It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NIST WTC7 status report

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Her you go:

wtc.nist.gov...

Read into it what you will (and I know you will)

The only thing that I don’t see there, is an analysis of the diesel fuel systems in the building.

What happened to the diesel fuel in the Solomon Smith Barney underground storage tanks?

What is the possibility that the south face damage impacted the fuel distribution piping? Could this damage have resulted in a leak that was NOT detected by the built in leak detection system?




posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   

What happened to the diesel fuel in the Solomon Smith Barney underground storage tanks?


Well I guess they just melted the bottom floors and made the whole building come straight down upon itself at free-fall.

No, wait, the Penthouse fell first, which of course means that all of the remaining columns would have provided absolutely no resistance as the global collapse ensued a bit later.

So the fuel melted one column, and it fell straight down upon itself, and then a few seconds later, all the other columns gave out at once and fell straight down upon themselves too, and now at free-fall speed.

Do we have it right yet?

I can't wait for them to come up with some modeled videos or animations to illustrate for us exactly how this would happen.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I knew you wouldn't disappoint me.

Your nonsense is as amusing as usual



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Nonsense?

It looks pretty damned closed to what NIST's saying to me.

First one column:




Then all the rest at free-fall speed:





Yep. Must have been the diesel, melting all that steel at the base.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I knew you wouldn't disappoint me.

Your nonsense is as amusing as usual


And your nonsensical oneliners and put downs don't amuse me. Why can't you start giving some proof instead of demeaning people with every post you give? Also, I keep seeing one liners from you but no warns...ever. Why?



I have never heard that the main freight elevator was in use after the impact.


source: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just one example.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
You shouldn't be so hard on HowardRoark, Griff. He puts a lot of time and effort behind those one-liners, as well as the copying and pasting of NIST links.


Some more from NIST on the cause of WTC7's collapse:




Crap, I mean:



Here we can see the raging infernos melting the steel in the lower floors. The raging smoke from the other side must have been just as intense,



since the building fell down with almost perfect symmetry, and so we must assume very similar damage, very evenly spread out and timed.


Does anyone know if NIST is planning a report on WTC5, and the miracle of how it did not collapse?




Or WTC4?:




That deserves further study, so we can figure out what makes buildings like this so much sturdier. It appears we need only to build them out of steel, but it can't be that simple, or else the Twin Towers and WTC7 would never have fallen.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
On page 7 of this report is says "Evaluation of thermite as a possible heat sourcesubstance"

So, this means they have reason to believe that thermite was used and are going to investigate it right? Although they may just try to disprove it they could release this info and make someone take the fall.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by n1ghtwalker
On page 7 of this report is says "Evaluation of thermite as a possible heat sourcesubstance"

So, this means they have reason to believe that thermite was used and are going to investigate it right? Although they may just try to disprove it they could release this info and make someone take the fall.


or it just means thatthey are going to look into it and will quite likely find enough evidence to disprove the theory.

but of course you wouldn't like that.

Already made up your mind about it have we?



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
LOL^ We might have made up our minds already, but at least we haven't had our minds made up for us...
Heh Howward?



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
or it just means thatthey are going to look into it and will quite likely find enough evidence to disprove the theory.

but of course you wouldn't like that.

Already made up your mind about it have we?


Notice HowardRoark automatically says NIST will disprove this theory, when they haven't even released any study on it, and then two sentences later is assaulting someone for coming to conclusions too soon.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Children, lets take a step back and stop the name calling. This is an update of information that some of you should try to digest before discrediting. One liners come from both sides of this discussion, so blasting one person for it is not right. Why do you try to break the messenger when that is all he is?


There is more than enough evidence and NIST is stating that this is a preliminary document, and that the final should be out in Spring 2007. It states that
"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation"

It is a scientific investigation, and these are theroies, just as your implosion delusions. They state that there are over a dozen 'types' of initiating evetns that could be investigated. This is the beginning of the study. They are trying to take everything into account and come to the best possible solution.





NIST is analyzing scenarios for the event that initiated the collapse of WTC 7. As a part of this work, NIST is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST will estimate the magnitudeof hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure ofone or more critical elements as a result of blast.

􀂉Phase I Identify hypothetical blast scenarios and materials, based on analysis and/or experience, for failing specified columns by direct attachment methods. Preliminary section cutting shall be considered. Compare estimated overpressures for each scenario against windowstrength.

