WTC 7: Why Does NIST Ignore Floors 1-7, Basement and Sub-Basements?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
Now you're using creative editing.

I DIRECTLY QUOTED YOUR POST. You are fighting a losing battle here... again, you will find NO SUPPORT here or anywhere (IMO) for your false claims.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

No you did not. You SELECTIVELY quoted his post. Leaving out the most important part which said that their analysis would aid the global anylisis. In other words they were just assigned to that section of the building, not that that was the entire anylisys of the building. When all you are looking for is one thing, that's all you're going to find. Just like with your denial of any fire analysis when it clearly states that the fire will be part of it.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by snoopy]

Originally posted by snoopy

No you did not. You SELECTIVELY quoted his post. Leaving out the most important part which said that their analysis would aid the global anylisis. In other words they were just assigned to that section of the building, not that that was the entire anylisys of the building. When all you are looking for is one thing, that's all you're going to find. Just like with your denial of any fire analysis when it clearly states that the fire will be part of it.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by snoopy]

So by yout interpertation of the solicitation...

- The gov't ALREADY knows what happened on 1-7 and will provide ARA with this conclusion.

or

- The gov't has no idea what happend in the "global analysis" but KNOWS they do not want floors 1-7 looked at.

or

- There is another solicitation for floors 1-7, the basements, etc.

or

- They know what started the collapse was DEFINITLY on 8-46.

Who was assigned the rest and MOST IMPORTANT parts of the buildings? I see NO solicitations for these parts.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

I am still waiting for a relevant response regarding the wording of the NIST solicitation for an investigation into WTC 7 that DOES NOT INCLUDE the base of the building (Re: most likely and histroical location for CD charges.)

[edit on 28-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I am still waiting for a relevant response regarding the wording of the NIST solicitation for an investigation into WTC 7 that DOES NOT INCLUDE the base of the building (Re: most likely and histroical location for CD charges.)

Why will no one answer me?

Probably because they can't find one? Ignoring your question in hopes of it going away?

Originally posted by Griff
Probably because they can't find one? Ignoring your question in hopes of it going away?

I will not allow this thread... one of the only ones not to get answered to slip into that great goodnight so easily.

Your question was addressed in a previous post.
I suspect all you're setting up to do is ingage in a 'reading comprehension' diatribe.
Read the specs again.

Originally posted by Vushta
Your question was addressed in a previous post.
I suspect all you're setting up to do is ingage in a 'reading comprehension' diatribe.
Read the specs again.

Who is investigating 1-7?
Where is the solicitation?
How can you do a study on 8-46 while ignoring 1-7 and 47?

Give me a reason the gov't would only sub-contract the floors where the collapse:

Most likeley DID NOT initiate.
Would have been the LEAST likely place for CD charges to be placed.
Where the diesel tanks (original explanation) WERE NOT located.
Ignores the penthouses and their seemingly early fall.

The solicitation makes NO SENSE without additional solicitations (which do not exist) or:

Somethign to hide in 1-7
Predrawn conclusion for 1-7
1-7 did not exist and are a figment of our imagination.
The collapse mechanisim is KNOWN for 1-7 and they just need filler for the rest.

Which is it?

Answer the posts above becaus eyour interpertation of the solicitation can only lead to a few basic conclusions.

Which is it? Why only floors 8-46?

Good thread. Well spotted, SlapNuts... I'm not surprised you haven't been answered, the "global analysis" part is vague, vague, vague. I guess the question then becomes, what was on levels 1-7 and below that needs covering up?

Did you see the news that an academic in the UK is going to set fire to an entire apartment block rigged with sensors to try and get more relevant data on the WTC collapse, and that it's being filmed by the BBC for a programme in their Horizon series?

THAT's going to be some interesting viewing. I can see a range of expected outcomes, but I'm really looking to be surprised. The fact that this guy got a whole abandoned apartment block to play with, though, makes me think it's all being done to prop up the official fairytale. Intriguing nonetheless, though.

Here is the story on ATSNN.

Originally posted by rich23
Good thread. Well spotted, SlapNuts... I'm not surprised you haven't been answered, the "global analysis" part is vague, vague, vague. I guess the question then becomes, what was on levels 1-7 and below that needs covering up?

This is a good question too... There may be nothing to cover up, HOWEVER, I am still looking for ANY reasonable answer as to why the solicitation is worded how it is and why there are no solicitations regarding:

Basements(s)
Floors 1-7
Floor 47
The Penthouses
The Diesel tanks

These all seem like the MOST LIKELY places to find hard evidence. One of these items was the originl reason given for the collapse (diesel).

I write a LOT of RFPs and RFQs and this "solicitation" REAKS of coverup. What is the explanation? WHO is going to give the final global analysis and why would they ONLY sub out the least important floors? The solictiation should not even exist. It limits the scope for the contractors too much for anything that comes out of it to be relevant. What are we buying for our money?

"Uhhh... somehting happened below floor 8 which led the building to be "poised ofr collapse".

THERE... GIVE ME THE millions. I just gave you what we will recieve from this "investigation" five years after the evidene was DESTROYED.

Still looking for a clarification... Does anyone know about gov't solicitations and want to explain this to me?

This is a tempest in a tea pot.

The contract is to determine that response of the top part of the building to various initiating events. Those events occurring in the lower part.

