselves look rather foolish
   
3. next, they decide to include the measurement of free-fall -- after the fact of their multi-million dollar cartoon and seven-years-to produce "non-granular" report -- yet the cartoon's collapse sequence does not depict conditions which would allow for free-fall acceleration and near symmetry in the collapse
   

so what do you think is the case: that NIST overlooked this easily measurable quantity for lack of "granularity" in their investigation and that it took a high school physics teacher to point this out to them? or that they're covering something up?

it's not a trick question, bill... and i've asked it more than once.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. He at least needs to disprove NIST's explanation to disprove it

So far, all he's done is verify it.

Please include a reference of NIST vehemently denying free fall seven years ago when responding to this post.

[reinvestigate911]

55. they denied free-fall in their FAQ until they edited it.

there's also this brilliant quote:

"Well...um...the...first of all gravity...um...gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure...um...at...um...applies....to every body...every...uh...on...all bodies on...ah...on...um... this particular...on this planet not just...um...uh...in ground zero...um...the...uh...the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Which shows their ability to modify their theory as more data is presented

Which is what scientists do.

Keep making fun of Sunder's stuttering. That is what 9/11 CT advocates do.

What Chandler discovered is not a contradiction of what Sunder said and you bolded. Over the first 5.4 seconds of the descent of the roof parapet, the roof line fell 18 floors. That's 40% slower than if it had descended under free fall acceleration. Chandler didn't disprove that at all. This is why the 40% figure is still in the Final Report -- it's still accurate.

What Chandler discovered actually verifies their model. The 2.25 seconds of free fall corresponds to the point at which eight floors had lost all structural stability and allows the upper section to fall. NIST's explanation provides the mechanics on how this was possible.

[reinvestigate911]

59. funny how he only stutters when he can't answer honestly. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

62. Your cheap shots aren't helping your creditibility. n/t

[reinvestigate911]

63. technically he's not "stuttering"

sunder doesn't have a "stuttering problem" and it's disingenuous for you to portray this issue as such. also, my comments are based on an observation of his speech patterns, compared to his speech elsewhere in the presentation.
notice the lack of "uh" and "um" and the disjointed phrases in other portions of his presentation.

from 5 tips: how to tell if someone is lying to you:

3. Lapses in logic. Being honest does not necessarily make someone a good storyteller. Stuttering, stammering and needless repetition is not necessarily a sign of deception, but it should be seen as an early warning. Honest but nervous people may not be able to recount a story in a linear way, but they generally have a solid timeline to follow. Liars tend to pick and choose the moments to recount after an incident. Describing an experience that didn't actually happen is very difficult, because there are always minor details a liar will forget. Liars try to avoid providing specifics because of this.

A liar will usually keep the details of a fictional story to a bare minimum or else become too elaborate for credibility. The best way to spot a liar is to allow him or her to tell the complete story until he or she is satisfied it has been told. Once their version has become public record, it is much easier to point out specific lapses in reason or logic. A dishonest witness may claim to have seen a suspect in an alley, but won't remember how she arrived on the scene. A lying spouse may suggest he or she had a late business meeting, but cannot recall the name of the client. Liars also tend to 'remember' important details as their stories begin to unravel. Honest people may forget minor details, but they rarely have sudden flashes of memory while being interrogated.

source: http://www.essortment.com/lifestyle/tipshowtote_szfi.htm

see also: www.umthebook.com

[reinvestigate911]

60. millions of dollars and seven years of investigation and a high school physics teacher

... miraculously discovers data which forces NIST to modify their theory?
... and the word gullible is not present in the dictionary.

[Bolo Boffin]

61. Your third response in this subthread, and still no evidence that NIST worked on this for 7 years

In fact, you've asserted it again with zero evidence to back it up.

The thing about science is that anyone with the right tools can discover it. Did you know that Darwin was not the naturalist aboard the Beagle?

Nothing, I repeat, nothing that Chandler discovered has disproven any part of NIST's explanation of how 7 World Trade fell. It has verified their computer modeling.

I would check your dictionary if I were you. Someone has lied to you about the presence of gullible there.

[reinvestigate911]

64. that's your counter-argument? there's no evidence that NIST took 7 years to prepare their report?