􀂉Phase II For blast scenarios with overpressures that clearly would not have broken windows, the worst case scenario(s) will be analyzed using SHAMRC software to determine overpressures at windows.

􀂉Phase III If Phase II overpressures did not clearly fail windows, 3 blast scenarios will be selected to determine the sound levels that would be transmitted outside the building through intact windows.


They also state that they recieved new photo evidence as late as August 2006 that may assist them. If this was a open and shut case that was released 3 months after 9/11 with no reopening, you could cry cover up. Howver, I do not see that here. Seems they are trying to please both sides of the arguement.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Children, lets take a step back and stop the name calling.


Aren't we a little bit like a pot now aren't we? BTW, you're black.

On topic. I read that also and feel a lot better about this examination than the WTC 1 & 2 debacle they put forth. We'll see what they have to say in spring.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Children, lets take a step back and stop the name calling.









May I suggest you follow your own advice!!!!



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
See you guys, one liners. All I did was take the time to give a synopsis and a view, and those are the responses that are posted.

It is called sarcasm, and I would think that most of you would have been adult enough to see that. I'll edit out the children part if you like. Can you not take a little humor on a Friday. Do you have anything to actually say on the issue, or will you continue to attack the messenger???

I love how so many times the comments are about name calling or spelling errors, yet there is no analytical thought or suggestions. Come to think of it, you are acting like a child. and all those exclamation marks really drive nome your point whaaaaaaaaaaa.


[edit on 20-10-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I DID comment on the topic. There's nothing conclusive in their "report" yet, so what is there to comment about? As I said, we'll see in the spring.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I know you did Griff, I said child, not children. I was referring to whaaaaaa, since that is all they did and offered nothing constructive. Too much coffee this morning?



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Too much coffee this morning?


Actually maybe not enough. Peace.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
See you guys, one liners. All I did was take the time to give a synopsis and a view, and those are the responses that are posted.


Sure, but when your longer posts have a bunch of condescension and lines like this,


It is a scientific investigation, and these are theroies, just as your implosion delusions.


then you can't honestly expect anyone to respect what you're saying.

The difference between the one-liners you complain about and your posts is that you carry out your one-liners for paragraphs at a time.


It is called sarcasm, and I would think that most of you would have been adult enough to see that. I'll edit out the children part if you like. Can you not take a little humor on a Friday. Do you have anything to actually say on the issue, or will you continue to attack the messenger???


See what I mean?



Would anyone like to comment on my first posts on this thread?



It makes sense to everyone that all of these columns should fail, falling straight down, with NO resistance? Nothing to impede them? Nothing to make them hesitate or slow down a bit? They just fall straight drown, free-fall speed, and they've done nothing to explain how, and it's still a legitimate "theory"?

I believe that those columns fell straight down at free-fall. I just don't think they did it because the bottoms were heated and there was some truss damage somewhere. That makes no sense.

This is how you fail columns perfectly vertically at free-fall speed:



And guess what? You don't do that by damaging some trusses and heating the bottom floors with patches of fire, so pathetic that no one could photograph anything of but their black, sooty smoke.



Did anyone see anything like this going on at WTC7? Is that how you collapse a building vertically at free-fall speed, with no resistance?



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Sure, I'll comment, it is old information and they are revising what they had previously investigated, and after all the information is disseminated, there will be a publication in early 2007. You are also choosing to show only the pictures and evidence thar support your theory

We all know the arguements, and I'll ask that same old question, that NO one seems to be able to answer. Where is the proof of demolition? We can prove failure because of the collapse, but where is one, jsut one blasting cap. I mean, if they could find a passport and other personal affects, I would think that there should be something, right?

Sarcasm with substance, and I think you know that. I am one of a few people on this board who do not buy into the implosion theory, and it is much more difficult to fend off the blatant one line attacks.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I mean, if they could find a passport and other personal affects, I would think that there should be something, right?


At the risk of going off topic. The biggest peice of anything found at ground zero (other than steel of coarse) was the size of half a phone keypad. Now my question is this. How big are blasting caps and do they find them after a convention demolition? If they blow up (which they are suppossed to do), I would imagine that they are not left over. Just speculation without any proof.

[edit on 10/20/2006 by Griff]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join