The award notice is pretty explicit about that. No matter how hard slappy and crew try to twist it into something it isn’t.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The contract is to determine that response of the top part of the building to various initiating events. Those events occurring in the lower part.

1. What initiating events?
2. Who predetermined these events?
3. How did they determine these events?
4. Why would they not allow a full and total look by the awardees?
5. Why not let the awardee decide if the collapse initiated in their section of the building?

[edit on 14-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

NIST will conduct all fire analysis of the building and analysis of the structural response to fires in-house and supply ARA initiating event data based on the in-house analyses.

Oh, that's right, you think NIST is a bunch of evil, soulless reptiles.

NIST conducted an "analysis" on the fires in the WTC, claimed they were ferocious enough to destroy the steel structures, and then totally failed to support this in their lab test and computer simulation.

And yet they still published their report, still boldly asserting that the office fires did it.

What is scientific about that, Howard? What about that constitutes an "analysis"? How is that an investigation? That's NIST for you.

I have to tell you something, yesterday we were talking in another thread and Howard linked to the WTC 7 schematic that showed where the collapse initiated and I thought...where the heck did the bottom 7 floors go?

But then there's official reports logged by first responders stating there were no fires visible in the loading dock level - just explosions heard from deep within the building.

I've seen several references to the "diesel stored in the building" causing the fires to rage, but it seems to be a pert-near impossibility any diesel storage tanks would reside any where above the loading dock level. So....there are a few very obvious gaps here.

There were a large number of generators on the upper floors.

Each generator set would have had a 100 gallon “Day Tank” associated with it.

These day tanks were fed by pressurized lines from the main storage tanks in the basement.

wtc.nist.gov...

Many of the generators, tanks and lines were located along the south face of the building.

So, from a preliminary POV, they are going to show that it was the fuel oil distribution systems that brought the building down Howardroark?

1. THEY SHOW NO TANKS ABOVE THE 8th FLOOR! (Suprise!)
2. The only piece of fuel oil related equipment above the eight floor is a single generator.
3. The return lines are empty.
4. The input lines would only be under pressure if the pump(s) were running.
5. The tanks would not be pressurized.
6. If the one of the (2) 6K Gal. or one of the (2) 12K gal. tanks exploded... seismic, vidoe or audio records would have captured this event.
7. The "day" tanks would not take down the building and had one exploded, it should have been obvious.
8. The Solomon Smith tanks WERE INTACT and 20K gallons of fuel was recovered from them.
9. No explosions were reported that I can find.
10. ONLY ONE of the systems was "pressurized"... Solomon Smith Barney's and the lines were double walled CONCRETE ENCASED.


The report Howardroark has posted from the NIST is about 50 pages of "fluff" (conversions, abreviations, names, blank pages, etc.) and 30 pages of information the installation contractors could have just given to them... whoopee.

I now see why they are demanding that the investigation NOT include basements or floors 1-7 because this is where the NIST scapegoat lies... the diesl system.

The final report will blame some insignificant fuel lines for taking down the entire building, neatly, quickly and cleanly.

[edit on 15-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
There were a large number of generators on the upper floors.

False. The report you link shows a SINGLE generator above floor 8 and it is on 9.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Each generator set would have had a 100 gallon “Day Tank” associated with it.

False... some did, others had 275. gal and some had none (recirculating "pressurized") re: pumped.

Read your own source.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
These day tanks were fed by pressurized lines from the main storage tanks in the basement.

Only if the pumps were running and since they had fire protection systems the lines would NOT have been pressurized if the fire shutdown system had activated. SINCE, RAGING INFERNOS (invisible) were raviging the building (sarcasm) why would the lines be pressurized? Even if they were, it is ridiculous to assume a small diameter diesle line will neatly drop a 47 story steel building.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Many of the generators, tanks and lines were located along the south face of the building.

Point?

[edit on 15-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 15-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
So, from a preliminary POV, they are going to show that it was the fuel oil distribution systems that brought the building down Howardroark?

1. THEY SHOW NO TANKS ABOVE THE 8th FLOOR! (Suprise!)

So? *SNIP*

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
2. The only piece of fuel oil related equipment above the eight floor is a single generator.

Again, So? What is your point?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
3. The return lines are empty.

Not necessarily. If the generators kicked on when the power was cut, the pumps would have been running and the return lines would have been sending the excess fuel back to the main tank.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
4. The input lines would only be under pressure if the pump(s) were running.

The pumps and the generators would have kicked on when the substations were shut down by Comed.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
5. The tanks would not be pressurized.

No, but the lines were.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
6. If the 43K gal. or one of the (2) 12K gal. tanks exploded... seismic, vidoe or audio records would have captured this event.

So far, you are the only one that I have seen that has suggested that a diesel tank exploded.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
7. The "day" tanks would not take down the building and had one exploded, it should have been obvious.

Same thing, you are the only one who seems to think that the tanks exploded. There is a difference between exploding and leaking.

One of the biggest questions is: did the generation system somehow contribute to the fires?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
8. Most of the fuel oil was recovered.

Do you have a source for that claim?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
9. No explosions were reported that I can find.

WOW, no explosions were reported!!!!

Thank you for admitting that.

That’s right, no explosions were reported.

How was the demolition done again? More magical thermite, I suppose?

Mod Edit: 9/11 Forum Posting Guidelines – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 15/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]