:rofl:
i knew there was a good reason i took you off ignore: comedic value.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. Again, you present no evidence for your claim

No surprise, since it's factually inaccurate. You're already starting to slide the goalposts toward something more rational.

NIST did not work for seven years on this problem. Please correct your rhetoric.

[reinvestigate911]

68. ok then, how much time would they need to measure free-fall on their own?

better phrased: is it scientific to refute evidence before you've researched it?

why exactly then did NIST deny free-fall? because their measurements weren't accurate? it's absurd for you to claim that free-fall supports their hypothesis, yet they denied the fact for any length of time... why wouldn't they include everything they discovered about the collapse from the outset, rather than back-pedaling after being confronted with it?

why would they leave out something that strengthens their claim?

hope that debunker clown car has an ejection seat, because you're driving off the cliff in reverse, sir.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. No, no, no. First admit that you were being factually inaccurate about how long NIST studied this

I want to see if you can admit a mistake.

[reinvestigate911]

72. NIST was studying the entire WTC collapses since 2002. what is your point?

this must be more of your sub-thread tar-trap of silliness designed to bog readers of the forum down. please stop.

When did the investigation begin and when will it be completed?
The investigation officially began on Aug. 21, 2002. When the NCST Act was passed in October of that year, the WTC investigation was moved under its authorities. The final report on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 was issued on Oct. 26, 2005. The investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 will be completed in 2008.

source: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.htm

and you're evading the question. the question was: why did it take being confronted by a high school physics teacher on the fact of free-fall for NIST to acknowledge it -- and only after they had denied this easily measurable quantity for years?

was it oversight?

[Bolo Boffin]

77. So that right there would be just over six years when the report on 7 was released...

...and as this FAQ points out:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

Why did the investigation take so long to complete?
The overall NIST investigation began on Aug. 21, 2002. Early in the investigation, a decision was made to complete studies of the two tower collapses (WTC 1 and WTC 2) before fully proceeding on the WTC 7 investigation. A major technical conference on the draft reports on WTC 1 and WTC 2 occurred on Sept. 13-15, 2005. The time between the technical conference on the WTC towers report and the issuance of this draft WTC 7 report is approximately three years, comparable to the length of a typical investigation of an aircraft crash.

The WTC 7 investigation was an extensive, state-of-the-art reconstruction of the events that affected WTC 7 and eventually led to its collapse. Numerous facts and data were obtained, then combined with validated computer modeling that is believed to be close to what actually occurred. A single computer simulation of the structural response to fires took about eight months to complete on powerful computing workstations and clusters.

They didn't start major work on the WTC 7 investigation until Sept. 2005, which means they've been dedicated to study the collapse of 7 for around three years. Not seven years, which you continue to try to fob off on people. Three years.

But since your fantasies have little to do with the facts, I'm sure this means nothing to you.

[reinvestigate911]

75. nevermind, you're back on ignore for retreating back to silliness. n/t

[William Seger]

57. Step 1 would be to "disprove NIST's"

I understand that you have no rational response to the issues I've raised, but do you also not understand the meaning of the word "disprove?"

NIST says that the 2.25 seconds of free-fall (which may really be "near" free-fall) can be explained by the 8-floor buckling that they saw in their FEA model: If the columns were severely buckled, they would present "negligible" resistance. (And if they were in fact broken, they would present precisely zero resistance.) Please direct me to where Chandler or anyone else "disproves" that.

Yes, I do believe that NIST simply took the starting point and the last visible point in the video they were examining to calculate an acceleration, and did not look at it with any greater granularity. Chandler's accusation that they must have done so and must have intentionally covered up what they found is bald-faced slander, completely unsubstantiated, and as long as Chandler takes that attitude, then he should expect to be considered a polemicist and propagandist rather than a serious scientific researcher. I would have done the same thing NIST did, and I've just explained to you why I wouldn't expect that examining the fall with higher granularity would tell you anything useful. Did you just blow off that explanation with hand-waving because you don't understand it or because you do understand it and don't like the leak that your argument has sprung? I have said many times on this board that you can't tell whether WTC7 was a demolition or a natural collapse, one way or the other, by just looking at videos of the top falling. In either case, the only thing the top "knows" is that the bottom isn't holding it up any more. If you don't even understand why Chandler has completely failed to disprove that contention, then I have to assume that the "debate" is over, and thank you for your opinions.

