Reply #69: NIST's current hypothesis is absurd.

[petgoat]

Minutes from the meeting of the National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee, 12/18/07,
record Shyam Sunder indicating that "the initiating event sequence based on fire-induced
failures resulting from normal building fires." (Quote from the minutes, not from Sunder.)

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf

In that same meeting, Sunder said:

"there are no exceptional combustibles such as diesel fuel in day tanks or in large tanks at the
base of the building.... the ventilation was probably somewhat limited. Typically, when flames
extend out from windows, there is excess fuel looking for air."

He acknowledged that at "any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be
consumed."

The Structure magazine article http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.structuremag.org%2FArchives%2F2007-11%2FSF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf&ei=w2KHSN-6F6OipwSH8eSXBw&usg=AFQjCNHYCMSXwgM0b3s7b7dA0D1kXxR_0Q&sig2=vv9bqNvBoxNG-TX_nNSheA specifically blames column 79.

There is no evidence of any structural damage to the eastern end of the building. It is difficult
to imagine how significant structural damage could be inflicted on column 79, which was an H-form
column with flanges 5" thick and plates 3" thick welded across its open sides making a 8-shaped
column 23" X 26".