[reinvestigate911]

58. leaving the conversation so soon?

just as NIST started with a presumption and worked backwards, it appears as though you're following suit:

"If the columns were severely buckled, they would present "negligible" resistance. (And if they were in fact broken, they would present precisely zero resistance.)"

while that’s a compelling argument; it is also a dishonest argument as it's based on a faulty premise: that the presumed cause of collapse (as inferred in the progressive collapse hypothesis) is indeed the cause which created the effect. NIST claimed that there was a sequence of events leading to global collapse and that the sequence of events would prevent free-fall. do i need to point out that they stated as much in their FAQ (before chandler exposed the inconvenient fact of free-fall)?:

In videos, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

WTC 7 did not enter free fall. According to NIST analysis of WTC 7 video, the building collapsed 18 stories in 5.3 seconds. If the building exhibited free fall, this process would have taken just 3.9 seconds. The actual collapse time exceeded the free fall time by 40 percent.

while they have revised this in their current FAQ, your contention that since the collapse starts out slowly and enters free-fall later "is more supportive of the NIST position", is not unique; however, it does have its own problems because in order for the building to achieve free-fall as quickly as it did, those eight floors had to offer zero resistance.

to quote tony zamboti:

The actual acceleration rate in the towers is about .75g for the first several seconds of the collapse.

I know this because Professor Graeme MacQueen and I have used software to separate the Sauret film of WTC 1's collapse into 3,500 separate frames and have measured the acceleration of the roofline every 165 milliseconds from the start of the collapse through its first 114 feet. After that it is obscured. Knowing distance traveled over time you can derive acceleration and velocity. The only way a natural collapse could have occurred is for there to have been a large impulsive load after the first floor collapsed in order to generate an amplification and overcome the factor of safety in the columns. However, an impulsive load requires deceleration. Guess what, there is no deceleration to be found.

In the case of the towers the acceleration rate shows there was some mild residual resistance and (sic) this type of acceleration would occur if key columns were blown and others were dragged down.

The 2.25 second free-fall found in WTC 7 is obviously due to a large number of columns being blown across the building. The resistance at that point was completely removed.

I would argue that the need to overcome the factor of safety in the columns requires an impulsive load to generate the needed amplified force and that in turn requires deceleration. Free-fall isn't possible in a progressive collapse, there would have to be deceleration. The fact that the collapse does decelerate after the 2.25 second free-fall proves the point and nobody can argue the resistance was negligible earlier since the momentum would be even greater 3 seconds into the collapse. The fact that there was no resistance for 2.25 seconds and then all of a sudden deceleration is observed can only be explained by columns being blown during the 2.25 seconds.

and more:

There is no chance that an entire eight floor section of a 300 foot long x 145 foot wide building could buckle symmetrically and cause no resistance to the progression of the upper mass. The motion and timing we see would occur if the interior columns were blown first down low, to get things leaning inward, and then the entirety of eight lower floors were blown in sequence from bottom to top. The notion that the entire interior could fail asymmetrically with no external effects, as observed in video of the collapse, and then have the exterior fail in a symmetric way is ridiculous.

given the time and resources provided by The People, your belief that NIST would perform such an arbitrary investigation into the worst act of terrorism against The People is very curious indeed; and the fact that you accuse someone of slander for questioning NIST's investigation is, frankly, reprehensible.

that's a lotta water to carry, mr. seger.

[William Seger]

65. Oh no, I wouldn't do that. What I said was the "debate" was over

... since you can't actually substantiate your assertions. All you can do is keep making them and quoting other people making them.

There was nothing dishonest about my argument, since my argument is simply that you are making unsubstantiated assertions. You are asserting that the 2.25 seconds of free-fall prove that 8 floors of columns were (needlessly and silently) blown out (after the collapse had already started), and I am simply pointing out that: A) you have proved no such thing, since there is a much more plausibly explanation available; and one of the reasons it's much more plausible is that B) what you're suggesting doesn't make a lick of sense when examined closely.

And I seemed to have missed the part where Chandler was "questioning NIST's investigation." To me, it sounded a lot like he was accusing them of deliberately lying to cover up a mass murder, with no evidence whatsoever to back up that accusation. That sort of slanderous behavior seems to be rather common among conspiracy crackpots, and it's one of the reasons that they marginalize themselves with little help from anyone else. It's the crackpot's way of telling himself, "They know I'm right, so they must be lying."

[reinvestigate911]

67. silently?

bill, you must really enjoy gargling with NIST's bullshit; but for as many times as you repeat it, it's still bullshit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFV0T_HLRuc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQY-ksiuwKU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBOel-LyJ_E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUGCOs48kYk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lxyqb7GbUfo

nytimes reports on evaporated steel: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B63

foreknowledge:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/MacQueenWaitingforSeven.pdf

and while not exclusively WTC 7 related, there's this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD6ibU8DaFw

and this paper:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

crackpots? the fact that you promote the blatant government lie, in my mind, is absolutely disgusting, soul-less, and sick.
i live in manhattan. i talk to a good number of people each day and many of the people i know in and out of my professional circles accept the reality of government complicity in the events of 9/11. many of the first-responders know. many of the family members also know.

do you think everyone who doubts the government narrative of 9/11 are all crackpots?

i attended the anniversary services at ground zero this year, accompanying members of the truth movement. i was surprised at how many of the firefighters there expressed solidarity with our cause... it was an incredibly emotional experience to witness their acknowledgment and silent dignity as we marched. several in fact gave us the universal "closed-fist" of solidarity sign (please spare me the "that was your interpretation" joke). the hoax will be fully exposed.

[William Seger]

70. Your frustration is showing

It isn't my fault that you can't prove your assertions.

> "do you think everyone who doubts the government narrative of 9/11 are all crackpots?"

There is an enormous gap between "doubt{ing} the government narrative of 9/11" and believing -- with religious fervor and unshakable certitude -- highly implausible things on the basis of highly dubious evidence and reasoning. Since long before 9/11, I have called the latter group crackpots. If the shoe fits...

> "the fact that you promote the blatant government lie, in my mind, is absolutely disgusting, soul-less, and sick."

Okay, now I will leave the conversation; you're getting too obnoxious.

[reinvestigate911]

74. bye... and thanks for arguing my point for me.

having doubt of the official narrative also suggests that those having these doubts feel that many of the questions around 9/11 were not answered honestly.

this means that many people believe that the USG lied to the citizens of the US, and to the world.
but we're not here to discuss opinions, nor my opinion of you. trust me, you want to hear it anyway.

[William Seger]

76. You are so busted, dude

It's beyond absurd the suggest that silent explosives blew out 8 floors in WTC7 (especially 1.75 seconds after it was already falling). In videos of real controlled demolitions -- where, as most sane people know, it's only necessary to blow out one or two floors -- the sound of the explosives is unmistakable, even from a considerable distance. That's exactly why "truther" Richard Gage doesn't let his audiences hear the soundtracks of the demolition videos that he uses to sucker gullible fools into believing the same idiotic nonsense he believes about WTC7. Hey, if it looks like a CD, then it must be a CD, and that's close enough to the "truth" for anyone, huh? We wouldn't want the rubes to be tempted into falling for "government lies" just because WTC7 doesn't sound anything like a CD or cause the seismic disturbances that CDs cause, huh?

In your post pretending to answer to that point, the very first scene of the very first video you linked to is one that keeps popping up. According to another principle of what's laughably called "truther logic," if it sounds like an explosion then it must be explosives, and it doesn't matter if it was long before any collapse; it's still "proof" that explosives brought down the buildings.

I've never been able to find out when and where that video was shot, and nobody else seemed to know, either. You certainly do not -- nor do you care one whit. All you care about is that it's useful to sucker more gullible fools into believing the same idiotic nonsense that you believe about WTC7.

But one version on YouTube had a comment that said it looked like Broadway and Murray. Sure enough, using the "street view" photos in Google maps, I've found that phone booth: It's on the north side of Murray, just west of West Broadway:





When the camera turns and shows another fireman approaching from east on Murray, we can see that the sun is almost directly behind him:



Using the sun position calculator on the Naval Observatory website, we can tell when the sun was in that approximate position on 9/11/2001 in NYC:

Astronomical Applications Dept.
U.S. Naval Observatory
Washington, DC 20392-5420

NEW YORK, NEW YORK
o , o ,
W 73 55, N40 44

Altitude and Azimuth of the Sun
Sep 11, 2001
Eastern
Standard
Time Altitude Azimuth (E of N)

h m o o
...
09:00 37.0 121.5
09:10 38.6 123.9
09:20 40.2 126.5 <---
09:30 41.7 129.1
09:40 43.1 131.9
09:50 44.5 134.7 <---
10:00 45.8 137.8
...

The table gives Standard time, but NYC was on Daylight Savings time on 9/11, so the video was probably shot sometime between 10:20 AM and 10:50 AM. In other words, it was probably shot between the times that WTC2 and WTC1 collapsed, or it may have been somewhat after WTC1 collapsed. WTC7, of course, collapsed some 7 hours later. I don't know what that sound was (or if it's been faked), but we are certainly not hearing the "explosives" that caused the "sudden onset of free-fall" in WTC7 (some 1.75 seconds after the whole building was already falling).

But you don't give a shit about that, do you; you just think it's great shit to post after saying that I "must really enjoy gargling with NIST's bullshit." You think it's great shit to post before saying, "the fact that you promote the blatant government lie, in my mind, is absolutely disgusting, soul-less, and sick."

You are not the least bit interested in having "questions around 9/11" answered; you want to peddle bullshit instead of answers. You and your entire "movement" are truly pathetic, dude, and I seriously believe that most of you are in need of professional mental health care.

[Bolo Boffin]

78. Just after the collapse of WTC 1? Wow. Thanks for that.

Which makes what the approaching fireman said even more clear: "The city's exploding."

[reinvestigate911]

80. laughable. but good try.

bill, you're reaching... and all you guys must be shitting yourselves with these new cabinet appointments.

[reinvestigate911]

81. because i don't believe you really saw it the first time. once more, with fresh eyes...

i recommend you refuel the clown car if you want to take a shot at debunking this video of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c">the north tower exploding

[david_watts]

82. only very marginally different than absolute free fall

NIST agrees to 2.25 seconds (about a full 1/3 of the collapse) of ABSOLUTE free fall. Their other data -- Chandler's too -- shows the rest of the fall only very marginally different than absolute free fall. What do your eyes and mind tell you? They say the ENTIRE collapse was for ALL intents and purposes a symmetrically complete free fall. To try to argue that a very slight deviation from ABSOLUTE free fall means that a not very big and asymmetrical fire caused the complete and virtually perfect symmetrical collapse is intellectually dishonest. Go watch the video again ten times in a row and tell me that is NOT a building in virtual free fall ALL THE WAY DOWN and that it is crumpling and naturally collapsing.

[LARED]

84. No where does the NIST indicate they are referring to

ABSOLUTE free fall.

If I'm wrong please let me know.

[david_watts]

86. The final report from NIST on WTC7 refers to "free fall" and "gravitational acceleration."

The final report from NIST on WTC7 refers to "free fall" and "gravitational acceleration." Their data in a graph also shows free fall acceleration. The word "absolute" is mine to differentiate free fall from marginally different free fall. 'Free fall' and 'absolute free fall' are the same thing. NIST admitted to free fall for one third of the collapse -- 2.25 seconds. Their other data shows only slightly slower than free fall for the rest of the collapse.

[LARED]

87. I would recommend you read the NIST reports nt

[BunnyBluetimes]

83. We do not need any NIST, FBI, CIA,

or CNN reports to tell us how a steel structure falls because of an isolated fire. There are no excuses and any they come up with are embarrassing. Let them explain why World Trade Center Buildings 6 and 5 withstood the fire.

The 9/11 truthers relentless probing into the bush administrations actions will put pressure on the weakest individuals surrounding this administration to come forward with more evidence. I would also like to remind everyone that there is a significant portion of sound missing from these government released films so be careful when seeing but not hearing released government film. There may be the sound of a rattlesnake when turned up loud.

The government has failed to close this case in 7 years, because no thorough investigation followed the attacks.

[AZCat]

85. Actually, we do need the NIST for that.

Perhaps you are not aware of their enormous contributions to building science in general and fire protection systems in particular? The NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) has all sorts of great research. Check out their site - BFRL.

[BunnyBluetimes]

88. We should give our modern world a little more credit than that

Fire does not bring down American steel structures in a matter of minutes or hours. This is evident by the surrounding world trade centers that suffered a beating on 9/11 but withstood all debris and fire, even when a large hole could be seen from the helicopter view the buildings stood on 3 legs or 2. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? The Murrah was cut in half but our engineers are so advanced they can erect buildings that can be blown in half but still stand. The problems with the official 9/11 story will continue as long as these faulty reports are released every year or so.

[AZCat]

89. Plenty of fire safety engineers will disagree with you.

Fires, particularly in buildings without operable active fire suppression systems (like WTC 7 - only the top third was active) are potentially catastrophic. I suggest you read up on the 1975 fire in the WTC towers (I don't remember which one), especially O'Hagan's analysis of the fire and its consequences. If the fire department response hadn't been as prompt, the results could have been significantly worse.

[BunnyBluetimes]

91. 5 hours , 1 hour ,40 minutes

This is a serious problem with 9/11. The time it takes for the buildings to fall should be considered and reviewed by the proper experts. Who would use these engineers ever again if all those years of construction labor could be brought down in minutes or hours?

Time is no sacrifice in this investigation.

[William Seger]

93. Some experts ARE critical of the NIST report

... e.g. http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=james_quintiere_1">James Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, with over 35 years of experience including 19 years with NIST's fire program and including being a former chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science.

But his criticism of the NIST report is NOT that the towers should have been expected to withstand fires of that scope and intensity. Instead, he challenges NIST's hypothesis that the towers would have survived the fires if fireproofing had not been stripped off of columns by the plane crashes (something that certainly happened to one extent or another). Instead, he believes the fireproofing was inherently inadequate to withstand unfought fires, even if it were fully intact.

[AZCat]

97. The time it takes for buildings to fail HAS been considered by the proper experts.

That group, by the way, would include the NIST. There are valid criticisms of both the scope and the methodology of the NIST investigations by other experts. In particular, the recommendations of the NIST to the various code and standard organizations have received significant criticism.

Five hours is a long time for a building to burn. Not all buildings nor all building fires are the same, though, so expecting one building to fail after approximately the same duration of fire as another is oversimplifying the problem.

[William Seger]

90. Our modern world is rife with bullshit

If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. The only people who say that fires couldn't bring down the towers are people who don't know what they're talking about, and they aren't spreading that bullshit because they're concerned about fire safety.

[BunnyBluetimes]

92. It appears that way for some people, Not

one more day should be spent discussing the absurdities of buildings or fire. But we're still talking about it. I appreciate everyone's interests in a subject that is dear to me, we can see progress in the making.

[William Seger]

94. Please read the links in my post above (n/t)

[BunnyBluetimes]

95. James Quintieres criticisms are very valid

because the NIST did not have clearance to view any adequate amounts of the WTC debris, so the computer models are guessing what may have happened. I also agree with Quintieres question that states, "Why didn't the NIST review alternate collapse hypothesis?". Poor engineering should be factored in, one plane may have traumatized and shattered the steel core like a human spine, the sudden WTC collapse with no resistance would be a result of this trauma. Given the time frame and manner in which all 3 buildings fell, investigators should have been allowed access to all of the steel that received major damage, then allowed to reconstruct the portions of the WTC's that were impact areas. Thanks for the link.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. Incredible.

William explains how 9/11 CD advocates persistently misuse what Quintiere says, and Bunny comes along and proves William's point by misusing what Quintiere says in exactly the way William described.

Incredible.

[William Seger]

98. I chose that link deliberately

... to see if you would try to figure out what Quintiere's actual criticism is. That site only lists Quintiere's points that seem to parallel "truth movement" criticisms of NIST and ignores anything that would clue you that Quintiere is certainly not a "truther." That's why I gave a link to one of Quintiere's papers. Many 9/11 conspiracy propagandists like to use some of Quintiere's criticisms of the NIST report to lure fuzzy thinkers into jumping to the conclusion that if there is anything wrong with the NIST report, then conspiracy crackpots must be right that the towers were demolished by the government. If you don't already know why that's a logical fallacy, then this is a good case in point: In fact, Quintiere's concern is that NIST's report gives the impression that the collapse was an extraordinary event that is only a concern when 767s crash into buildings built like the WTC towers, whereas Quintiere believes that the collapses indicate fundamental shortcomings in both building codes and design practices for steel construction. When Quintiere criticizes NIST for not looking deeply into other hypotheses for the collapses, he is NOT indicating that he thinks those hypotheses ought to include explosives and/or 10 different kinds of thermite and/or mini-nukes and/or Death Star beam weapons. He is saying that the actual failure mechanism might involve factors that could come into play with any "ordinary" office fire, in building not hit by 767s. If Quintiere is right, then the NIST recommendations are not extensive enough.

But whether or not Quintiere is right is a subject for experts to debate. The only point here is that conspiracy crackpots who don't know what they're talking about have nothing useful or constructive to contribute to that debate.

[BunnyBluetimes]

99. Then your links have consumed you on this matter not me

You're arguing with your own information. I've not stated death stars or fake ufo beams nor have I led you astray on any other position than my own criticism with the time given for all 3 buildings to fall. The problem with 9/11 is and will continue to be a time frame given for the 3 buildings to fall in the same manner. I did not question your position on this link because I already know it, this is why I stated Quintieres name before my own reply. Some others will continue to support the original version even though facts are altered slightly by the NIST when new data is released. Take into consideration Quintieres hypothesis and I elaborated my agreements with these hypothesis either way its your link.:spank: :banghead:


OK

[William Seger]

100. Say what?

Sorry, I can't make heads or tails out of what you're trying to say now, especially in the context of your previous posts. You said:

> "We do not need any NIST, FBI, CIA, or CNN reports to tell us how a steel structure falls because of an isolated fire. There are no excuses and any they come up with are embarrassing. Let them explain why World Trade Center Buildings 6 and 5 withstood the fire."

> "Fire does not bring down American steel structures in a matter of minutes or hours."

> "Not one more day should be spent discussing the absurdities of buildings or fire."


I think it's quite safe to say that Quintiere would not agree with any one of those statements, but then you say:

> "You're arguing with your own information... Take into consideration Quintieres hypothesis and I elaborated my agreements with these hypothesis either way its your link." {stuff omitted that I couldn't even decypher}

:wtf:

[BunnyBluetimes]

101. If you wanted to criticize my statements then why didn't you say

so in the first place? I'll be happy to elaborate on my position. You've used Quintiere all along as a smoke screen for your own prejudices against 9/11 truthers. Take into consideration I already know your position against 9/11 truthers this is why I used Quintieres name before my own reply, its still your information, you still provided it. I suggest you ask Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why before you post. Arguing with your own link is not healthy.:silly:

Now, Imagine the WTC is a 110 story Children's Hospital and its on fire near the roof but there's only 40 minutes or an Hour to evacuate 5,ooo children, get the picture yet? So, Don't confuse yourself with additional sarah palin bimbo links. My opposition to the official 9/11 story remains the same. Time is no sacrifice in this investigation.

OK

[AZCat]

102. Why does it matter if it is a children's hospital?

The egress concerns are an issue regardless. I'm interested - how do you feel about the recommendations the NIST made to the ICC and other code/standards organizations? Do you side with them regarding standpipes in super-hi-rise buildings?

[BunnyBluetimes]

103. The time it takes to evacuate a large number of people

is considered when making a sky scraper. There are no exists on the 110th floor for a reason. So the buildings are made to get everyone out within an adequate time frame, fire or not. children, handicap, healthy ..etc does not matter they are all human, but, 40 minutes? gets you fired. This continues to be a problem with the official released 9/11 story.

[AZCat]

104. That's what I meant.

Of course the towers were not just dealing with fires, but that's another issue.

Back to my question - do you feel the NIST recommendations improve on super-hi-rise building fire safety, or are they just "feel good" measures implemented to ease the worries of occupants? Do you think, for example, the suggested changes to standpipes will make a difference?

[BunnyBluetimes]

105. As long as pets are allowed inside you will be warned

of smoke, fire, drugs, cancers..etc before anything major occurs. A loyal animal can save a life.

[Bolo Boffin]

106. AZCat, I think Bunny's on a different frequency than you. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

107. I think Bunny's on a different planet....

(s)he has managed to be even more incoherent than our friendly neighborhood SLAD, if that's even possible. It is, indeed, a monumenal accomplishment.

[AZCat]

109. That may be the case.

It wouldn't be the first time another poster and I were not on the same page.

[AZCat]

108. While I do not disagree...

I don't see the connection between your response and my question about standpipes. The concerns in the WTC towers were not entirely limited to detection - lack of egress and malfunctioning fire suppression systems contributed to the death toll.